Local News & Commentary Since 1890.

Posts Tagged ‘Jamestown’

Space flight really is rocket science

In history, National News, Opinion, Science, Technology, Uncategorized on November 3, 2014 at 2:41 pm

DIH LOGOBy now, most have heard about the failed test flight of Virgin Galactic’s “SpaceShip Two,” which crashed in California’s Mojave Desert on October 31st.  One of the spacecraft’s pilots died in the crash, the other critically injured. While this is Virgin’s first fatality during the development of their “sight-seeing” spaceship for the super rich, perhaps it is just another sign that the pursuit of more money and fame may not be adequate reasons attempt another small step for (rich) mankind. Space travel really is rocket science, and then some.

After a successful flight and ocean landing in July of 1961, astronaut Gus Grissom’s Mercury space capsule sank after a premature detonation of explosives blew the hatch. Grissom managed to escape, only to die six years later in a fire during a “plugs out” test of the Apollo 1 capsule on the pad at Cape Kennedy. Astronauts Ed White and Roger Chaffee also perished in that tragedy.

Other terrible accidents followed during America’s “space race” to beat Russia to the moon and meet President Kennedy’s goal of landing a man there before the end of the decade. America did finally put men on the moon, several times. But, as space travel became more complex, the dangers increased exponentially, and so did the cost of human life.

Space flight is hard! It should be left to the experts.

Space flight really is rocket science!

Famously re-created by Ron Howard on film, Apollo 13 was, in short, a miracle of human survival. By all odds, three guys trapped in a freezing pop can, 240,000 miles from Earth, should never have been able to make it home. Fortunately, thanks to the skill, ingenuity and experience of the crews both in space and on the ground, the movie managed to get a real-life happy ending.

More than two decades after the Apollo 1 catastrophe, the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded shortly after liftoff, marking the first time a civilian had died in a space travel accident. In February 2003, the shuttle Columbia broke up on re-entry over Texas after insulating foam from the main fuel tank had damaged the heat shield as it left the launch pad.

No matter how far technology appears to have advanced, space flight is now, and will always be, experimental. The engineers and pilots at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) learned a great deal from the catastrophic failures mentioned earlier. But as more, privately developed, manned space flights are attempted, it is important to keep in mind that all of these disasters happened under the watchful eyes of some of the smartest, most experienced aerospace experts in the world. Yet people still died.

At our present level of technology, space flight is not something that should be left to over-privileged billionaires with fancy English titles. It’s dangerous, expensive and the drive for national security and scientific achievement does not exist in these endeavors. Virgin Galactic’s efforts are about money, pure and simple. Upon further reflection, however, cash may not be any less a humanitarian reason to get into manned space flight than beating the Communists to the moon.

After mothballing the last of the space shuttle fleet, America seems to be all but out of any residual space race that may still exist. Massive budget cuts enacted by the Obama administration have stripped NASA to its bare bones, its government money now subsidized more often by private companies using facilities and personnel to launch communications satellites. Without the space shuttle, the International Space Station depends more and more on private industry – and the Russians – to remain manned and supplied.

Lacking a more pressing need to funnel billions of dollars back into government-sponsored space flight, private organizations will eventually be the only way Americans go to space. For more companies like Virgin to get involved in the endeavor, however, there would need to be some kind of return on investment to motivate them.

Perhaps one of the space probes will find gold or platinum on Mars or one of Jupiter’s moons, inspiring a space-age gold rush. Until that happens, people should probably keep an eye open for more rich kids’ toys dropping out of the sky.
The Jamestown Comet Editor/Publisher Gery L. Deer is an independent columnist and business writer based in Jamestown, Ohio. More at gerydeer.com.

Zombies, the lamest monsters

In Books, Entertainment, Movies, Opinion, sociology, television, Uncategorized on October 20, 2014 at 11:28 am

DIH LOGOHalloween is upon us and, once again, zombie-mania continues to reign supreme. From so-called, community “Zombie Walk” events to AMC’s season premier of the “Walking Dead” boasting the highest-rated cable television show in history, Americans certainly seem to be zombie-obsessed. But why; what is it about an animated, decaying corpse that seems to capture people’s imaginations and gets them to shell out millions of dollars in search of the next big zombie fix?

According to the Oxford English Dictionary the word, “zombie,” has its origins in West Africa, but the concept of the animated corpse most likely comes from Haitian folklore. Legend suggests that the dead are raised by magical means to walk the earth again and do the bidding of the one who performed the revival ritual, as a sort of creepy slave.

Zombies first appeared in American popular literature as early as 1929, then shortly after, actor Bela Lugosi, famous for his portrayal of “Dracula,” starred in the film, “White Zombie,” which introduced the familiar personification of the creature. The modern American zombie pop-culture most likely took hold after the release of George Romero’s 1968 film, “Night of the Living Dead,” although they were never actually referred to by that word in the movie.

zombiesZombies in modern tales aren’t usually created by magic, but science. Today’s authors have penned a more realistic origin for what has become known as the “zombie apocalypse.” In most current story plots, a rogue virus escapes to the population, infecting everyone and turning them into, essentially, zombies. Instead of one or two slave zombies on the loose, entire populations of walking dead murderously meander across the globe, destroying civilization as they consume the living for sustenance; right, whatever.

Really, except for the fact that they’re pretty gross to look at and can sneak up on people, as far as monsters go zombies are probably the lamest (pun intended) and least scary creatures ever dreamed up. Think about it – re-animated dead people, hobbling along with one foot dragging behind them and moving so slowly, any granny on a walker could whiz past. What’s scary about that?

These monsters have no motive for being bad and there is no end goal or desire for world domination. They’re just hungry. They wander the night, aimlessly, hoping only to happen upon a fresh brain to consume.

And would someone please explain why they even need to eat anything? They’re dead! What possible nutritional value could there be in anything for a zombie? And why are they bleeding always? Does it need to be pointed out again, they’re dead – there shouldn’t be any blood pumping.

Add to that killing them is really a piece of cake, depending on which version of zombie lore you adhere to. In the modern, “Walking Dead” style, all you need to do is smash in their heads or decapitate them or something. But, according to Haitian lore, the goal was not to destroy them but to release these poor souls from their magically-induced, wandering purgatory and there were several methods available to do that, like pouring salt on them.

In any case, zombies are just not all that intimidating compared to vampires or werewolves (ignoring the Twilight-styled, sparkling, Calvin Klein model types). And yet, inevitably, story protagonists nearly always get caught by the marauding zombies and get their brains eaten. Really, how dumb does someone in a monster movie need to be to actually get caught by a crippled, decaying dead guy?

So, here is the best possible advice for escaping zombies – run! Or, just walk fast; it’s not that hard to get away from zombies. Just be sure to sacrifice the comic relief character first, giving you extra time (not like you need it).

If for some reason the zombie gets too close, and yes, that will be because you are really, incredibly stupid, just grab the arms and pull them off – how hard can it be? They’re dead and decaying, right? Hopefully the zombie fascination will diminish soon, leaving room for even more ridiculous obsessions, like brooding, teenage werewolves. Oh wait, that’s been done already too. Oh well. Happy Halloween!
Gery L. Deer is an independent columnist and business writer. Deer In Headlines is a production of GLD Enterprises Commercial Writing. More at gerydeer.com.

 

Gainsay of Gaza school bombing not anti-Semitic

In history, National News, Opinion, Politics, sociology, Uncategorized, World News on August 9, 2014 at 2:50 pm

DIH LOGOThere’s an inherent problem with “political correctness” when it extends to speaking out against bad policy or horrific acts against the innocent. When the super-sensitive “left” can’t accept that people can dislike someone’s opinion without literally hating them, any hope of long-term, productive dialogue or constructive discourse is totally squelched.

When President Obama was elected, people became so obsessed about his being our first African American president, that to even mention a disagreement with his policies labeled one a racist. Naturally, that’s ridiculous. But, for the majority of his first term anyone who argued against him was considered to simply be hateful and bigoted.

We’re in a similar, uncomfortable, situation now with the problems going on in Gaza and the alleged bombing of civilian targets by both Israel and Hamas. There is no question that what’s going on there is terrible and it’s a given that Israel has suffered its share of problems in its short existence as a nation. But, criticism of their tactics in the current conflict does not make one anti-Semitic.

Because Hamas is seen by many as a “terrorist” organization, it is therefore more acceptable to criticize them publicly, but that’s not the debate. It’s not anti-Semitic to state, “It’s wrong for Israel to bomb civilian targets and kill innocent people, including children.” Anyone who thinks that it’s ok to bomb kids regardless of the purpose may be hinging on sociopathic mentality.

Many United Nations officials condemned the bombing of a UN-run school in Gaza, including  Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, seen here.

Many United Nations officials condemned the bombing of a UN-run school in Gaza, including Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, seen here.

After a United Nations-operated school was bombed in Gaza City last week, killing 20 and wounding dozens, including children, The Washington Post reported that the U.N. officially condemned Israel for the bombing with UNRWA Commissioner-General Pierre Krähenbühl saying, “I condemn in the strongest possible terms this serious violation of international law by Israeli forces. This is an affront to all of us, a source of universal shame. Today the world stands disgraced.”

There are, of course, those who have accused the U.N., as an organization, of being anti-Semitic since its inception, but this is not an indication of that. This is a statement from the commissioner-general communicating that the world group disagrees with the Israeli tactic and would prefer they try to find a peaceful solution.

Considering that the GPS coordinates of the school had been reportedly sent to Israel at least 17 times, at this point it’s Israel’s own actions drawing negative opinion and squelching sympathy for their cause. Still, it’s seen as distasteful to speak against the Jewish nation without being labeled racist and therein lays the problem.

Will it always be that with any minority or historically trodden-down group, negative opinion or public critique will draw for the speaker undo hatred or have them forever labeled racist, anti-Semitic or worse? Is political correctness always this blind, even in the court room? Yes. It always will be. Take, for instance, mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes here in America.

Statistics suggest that the vast majority of drug criminals in the U.S. are African American. Since there are often mandatory minimum prison sentences on the books for various levels of possession, sale and use of street narcotics, by the logic of some, which makes mandatory minimums racist. Are they? That’s a debate for another time, but the same logic is at work here as well.

There seems to be a belief among modern liberals and conservatives alike that freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, so long as you only say what they want to hear. Anything that goes against the grain on either side of the aisle will earn a swift retribution for the originator of the message. Oddly, it’s always been that way, but now, with social media, the Internet and an instant news cycle, there’s just more of a platform for argument.

Speaking one’s mind about an atrocity is the purview of any conscientious observer. Whether someone is doing so from a racial bias is another matter entirely. However, if those committing the atrocity expect sympathy in some way, it’s unlikely that they will achieve any of their goals by fueling the fires of hate through horrific actions, regardless of whether they believe it to be the means to the end.
Gery L. Deer is an independent columnist and business writer syndicated by GLD Enterprises Commercial Writing. More at gerydeer.com.

 

 

 

 

 

Border crisis will become a local issue

In Charities, Children and Family, Dayton Ohio News, Local News, National News, Opinion, sociology, Uncategorized on July 28, 2014 at 11:33 am

DIH LOGOUnless someone is a true bigot, it’s hard to imagine why people don’t want to help the immigrant Mexican children being sent across the border without family, without supervision. But wanting to help is not the same thing as having the resources and infrastructure to do so properly, in a way that meets the ultimate goal which should be to see that the children have better life in America than they had in Mexico.

Unfortunately, people are so focused on the problem of the immigration process, they forget about what will happen once the kids get into the United States. Without a plan, infrastructure, money and personnel, it’s unlikely that these children will be living in anything less than squalor once they arrive and are processed.

Our government should do everything they can to help these kids, even if that means the best thing to do is to send them back home. Why? Because there are some vital questions still as yet unanswered. For example: Where will they live? Who will pay to feed and clothe them? Who will pay to educate them?

Each night in the United States, an estimated 611,000 people are sleeping homeless and nearly 50 million go hungry, according to the charity groups National Alliance to End Homelessness, and Feeding America. As unbelievable as it may seem in the most powerful country in the world, organizations such as these struggle each year to find the millions of dollars needed to provide food and shelter for people already living here, a great many of which are children.

(Photo NY TIMES)

(Photo NY TIMES)

When hundreds of immigrant children become thousands, they become refugees, not immigrants and caring for the kids will eventually land squarely on the shoulders of local government. The White House and congress might clear the way for an easier method of entry or grant them all amnesty once here, but then it’s the problem of Main Street U.S.A. to care for them.

Sure, there will be federal money – probably from new taxes that will overburden a still recovering Middle America – but it will be pennies per child, per day, leaving the remainder to be covered at the local and state levels. The current welfare system cannot handle such a fast influx of need, especially while still recovering from the stress of the recession.

Some local leaders, however, are welcoming the immigrants with open arms. Dayton, Ohio Mayor Nan Whaley recently stated that she would welcome the immigrant children to the area. It’s clear that Mayor Whaley, who previously served on the Dayton city commission, does not realize that what happens in Dayton affects the outlying communities of the Miami Valley region, both socially and economically. None of these suburban areas have the kinds of resources necessary to handle such a massive issue.

As expected, the democratic mayor’s comments drew a firm response from area republicans, led by Congressman Mike Turner. Turner sent a letter to President Obama signed by him and six local area leaders which states, “We are writing to express that our community does not support Mayor Whaley’s proposal and to further express that our community does not have the available resources to support such a proposal.” It goes on to point out that, while they are sympathetic to the issues related to the border crisis, the community is simply not in a position to offer assistance.

There is speculation that Whaley’s comments were little more than a publicity stunt, aimed at getting a sound bite on national news, which she accomplished without question. Others believe her intention was to gain more favor with Dayton’s large and ever-expanding Hispanic population. Only the mayor knows why she really made such a sweeping statement without discussing the concept with other local leaders.

These sentiments are playing out across the country in a constant battle. While there is an overwhelming feeling of obligation by most to help children and families fleeing poverty and abuse, there must first be resources in place to properly handle the situation without making it worse.

 

Jamestown Comet Editor Gery L. Deer is an independent columnist and business writer. More at gerydeer.com.

 

ATVs are not toys for young children

In Children and Family, Dayton Ohio News, Health, Local News, Opinion, Sports News, State News, Uncategorized on July 14, 2014 at 9:30 am

DIH LOGOSince 1982, there have been nearly 400 Ohio deaths related to the operation of ATVs, short for “all terrain vehicles.” Like any other power machine, the ATV is a safe, versatile vehicle when handled properly by responsible adults, yet their operation is far too often given over to small children.

According to statistics collected between 1982 and 2012 by the United States Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC), there have been, nationally, 2,944 ATV-related fatalities of children younger than 16 years of age and 43 percent of them were younger than 12. The CPSC also states that children 16 and under comprised 24 percent of the total number of ATV related deaths.

Unfortunately, these machines are not being treated like the dangerous power equipment they are but instead as if they are children’s toys. It’s not uncommon to see very small children riding these powerful four-wheelers (and there are still a few three-wheelers out there). Any responsibility for accidents must be laid firmly on the shoulders of the parents as well as those legislators who can’t be bothered with increasing safety regulations on these devices.

Currently, age restrictions on ATV operations in Ohio are, in this commentator’s opinion, far too lenient, and logically inconsistent. For example, as of 2014, the Ohio law states that, “to operate an ATV on public lands, one must have a driver’s license or motorcycle endorsement. The Department of Natural Resources may permit a person at least 12 (years of age) to operate on Department land if accompanied by a parent.”

In the next section the regulations state, “No one under 16 may operate an ATV unless on land owned by a parent or accompanied by an adult 18 or older.” It’s as if, in one regulation, the legislators acknowledge the dangers involved in operating these machines and that people should be qualified, licensed drivers. But in the other, just having a parent there qualifies the kid to be behind the handlebars.

When children operate these machines there are two issues to consider: Experience and size. A licensed driver will have had some training and experience behind the wheel and be at least somewhat more experienced than someone who has never operated a motor vehicle. Arguing also that a farm kid can handle it because of tractors and other equipment is ridiculous too. There is a big difference between disking a field and popping wheelies down a hillside on an ATV.

Additionally, as stable as they may seem, to keep all four wheels on the ground, an ATV requires a certain amount of bulk in the form of the rider. Shifting the weight from side to side, similar to riding a bike, is necessary and aids in steering and stability.

A small child of 6 or 7 years old, and maybe 60 pounds on the outside, simply does not have enough mass or strength to control the machine, regardless of its size. Even the smallest of these vehicles is powerful enough to cause a serious accident if not properly controlled and no safety switch or oversized helmet can outmatch the common sense of not letting a little kid ride it in the first place.

The overturned ATV in the Crooked River.Liability is another major consideration. Without getting into the legal issues, it goes without saying that America is a litigious society and special endorsements are required on insurance policies to cover liability issues related to ATV operation. Even if there is insurance, the parents of an injured child can still sue the owner of the ATV or the property where the accident took place.

In the end, the question must be asked, “Is a few minutes of joy riding on an ATV worth risking the safety or perhaps the very life of a child?” For more information, download a complete copy of Ohio’s current ATV laws: OhioATVLaw

Gery L. Deer is an independent columnist and business writer based in Jamestown, Ohio. More at www.gerydeer.com.

Too much rides on a credit score

In Business, Economy, Education, Jobs, National News, Opinion, Uncategorized on June 16, 2014 at 11:33 am

DIH LOGOFor all the important numbers in the life of the average American, the credit score seems to wield the most power. It’s hard to imagine how three little digits could determine how an individual will live his or her life, regardless of the circumstances that created it and with the average person having virtually no understanding of what it is or how it’s calculated.

Credit scores determine how much a consumer will have to pay for credit (as interest rates), insurance, and other necessities. For many years, the credit score was a value hidden from the consumer because Fair Isaac and Company, the firm which created the process, decided it would just be too confusing to the general public. (Of course, that’s the usual excuse offered up by big business and government agencies trying to dupe the general public.)

That’s little comfort, however, to those who have been held hostage by the credit reporting companies for decades. Almost since inception, credit data has been full of inaccuracies and misinformation, a problem to which consumers have had little (practical) recourse other than the slow, usually pointless, process required to amend a report.

As of 2012, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was charged with the oversight of personal credit rating companies. With countless rule changes over the years, the Fair Credit Reporting Act finally forced at least some restrictions on the credit rating companies. The FCRA is the legislation that required companies like TransUnion, Experian and Equifax to provide free credit report, limit outside access to personal credit files, initiate identity theft protections and other consumer defense measures. Click here for a downloadable version of the Fair Credit Reporting Act is available.

creditoneRegardless of the current legislation, however, credit monitoring and reporting services still have entirely too much power and control over the general lives of consumers. A credit report (and score) whether accurate or not, can limit access to vital, day-to-day needs like transportation and employment.

Considering how much inaccuracy can exist or the irrelevancy of the information to the situation, it’s bewildering how it is legal for employers to reject applicants based on a credit score. In another example, how is it permitted that credit score can determine whether someone should be provided with car insurance, particularly when coverage is mandated by the government?

Whatever more ignorant people choose to believe a low credit score doesn’t always mean a person is unwilling to pay their bills or is inept at handling money. Sometimes circumstances change, as with the predatory lending practices that contributed to the housing market crash of 2008.

Likewise, although there is a higher risk in lending to people with a sorted credit history, almost no one takes into account how the score got so tarnished. On the heels of the worst recession in U.S. history, the credit rating process seems almost backwards to the average consumer.

If you can afford a higher rate and larger payment, you get a lower one, and vice versa. A person may be in desperate need of a car or renters insurance but, because of a lower credit score, they are charged significantly higher rates and payments. Wouldn’t it make more sense to offer those people lower rates and payments, making it more likely they can pay on time and help shore up the economy in the process?

The consumer should always keep in mind that the credit reporting organizations are private sector businesses, not government agencies. They are not affiliated with the Federal Trade Commission in any way nor any other government office. Credit scores are big business for those companies that calculate and report them.

In the first quarter of 2014, TransUnion, one of the three largest firms, reported earnings just over $303 million. That’s just for one credit reporting company over three months! So, with billions of dollars in revenue at stake, there is little to no motivation for limiting the power of these companies. It’s a sure bet that lobbyists for the credit reporting companies are well-entrenched in Washington, greasing all of the appropriate palms to make sure that the “have nots” never catch up to the 1-percent.

 

The Jamestown Comet.com editor / publisher Gery L. Deer is an independent columnist and business contributor to WDTN-TV2’s Living Dayton program. More at http://www.gerydeer.com.

 

 

 

UPDATE: CFL bulbs save money, but threaten safety

In Children and Family, Dayton Ohio News, Environment, Health, Home Improvement, Opinion, Politics, Science, Technology, Uncategorized on June 10, 2014 at 8:40 am

GLD_CFL_TV2_SCREENSHOTSpecial Update / Editor’s Note: This article was originally published in November of 2013 and updated in April 2014. Since that time, and investigative report by Pam Elliot at WDTN-TV, 2News in Dayton has yielded the following information on the dangers of CFL bulbs.

Deer In Headlines author and Jamestown Comet publisher, Gery L. Deer, was tapped as the initial interview source for the investigation based on the content of this edition of his column. Here for you is the video from that investigation which aired on Monday, May 19, 2014.

Click here for a link to the full 2News investigative story which includes suggestions for the safe use of CFL bulbs.

 

dih-logo-SEApril 7, 2014 – The incandescent light bulb was developed in 1876 by Thomas Edison, founder of General Electric. But as more energy efficient technology is introduced, even Edison’s greatest achievement has been all but extinguished forever. On September 24th, 2013, it was announced that the last of the incandescent light bulbs had rolled off the GE assembly line to be replaced by compact fluorescents, or “CFLs.” The spiral-twisted tube bulbs use low-energy, fluorescent technology and there is really nothing cutting-edge about them, except for their size and the potential fire risk when they go bad.

Fluorescent lighting has been around since the late 19th Century, but wasn’t developed for widespread use until the 1930s. Less expensive to operate than their incandescent counterparts, most of the bulbs last longer and are safe for everyday use. But as the environmentalist lobby pushes for more energy-efficient or, “green,” technology, has the heightened concern for the environment surpassed that for human safety? Recently I went into my kitchen and switched on the light over the sink, as I did countless times throughout the week. I left the room for a moment and when I returned it was dark, the familiar morning glow of the light fixture having just been replaced with the smell of burned ceramic and melted plastic. Upon investigation I discovered that the CFL bulb in the overhead light had quite literally burned out.

20W CFL Bulb from Gery Deer's kitchen.   Photo by Gery L. Deer

20W CFL Bulb from Gery Deer’s kitchen. Photo by Gery L. Deer

Just before it went dark, the 20-Watt, General Electric CFL bulb I had installed a few months earlier had gone so hot that it flamed through the plastic and ceramic base, causing it to melt and crack at the bottom of the glass tubing. The discovery of such a potential fire hazard was, to say the least, surprising, but apparently the problem is well-documented and manufacturers have been aware of it since the product’s release.

In a Snopes.com article John Drengenberg, consumer affairs manager at Underwriters Laboratories (UL), said about how CFLs expire, “People expect to see the bright flash and to hear the popping like a traditional incandescent bulb, but the burn out of a CFL is different. The light dims over time and might produce a more dramatic pop, emit a distinct odor, and maybe even release some smoke.” Drengenberg is referring to the Voltage Dependent Resistor (VDR). The CFL burns out when the ballast overheats, causing the VDR to open the circuit like a blown fuse and prevent any hazards.

Instead of resulting in a mild puff of smoke, however, the heat generated can, as in my case, burn through the base. As I dug deeper into this issue, I discovered countless articles, videos and online debates regarding the safety of CLF lighting and how there might be more to their compulsory introduction than simply reducing energy costs. It’s important to note here that Underwriters Laboratories is not a government agency but a private company paid by manufacturers to “certify” the safety of their products.

DP&L has a vested interest in getting these bulbs out to the public. It's unclear where that interest lies, but here is the proof - a Walmart display in Xenia, Ohio offers huge discounts.

DP&L has a vested interest in getting these bulbs out to the public. It’s unclear where that interest lies, but here is the proof – a Walmart display in Xenia, Ohio offers huge discounts.

In the early 1990s, I worked for a major appliance manufacturer as an engineering technologist following UL guidelines in operational and safety testing of ovens, ranges and cook-tops. In my experience, a bit of heat and smoke being released from a popping resister is, by itself, not enough to cause the kind of damage apparently so common with this product.

I am well aware of UL testing practices and it is beyond my comprehension how anything short of political pressure could be responsible for the approval of a consumer electronics product that literally lets flame out of its casing. From a consumer standpoint, it’s baffling to me how UL, or the Federal Trade Commission – the governmental agency responsible for consumer safety, can justify the approval of a device that clearly presents a fire safety hazard under “normal use” conditions. Incidentally, the CFLs also contain mercury, another potential environmental health hazard often conveniently overlooked.

It is entirely possible that these products were rushed to market, not so much to help reduce pollution or save money for the consumer, but to further a political agenda. Whatever the reason, the consumer should be aware of the inherent dangers and always be careful when using CFL lighting.  (End original story.)

Here are some detailed photos of the original, failed bulb. General Electric requested it be returned for investigation (we have complied).

 

UPDATE : June 6, 2014 – Today Gery L. Deer received several boxes of light bulbs from General Electric (Pictured below). The shipment included several packages of original, incandescent bulbs and several packages of LED bulbs. Once again, it is important to note that Gery insisted to GE’s representatives, by phone, he was not looking for any sort of restitution, but simply wanted to make the public aware of the dangers surrounding these bulbs. But, here they are anyway.

An assortment of incandescent and LED light bulbs sent to Gery L. Deer by General Electric on June 6.

An assortment of incandescent and LED light bulbs sent to Gery L. Deer by General Electric on June 6.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VIDEO UPDATE: June 10, 2014 – Hard to believe – ANOTHER shipment of LED light bulbs from General Electric. These are of a totally different style and are said to “distribute” light more efficiently. Watch the video for a complete follow up.

 

Jamestown Comet Editor Gery L. Deer is an independent columnist and business contributor to WDTN-TV2’s Living Dayton program. More at www.gerydeer.com.

India vs. China: Economic growth and national security

In Economy, history, National News, Opinion, sociology, Uncategorized on June 9, 2014 at 9:47 pm

DIH LOGOOn June 4, 1989, after three weeks of civil rights protests by nearly a million Chinese, many of them students, Chinese troops stormed a packed square in Beijing, killing and arresting thousands. The Tiananmen Square Massacre shocked the world and confirmed the belief, not that there was any doubt, that China’s political system is completely incompatible with that of the United States and pretty much any other democratic nation.

A quarter of a century later, it’s still largely incomprehensible why America is so tied to a country with no decency with regard to human rights. It’s about two things that shouldn’t surprise anyone, money and political power. There’s a little fear thrown into the mix as well associated with China’s massive military might and a government with no reservations about using it.

Labor costs are incredibly also low in China, with the average factory worker earning just one-tenth of what their American counterparts bring home, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Cheap labor is an attractive prospect to American companies looking to expand production with fewer tax and employment expenses. It seems there is no end to U.S. manufacturers relocating in China; producing cheaper goods to be shipped back America and sold at a premium profit.

Contrary to popular belief, however, according to the Council on Foreign Relations, only 15-percent of U.S. imports come from China. That comes out to something like $29 billion of a $1 trillion monthly output. There are more than 1.3 billion people in China, many of whom, like their American counterparts, want, more than ever, the latest technology, fashions, entertainment and so on. Although it is generally exaggerated, a definite trade deficit exists between the two nations, which is unlikely to change anytime soon.

China or India? Which makes more sense for the US?

China or India? Which makes more sense for the US?

It’s entirely possible the United States should be looking a little further southwest for political and economic growth in Asia – India. After all, which would seem a much more stable and amiable political and economic ally? With more than 1.2 billion people living in 29 states, India is the world’s second-largest country and second-largest democracy, English speaking and primed for growth.

If India is a more lucrative and stable prospect, what’s holding America back from a greater fueling of the fire of partnership, economically and socially? Unfortunately, recent years have seen the U.S./India relationship strained over trade and intellectual property disputes. Plus, the Indian economy has had some rocky spots recently.

In 2013, the average median income per capita in India was around $1,200 (Compared to China at $2,100). Add to that, India’s economy has fallen off nearly 5-percent with 8-percent inflation and the country’s fiscal health is a major barrier. However, the election of a new prime minister, Narendra Modi has encouraged investors and the economy has reflected that confidence.

According to CNN Money, “The prospect of a government led by Modi has boosted Indian stocks by 15 percent so far this year. The rupee has responded too, gaining six percent against the dollar after a dismal performance in 2013.”

There are other more politically charged issues slowing down a more aggressive relationship with India, but most U.S. officials see the country as a thriving democracy and a strategic gold mine. Close to Afghanistan and Pakistan, a more advanced partnership between America and India would benefit both countries in terms of economic growth and national security.

America imposed sanctions against India in 1998 because of nuclear testing. But, thanks to former presidents Clinton and Bush, relations improved greatly and the two nations even signed a ground-breaking defense and civil nuclear (power) agreement.

With the possible exception of the political unknowns surrounding a new prime minister, previously a Hindu Nationalist, there is little reason to spend so much time courting the stagnant communist regime in China instead of nurturing a reasonably stable democracy, and growing economy, in India. In the end, it certainly seems that it would be much wiser for Washington to advance trade and economic partnerships with India.

 

Gery L. Deer is an independent columnist and business writer based in Jamestown, Ohio. More at http://www.gerydeer.com.

 

Drowning at Shawnee Lake under investigation

In Local News, Uncategorized on April 23, 2014 at 9:52 am

Shawnee Hills – April 22, 2014 – The drowning of a 63-year-old man at Shawnee Lake on Tuesday is under investigation. Here’s the full story from WHIO-TV, Newscenter 7 :

http://www.whio.com/news/news/local/search-missing-boater-shawnee-lake/nffcy/

It takes a maverick to make a difference

In Education, National News, Opinion, Politics, psychology, Religion, Science, sociology, State News, Uncategorized, World News on March 24, 2014 at 7:59 am

DIH LOGOAccording to one definition, a maverick is, “an unorthodox or independent-minded person.” But a maverick is also someone who chooses not to give in to the pressures of society, breaking ranks, not for personal gain, but in an effort to improve conditions or expand knowledge for everyone.

In the 16th Century, the now revered scientist Galileo Galilei would certainly have fit the definition of maverick. At a time when the church kept tight control over the public’s understanding of the world around them, Galileo’s challenge that the earth was not actually the center of the universe but instead part of a solar system with our sun at its center was controversial.

Of course he was eventually proven right, but standing against such a powerful entity as the Catholic Church sent Galileo to be tried for heresy. There are countless cases like this throughout history, most related to individuals who chose to challenge long-standing beliefs in politics or religion.

Today, as in Galileo’s time, society is taught and expected, from an early age, to keep quiet; never to upset the status quo for fear of retribution. Those willing to stand up and be heard shape the most change in the world, but often pay a high price for their contribution to progress. Much of what society deems acceptable is dependent on one’s position and the sphere of influence there encompassed.

whatsrightFor example, it is unacceptable in many religious groups for a married couple to divorce. They are expected to remain together indefinitely for the good of the church, their families and so on, regardless of the situation, even in cases of physical abuse. It stands to reason, therefore, that the first few individuals who challenged these rules were certainly dealt with harshly. Fortunately, over time, this type of censure has eased somewhat, at least publically.

On the whole, it is difficult to greatly influence public perception and alter the behavior of a society or to get people to remove the blinders of ideology and accept the possibility that there are other ways of thinking. Ignorance, prejudice and misunderstanding usually lead to fear and resistance.

It should also be made clear that religious groups are certainly not alone in such ridiculously judgmental behavior. Anyone who challenges established norms can find themselves on the receiving end of some pretty unpleasant retribution, particularly in the workplace.

Often employees are never to question authority or decisions made by their superiors, otherwise face reprisal. But what does one do when superiors are actually breaking the law? In 1989, Congress passed the Whistleblower Protection Act. The law is designed to shield workers against retaliatory personnel action – meaning, essentially, it keeps them from being fired – for “blowing the whistle” on illegal activities perpetrated by their employers.

Unfortunately, there is no such protection for the everyday person who simply wants to do the right thing. From Moses and Lady Godiva to Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, taking a stand to alter deeply engrained social beliefs has never been a task for the weak-hearted.

Most people are discouraged by how much retribution might be taken out on them for going against the grain. Sometimes, however, just standing up for the little things can help to affect larger changes. Making a difference in the boardroom, at school or even in the hallowed halls of church might ruffle some feathers, but if the purpose is worthwhile, it would be wrong not to do something.

So, what about those by-standers who agree with the maverick but are afraid to stand with her? If only one other person supported the cause then another would as well, then another, and another. That’s how revolutions are started in the face of resistance. So the next time you see an injustice being done and you have the opportunity to act, what will it be: Maverick or conformist?  Ω

Gery L. Deer is an independent columnist and business contributor to the WDTN-TV2 program, “Living Dayton.” More at www.gerydeer.com.