| Volume 14, Issue 1 |  | January 21, 2012 |
|
In this Issue:
|
| Volume 14, Issue 1 | | January 21, 2012 |
|
In this Issue:
|
Indeed, in these days of little accountability and huge funding for Super PACS, multi-billion dollar election campaigns, media news slanting, media bashing, and unprecedented voter cynicism, the truth seems as hard to locate as when Diogenes in ancient Greece carried his famous lantern and sought in vain an honest man.
To the rescue, sort of, come a host of folks who check politicians' facts for a living. Three of the best known, apparently legitimate, objective, and bipartisan fact checking organizations are PolitiFact.com, factcheck.org, and The Fact Checker. Yet do voters even believe them, and are they making a positive difference?
According to National Public Radio (NPR), in a report broadcast on 1/10/12, "Political Fact Checking Under Fire," critics of fact verifying organizations claim that the fact checkers themselves are biased. This was not a scientific assessment, merely the opinion of some people being interviewed. (You can read the report and judge for yourself.) Anecdotal evidence suggests that a number of voters do distrust the media, even that portion of it which purports to be checking the facts.
As to whether fact checkers are in general performing a useful function, my own view is that the answer is definitely "yes." I try to keep a certain skepticism even where the statements of fact checkers are concerned, but when two or three agree in their findings, even when questioned, and have third party verification of their positions, I tend to take them seriously, much more so, anyway, than I trust the current spokespersons for either partisan camp. In addition, there appear to be modest efforts by some political professionals to get it right more often, now that they know their words will be scrutinized. Rick Santorum comes to mind. He is not completely free of distorted statements, but in my opinion appears less flamboyant in his erroneous utterances than others.
Still, notwithstanding plenty of checkers of the facts behind what politicians say, outrageous pronouncements keep being made, such as these, each pointed out on one or more of the websites mentioned above:
TX Governor Rick Perry claimed that President Obama is "a socialist." Well, not by any normal definition of the term. He also said Turkey is a nation led by Islamic terrorists. Perhaps he mistook it for Iran.
Our president alleged that his review and purging of unnecessary government regulations was "unprecedented." In fact, both President Bush #41 and President Clinton had also made sweeping reviews and removals of wasteful regulations.
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich asserted that "More people have been put on Food Stamps under Barack Obama than any other president in American history." While that could come to be true before Obama leaves office, at least at the time he said that, Gingrich was off by one president: George W. Bush actually had that honor.
Barack Obama's campaign said recently that Romney, Gingrich, and Perry would chop "foreign aid to Israel - and every other country - to zero," claiming they have a strategy of "extreme isolationism." Like some of the others, there seems to be no truth at all in these allegations. Liar, liar, pants on fire!
Former MA Governor Mitt Romney, on the other hand, said not long ago that due to Obama policies the country's armed forces are in danger of giving up their "military superiority" since "our Navy is smaller than it's been since 1917. Our Air Force is smaller and older than any time since 1947." Hmm. The facts are otherwise. Active U. S. Navy ships in the 1916-1917 period were 245, while they are 285 today. Yet the capabilities of those 285 ships are vastly greater than for the 1917 ones, so a numerical comparison alone is already a distortion. Also, during Bush #43's tenure the number of U.S. active naval vessels had fallen at one point to 278 and was still less than Obama's 285 when Bush left office. The number of military planes has declined since shortly after World War II, but, as with the ships, the capacity of modern aircraft is much greater than those of around 1947. In that year, for instance, many planes dropping hundreds of bombs were needed to take out a target. The same mission can now be carried out by a single manned stealth bomber and missile or even by a drone aircraft. In my opinion, few objective observers would say our overall military is inferior to that of any other nation on the planet.
Why do our candidates keep lying to us? They must do it to gain an advantage over their opponents. It sometimes works if the electorate is gullible and merely accepts what it wants or expects to hear. Fact checking services cannot solve that, but at least they help apply limits to how grossly untruthful our politicians can be.
In years past we may not have had quite as big a challenge knowing what is accurate vs. what is not. There is simply too much money flowing into and out of the falsehood industry. It is a big business. Far better, in my view, if we all paid $10 a year toward a pool that would fund political campaigns, each serious candidate for the same office getting an equal allocation of the limited available funds, and with neither outside contributions nor even private riches being permitted to be spent.
Then maybe we could concentrate on the issues of statecraft, not all the trumped up political button pushing prevarications so frequently exchanged today. Who knows? Our politicians might get so civil and cooperative with one another that they managed every now and then to exchange valentines instead.
Of course, I am not holding my breath.
Of all our senses, sight is perhaps the single more important for observation. In fact, we tend to equate one with the other, although it is also possible to "observe" by listening, smelling, tasting or touching. The more ways we have of gathering information, the more complete our perception of the world will be, and the more we will learn. It all seems to focus on learning, doesn't it? A large brain has an insatiable hunger for data. It has been called "grist for the mill," the raw materials which we then process to form our view of the environment around us.
Although seeing is key, the art of observation includes far more. Mere looking is not an end in itself; the goal is better comprehension. The first part is simple, but the second takes a lot more effort. Our incentive for that much work? Back in the early days of our species, better understanding of nature meant a better survival rate. Nowadays, our surroundings are so safe that attentiveness is no longer necessary to stay alive. Look at drivers who text while operating their vehicles. If they all died because of this gross negligence then nobody would do it anymore. But the majority do manage to drive with a minimum of awareness and without adverse consequences.
So, if we don't absolutely NEED to be observant, why bother? Once again, the answer lies with our large and complex brains. Some people may be content to live their entire lives knowing zilch about cellular biology, astronomy, computer programming, nuclear physics, the mating behaviors of warblers, or the survival strategies of katydids (or any of the millions of other aspects of our physical world). But for others, there is an urge to comprehend things at a deeper level. One little bit might grab our attention and awaken a desire to know more. Considering that many little bits can grab our attention, there is a lifetime full of learning available to us, if we want to avail ourselves of it. All it takes is curiosity.
While it is possible for some people to gratify their plethora of gray matter with entertainments such as television, slot machines, Shakespeare plays, or jigsaw puzzles, there seems to be no end to the variety we crave. Some people even write essays just for the fun of it. A portion of the population, though, turns to the vast diversity of life around them. It might be that they just like playing outdoors, or they feel a vague urge to connect, after years of sitting at a desk during their work, with the other creatures that share this globe with us.
Almost everyone has heard the popular warnings about how we are ever further distancing ourselves from the natural world. From kids spending more time in front of a computer than playing outside in a vacant lot, to adults who don't know a robin from a grackle (or a horse from a cow - don't laugh, this is from an actual incident), there are countless examples of how we humans have decided to simply ignore our fellow species on this planet. It is sadly funny to hear a child of 10 say that they would rather be indoors than out because that is where the electrical outlets are. Many young people know cartoon animals better than the flesh and blood critters in their own backyard.
The lack of familiarity with plants and animals is certainly not limited to youth. I've met adults that did not recognize a grasshopper when they saw one, or are not aware that there are more kinds of bees than just the Honey Bee. There are even people who pride themselves on their ignorance of things not manufactured or artificial, enthusiastically stating "The only good insect is a dead insect!" or "What's the point in learning to identify birds?" I find it unfathomable that some seemingly rational adults will go into a panicky frenzy at the sight of a spider or insect in their house AND not be the slightest bit embarrassed by their reactions. It is one thing to be startled by the sudden appearance of a darting roach or buzzing wasp, but another to go into hysterics once its existence is apparent.
So how does this relate to developing a more thorough understanding of our world through observation? Well, the most obvious aspect is that our greatest fears involve the unknown. If nature is an "unknown" then its sheer immensity leaves us vulnerable to many fears, because we cannot help but be surrounded by it. By becoming more aware of other life forms, and learning more about how the biosphere of Earth works on a personal level, we can be more at ease with our environment. It is always nice to feel at home.
It is not difficult to become a better observer. There are so many things vying for our attention during every waking minute that it is mostly a matter of simply trying to focus on some that were hitherto overlooked. Unfortunately, many people feel so unfamiliar with nature that they need an interpreter, as if the language of the biological realm is foreign. As we ourselves are biological beings, it is the equivalent of suddenly realizing that we do not understand most of the words on this page. Luckily, there are plenty of ways to remedy this deficit. Books, the internet, our state and national parks systems, zoos, garden clubs, and nature organizations are all great resources in the quest for knowledge of this sort. Here in Texas, there is a statewide program called Master Naturalists which provides classes and support for people wishing to learn more about all aspects of the natural landscape. Some folks like the idea of learning about smaller chunks, such as birds, native plants, aquatic life, or butterflies. Often, one interest leads to another, which leads to another, and so on and so forth. For the inquisitive mind, it is a magnificent buffet.
Whether it is a tool to battle the stress of our modern lives or a new avocation to keep the brain cells working, learning more about the nature that encompasses us can be a delightful pastime. Benefits include getting fresh air, walking a bit more, taking our minds off everyday annoyances, and giving us an appreciation of the beauty that is everywhere. One doesn't need to be a Master Naturalist, trained biologist, or professional park ranger to know and understand many facets of the natural world; all it takes is an open mind, curiosity, and a delight in discovery.
Our lens focuses for this issue on Lawrence's (Larry's) namesakes, his paternal great grandparents, the Lawrences. They were the parents of his grandmother, that is, his father Leon's mother, whom Larry just called Mama Pearl. The shot was taken in the early 20th Century, though the exact year is not known. It probably was photographed at or near their home then, in Waldren, AR.
Ironically enough, although he was named for them, to Larry's knowledge he never met them, does not know if they were still living when he was born (1943), and does not know their (first) names. Oddly, there was so much material about Papa Frank's, that is, Leon's paternal, genealogy that we can trace the family history back to people in Germany during the late 17th to early 18th Century, yet the histories, personal details, and lineages of the women who married all these men are greatly lacking.
Comment by Julia, Larry's mother, concerning the Lawrences: "I just heard them referred to as Mama Lawrence and Papa Lawrence. I met her twice; the first time in Bakersfield [CA] where she was living with her second husband; they married in their late 80's. She and her husband had a garden and were picking beans as we drove up. She prepared a delicious lunch for us. Later her husband wasn't able to stay with her when he became almost blind. Their children had told them that if they married and inevitably broke down that his children would take him, and her children would take her. That is what happened. The other time I saw her she was bedridden and being cared for by her daughter, Clyde, in Pasadena [CA].
I think they lived in Beebe, AR, for a long while, and that is where I think Mama Pearl was born. Papa Lawrence started out by buying vegetables from nearby farms and going with a cart to sell them to the people of Beebe. Later he had a store which failed. Then he tried running a hotel but it also failed. I don't know how or when he died. They had a hard life but were very religious; Mama Lawrence was an ordained minister."
Thanks much, Julia, for your interesting supplement concerning Mama and Papa Lawrence! Larry
| (The Terra Tabloid is a venue for the discussion of issues pertaining to the past, present, and future of our planet and human interaction with it.) |
They taste good, are easy to prepare, do not add much to one's daily caloric intake, are loaded with vitamins and minerals, build immune system defenses, lower hypertension and bad cholesterol, help fight against cancer, anemia, gout, and acidosis, add fiber, cleanse the blood, counter tendencies toward constipation, and are especially good at enhancing the health and function of the heart, colon, gall bladder, kidneys, and liver.
From ancient times, beets have been used for their medicinal properties, supposedly early consumed to help cure fevers. The folic acid and vitamin B9 in beets are suggested during pregnancy, lowering congenital defects. Fertility is also said to be enhanced by eating red beets.
While the root of the red beet plant is typically a favorite, the greens actually contain even more nutritional benefits.
A heady blend of carrot and red beet juice is tasty and powerful as a blood and liver cleansing concoction which also lowers blood pressure. However, till a person's body is used to this potent drink it is wise to keep the beverage quantities low and infrequent, about once a week. One can, however, gradually build up a greater tolerance for it.
A few precautions are in order for this wonder food. It contains a modest amount of sugar and so is not appropriate for diabetics. It should also be eaten more frugally if one is inclined toward oxalate-containing kidney stones. The juice can be strong enough to cause dizziness as it stimulates the cleansing of toxins. There may be mild attendant discomfort as well, as the unhealthy poisons are being eliminated, though this really is a desirable outcome and the effects are generally neither harmful nor long lasting. When cooking, it is best not to heat too long, as nutrients can thus be destroyed.
Finally, if one slices them right, another advantage of having red beets around this time of year is that they are roughly heart shaped!
After all the benefits of eating beets, we should actually replace those funny old commercials with a new catch phrase: "Where's the BEET??"
Sources:
The Health Benefits of Red Beet: Nutritional Value of Red Beet. in shedyourweight.com; July 2, 2009.
Beets. in everynutrient.com; last updated 11/10/10.
Beets. in juicing-for-health.com; last updated in 2010.
Butterflies mate back-to-back, which means it is quite difficult for them to fly away. They can escape, however, but only one does the work while the other just hangs there. Obviously, in this position, if both were to flap their wings, they would get nowhere. This is a pair of ceraunus blues (Hemiargus ceraunus), one of the smaller butterflies (wing span up to 1 inch) in our area. The name "blue" comes from the color on the upper side of the wings, which in the male is a pretty lavender-shaded sky blue. Females are also blue, but with more gray-brown towards the edges of the wings. While the typical resting position is with wings closed, the insects do sometimes sit with them open, especially on cold mornings when they want to catch the sun.
The flowers on which this pair is resting are Gregg's dalea: a small, woody legume. The photo was taken at the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center, where there are sizeable beds of this plant. The caterpillars of a related butterfly, Reakirt's blue, are frequently found eating the bright purple-pink blossoms, and adults of both butterflies can be found much of the year, though the ceraunus blue is less common and sometimes absent for long periods. I've never found ceraunus blue caterpillars, although they supposedly eat the same plants as Reakirt's blue larvae. Both kinds of caterpillars are tiny and slug-like, matching the woolly flower heads of their host. Reakirt's blue larvae, though, have distinctive dark marks (when closely viewed) that distinguish them from the similar ceraunus blue.
Here are a few examples:
| Closed-End Fund | Fund Symbol | Recent Price | Average Annual Total Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Templeton Dragon Fund | TDF | $27.10 | 20.53% |
| Templeton Emerging Markets Fund | EMF | $19.22 | 16.24% |
| Templeton Emerging Markets Income Fund | TEI | $15.63 | 13.22% |
| Templeton Global Income Fund | GIM | $9.48 | 14.27% |
| Templeton Russia and East European Fund | TRF | $14.70 | 13.13% |
The annual returns indicated are 10-year averages. A 20% each allocation of one's investment dollars in those Templeton assets ten years prior would have averaged a total annual return, through 1/17/12, of 15.48%.
I do not recommend putting all one's investments into overseas or global funds. I have, on the other hand, heard it recommended that one target 20-50% of one's liquid holdings in foreign securities, given that markets outside the U.S. often have greater potential for growth than domestic ones. Bear in mind, however, that they can be more volatile than U.S. markets. Thus it is wise to begin with extra reserves, so additional investments may be made at relatively low prices during the inevitable market dips. Others may suggest different rebalancing intervals. My own advice would be to review one's allocations and correct them back to the target levels once a year or after a decline in any portion of the portfolio of 10% or more.
Notwithstanding the at times marked ups and downs of both global bonds and stocks, they may be very fruitful places to invest. A $2,000 net investment in each of the cited Templeton funds ten years earlier, i.e. $10,000 altogether, if all distributions were reinvested and the assets were protected from taxes in a 401k plan account or an IRA, would have been worth $42,175 as of the close of trading on 1/17/12.
As always, though, no guarantee can be made of future returns, and investors are advised to do their own research and/or consult a trusted financial advisor before purchasing any assets.
Primary Source: CEFA - Closed End Fund Association; as updated 1/18/12.
| |||||||||
|
We wish everyone a joyful heart, a felicitous Groundhog Day, and a Happy Valentine's Day.
|
| For others who may have chanced upon this site, larvalbug bytes is a monthly family-and-investment newsletter, put out by an old codger and sweet thing, with sometimes a little help as well from our engaging pooch, Peri. We invite readers' comments by and would also be happy to readers when new issues are published. Articles and stories from back issues are available in our archives. |
|
Copyright © 2012 by LARVALBUG
"Butterfly Valentine" and larvalbug web design by Valerie.
