Ireland America's Future If...

...The policies advocated by the Romney campaign are enacted, according to Paul Krugman. Ireland's 14% unemployment (30% youth unemployment) are a direct result of the austerity measures enacted by Ireland's leaders: Low corporate taxes, diminished government spending, etc.

It just seems counter-intuitive to me that high unemployment benefits anyone over the long term. But, it's short-term, "I've got mine, go get your own" thinking that underlies so many of the difficulties we face today, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Lance Armstrong, Doper?

The news came out this week that the USADA was opening an investigation alleging that during his seven Tour wins, Lance Armstrong was doping. The USADA indicated they believed they had credible evidence and that this was an appropriate action to take.

The immediate consequence of the investigation is that Lance will be banned from competing in a National Ironman Qualifier June 24 in Nice, France (if he had qualified, he would be eligible to compete in the International Hawaii Ironman Triathalon this fall.)

I've mulled this news all week, and have to admit that I am as conflicted today as I was when I first heard it. I'm conflicted because I normally believe that cheating and unfairness should always be ferreted out, revealed, and punished. But I am uncertain that this is appropriate.

You see, I've always believed that the top echelon of cyclists are dirty. That they (along with their counterparts in other sports) hire team doctors who push the envelope with recovery and improvement enhancing substances, that the doctors earn their pay by masking the existence or previous use of the drugs with other substances so that the athlete can pass the myriad and constant tests they are forced to undergo. Call me cynical, but there have been enough 'caught' athletes, along with long after the career admissions of banned substance use that I've developed the idea that it is probably fairly widespread.

Sure, if he was doping, his seven Tour wins are tainted. But the relevant question is: Did Lance win because he alone amongst the 200 contenders was doping? Or did he win because among the 200 contenders and the unknown number of contenders who were doping he was still the best? If the controls in place 1999-2005 were not able to discern his (or, for the most part, anyone's) violations, shouldn't we just accept the outcomes of the races and move forward?

Hence my conflict: If Lance was doping for his wins, I am disappointed, and a reaction is that he should be denied the titles. However, I'm concerned that eliminating the winner doesn't create fairness: What if the first runner-up was doping? The second? How deep in the field would we have to go to find a clean cyclist to award the winner's yellow jersey to? And, if we don't know, can we strip any titles?

Because there is an aspect of revenge and spite to all of this: Some of Lance's most vociferous critics are fellow cyclists who did get caught using illegal substances. They somehow blundered, or their doctors, and the controls did catch them. Sure, if they feel that the drug use was widespread, they are angry at being singled out and punished when so many others continue on.

But they were caught red-handed, as it were: There is no doubt they were doping and cheating. As for Lance (and the bulk of the peloton) that didn't occur, and all we have are angry accusations...

And so the flip-side of the conflict: It is too easy to go back and review, to reveal actions that went undetected at the time of the athletic contest. We have rules, referees, control tests that are all designed to catch a cheating athlete at the time of the athletic contest. For the most part, they do their job, penalties are called, cheaters relegated to the sideline, etc. Sure, upon review of a tape we might find a missed call, a pushing of the limits that maybe should have been noticed, but that is all part of athletics.

And we don't go back and review the tapes on other contests: Football, basketball, hockey, baseball, and change the outcomes of the games based upon what we found. When a prominent baseball player admitted to steroid use we didn't strip his team of every win that occurred while he was on the field.

So my measured, but still conflicted opinion is that we should let matters regarding alleged previous drug use by Lance and others lie. The referees and controls didn't catch them at the time of the contests – and if they missed Lance, how many others were also providentially missed? Revisionist sports just doesn't play out well.

Let Lance race the Ironman. He'll be under scrutiny and repeated testing – I do believe that if he is continually cheating he will eventually be caught red-handed: And then there is no conflict: He is denied that race, perhaps prohibited from taking place in any for the next year or more, and the punishment is immediate and fair; The recipient of an elevated placing will have passed the very same testing that Lance failed, and we will have little doubt of their relative 'cleanness'.

Another Fire, Another Accusation

Yesterday I watched the growing plume from the High Park fire in Northern Colorado. Spotted early Saturday morning in an area with heavy damage from the Beetle Kill Epidemic sweeping through Colorado's Lodge-pole Pine forests, it had grown to 5,000 acres by nightfall, and early Sunday reports put it at over 8,000 acres.

“I blame Smokey the Bear,” remarked an observer. “If it weren't for the Forest Service's fire policies, this confluence of over-aged forests and beetle-kill fire-ripe tinder wouldn't be so prevalent.”

The Forest Service always gets the blame. If it isn't their approach to controlling and preventing wildfires, it's their lack of willingness to allow logging companies in to thin the forests. No one ever remarks that the sea of beetle-kill red spreading across Colorado's forests might just be a natural cycle of mother nature – part of the recurrent pattern of fire, new growth aspen-pine-juniper, aging lodge-pole, insect infestation, fire.

But there is an intriguing assumption underlying the accusations: That the activities of people can alter the processes of nature. That a small organization with its thousands of people can make decisions and affect actions to the point of changing the course of life. That the few millions of Colorado residents, along with the temporary visitors each year, through their actions avoiding starting fires are impacting and altering what would otherwise occur.

It's the underlying assumption that our stewardship of the earth matters. That what we do, the actions we take and the actions we refrain will push and pull the tides of growth and death across vast regions of the planet.

What happens if we scale up the scenario? If instead of the actions of 7 million people, we consider the combined influences of the actions of all 7 billion residents of the world? Does our passage go unremarked by Mother Nature: The resources we consume, the pollutants we produce, the alterations to the patterns of plant and animal populations not have an affect many times greater than the simple act of controlling wildfires in a few acres of high mountain forests?

Did the observer hit upon a truth, or miss the mark? Is blaming Smokey and the actions of the few disingenuous because it is simple arrogance to think that humankind and our collective actions bear upon planetary outcomes? Or did he simply mis-phrase it, and should instead of said “I blame us"?

Would you Like a 94-inch Space Telescope?

How awesome could this be? Appears that there may be a replacement for the Hubble out there thanks to the magnanimity of one of our spy agencies which has a couple of spare, 'unused' hardware... - namely two 94 inch space-based telescopes they no longer need, gifted to NASA...

The only problem? NASA doesn't have the funds to fly them. The next time you are speaking with your congressman or senator, remind them that knowledge gathering has enormous benefits to the nation and the species - the more we learn, the more we are prepared to combat the various problems and challenges that face us!