The Curious Case of The Kona Coyote

Well, right up front I have to admit that coyotes do not really exist in Hawai'i, at least in the form that most of you know.  Here they are much smaller and go by another name -- Herpestes Javanicus or "Mongoose" for short.  I call them coyotes because they fill much the same ecological niche here as coyotes do on the mainland U.S.

Coyotus Konicus

Although many visitors to Hawai'i assume mongooses are native to the islands, they are actually from India and Indonesia, and were deliberately introduced here in 1883 to control rats in the sugar cane fields. Some initial success in the Carribean and West Indies with this method was reported in 1882 by naturalist W.B. Espeut.  Espeut and others quickly began to raise mongooses and sell them commercially, including some to cane growers in Hawai'i (not all the islands, however).  Unfortunately Espreut may have been a teensy bit premature in promoting the introduction of mongooses both here and elsewhere. Not only do we still have rats, the mongoose is now a very serious problem, as it is nearly everywhere else it has been introduced.  In their authoritative book on mongooses, Dunn and Hinton describe the introduction of the mongoose into the West Indies as "...one of the most disastrous attempts ever made at biological control"  (Mongooses, p. 63), and the same is true here.  The reasons for the failure are an important cautionary tale for those of us who live on islands, as we shall see.

The rat, too was introduced to Hawai'i but unintentionally -- one species coming with the Polynesian settlers about 1600 years ago and two others (the Black, or Roof Rat and the Norway Rat) with Europeans and Americans beginning in the late 18th century (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Factsheet).

Espeut assumed that all rats are the same, as most of us do (you've seen one rat, you've seen them all, right?). Turns out the differences are very, very important. The Norway rat is a ground-nesting species whereas the other two nest in trees or high structures (the Polynesian and Roof rats). The mongoose is a mediocre climber and so it was able to prey on the Norway rat but had much more difficulty with the other two. In a number of studies scientists have found that the introduction of mongoose has led to a decrease in Norway rats but increases in the other two varieties.  The often-quoted story that the mongoose didn't control rats in Hawai'i because the mongoose is active during the day whereas rats are active at night is a gross oversimplification -- the mongoose was able to find the nests of the Norway rat and destroy them even during the day, but it couldn't reach the other two, day or night.

Espeut also underestimated the breeding ability of rats, which far outstrips predation by mongooses.  Further, after reducing the numbers of Norway rats, mongoose then go after other sources of food, including the eggs of ground-nesting birds, beneficial lizards, snakes (none in Hawai'i) and amphibians.  And there are no natural predators in Hawai'i to keep the populations of mongoose in check.

Both the mongoose and the rat were introduced to Hawai'i and are clearly new arrivals here.  In fact, prior to the arrival of humans in the Hawaiian Islands there only two species of endemic mammals -- the Monk Seal and the Hawaiian Bat. The Polynesians intentionally brought two more (besides themselves, of course):  a small domesticated pig and a small variety of dog.  All the rest have been brought here intentionally or accidentally in the last 200+ years -- the blink of an eye in geological and evolutionary time. While it is true that everything here came from somewhere else, the rate of introduction is crucial to understanding the ecological impact these introductions have had and to appreciating those things that are truly unique here.

The Hawaiian Islands are the most isolated group of islands in the world.  Their isolation has meant that the species of plants and animals that managed to arrive here on their own from other parts of the world were themselves isolated from that time on and evolved over eons into unique forms.  For instance we have raspberry vines here but they don't have thorns because they no longer needed them as defense against browsing mammals. Almost all endemic Hawaiian birds evolved from a single species of honey creeper and are found nowhere else on earth. Certain trees, like the Ohia, evolved in the presence of almost continuous volcanic activity and are able to withstand and even thrive in conditions that would kill many others.

Most people who visit Hawai'i see a lush and colorful landscape that, though exotic, still seems somewhat

Java Sparrows (Introduced 1960's)

Safron Finch (SA, introduced 1960's)

familiar.  This is because many of the plants, animals, birds, and insects are in fact not from Hawai'i at all but from the mainland U.S., South America, Europe, and Asia. For example, nearly all of the colorful birds people see (including parrots, turkeys, pheasants, and various songbirds) came from elsewhere, many within the past 200 years or less. At my house I occasionally see two endemic bird species, the I'o and the Pu'eo (native hawks and owls, respectively).  That's it. There are, however many cute introduced birds in my neighborhood, like the Saffron Finch from South America and the Java Sparrow from Indonesia, both introduced in the 1960's. There were dozens more native birds but they are either now extinct or are only found in remote areas, usually at much higher elevations than most tourists go (an exception is Volcanoes National Park where a number of native birds can be seen).

Many of the less attractive aspects of Hawai'i also are not original.  Here's a partial list of negative critters that were NOT in Hawai'i before their recent introduction by humans:

• rats
• mice
• cockroaches
• ants
• mosquitos
• termites
• wasps (Yellow Jacket variety)
• giant centipedes
• slugs

Looking at the list above, it is clear how we use our past experiences with the world to shape our expectations and interpretations of what we encounter in new places.  Nearly all of us have lived where pests like rats, ants and mosquitos are a natural and common aspect of our environment and so we are not surprised when they exist here in Hawai'i also. The real surprise is that this was a place not long ago where they did not exist.  Imagine -- no rats, mice, mosquitoes, ants, or cockroaches!  And of course the sad fact is that they wouldn't be here now if it weren't for us.

Our past experiences can also lead us astray when we assess the implications of what we see in a new environment. This is particularly true for Hawai'i's isolated and uniquely fragile environment. For instance, many of those beautiful birds I mentioned are considered by biologists to be serious problems here because although they are in ecological balance in their original habitats, they become an invasive species when they are introduced to Hawai'i.  Relying on our preference for their attractiveness or their benign role elsewhere as the basis for judging their desirability in Hawaii's environment can be a very bad mistake.

To call something invasive isn't the same as using other negative terms, like referring to a particular plant as a "weed."  Weeds are often simply something we deem undesirable based on aesthetic preference.  An "invasive species" is something that meets one or more of a number of specific scientific criteria, including:

• being able to spread quickly and widely
• being either a predator that threatens to extinguish beneficial native species or having qualities that give it competitive superiority over other species for food or territory
• altering the habitat in unsustainable ways
• producing significant negative impact on the local economy

Of course, values and attitudes are still at play when we decide what action, if any, should be taken to control invasive species. This is particularly true when the species is something we find beautiful or cute, like most of the small birds we have introduced, or a species we find desirable in other ways, like the animals brought here to be hunted for food or sport.

An instructive comparison is between a variety of wild turkey introduced here in 1961 versus the Nene, an endemic variety of goose and the Hawai'i state bird. Both are large, ground-nesting and foraging birds that prefer not to fly much but are magnificent when they do. The Nene is severely endangered, whereas the wild turkey has increased from 400 birds to 16,000 in just 50 years (there

Latest introduction 1960's

are actually several varieties of turkeys in Hawai'i, all of them intentionally introduced beginning in the late 1700's and 1800's).  In its original environment of North America the wild turkey's numbers are kept in balance by several predators (fox, coyotes, cougars, large birds of prey, skunks, bobcats, racoons, possum, and snakes), harsh winters, and hunting by humans. Being a prey animal living in harsh conditions, it evolved a number of characteristics to counter these threats:  (1) it has large number of offspring, 10-14 chicks; (2) it is polygamous, with the males establishing large harems of females during mating season; (3) it eats almost anything -- leaves, fruit, seeds, and nuts of a wide variety of plants, shrubs, and trees, insects of various kinds, even small amphibians and lizards, (4) it takes refuge in trees at night to avoid predators; (5) it has developed resistance to many diseases carried by other mainland birds and animals. Without the controlling influences in the turkey's original environment, these qualities can be very ecologically problematic in Hawai'i where there are far fewer predators, a very benign climate, few competitors, and plenty of food.

The Nene, on the other hand, evolved in the absence of all the predators listed above with the exception of birds of prey, and without the ecological competition of other foraging birds (recall,

Nene -- Endemic

most other birds were types of honey-creepers).  It has fewer offpring, 1-5 per female, tends to be monogamous (often mating for life), is a selective and somewhat picky eater of leaves, seeds and berries and has no immunity to diseases carried by birds and animals recently introduced.  These qualities were adaptive for the environment that existed before the arrival of humans and the introduction of predators and generalist competitors. But Nene are poorly equipped to handle these sudden changes, and only through an aggressive captive breeding program have they been brought back from the brink of extinction. People often see Nene in open grasslands, like golf-courses, and incorrectly assume they are plentiful.  Visitors mistakenly believe them to be Canadian Geese, from which they evolved starting about 500,000 years ago, and which have become a serious nuisance in urban areas of the mainland where they congregate in large numbers -- another example of how past experience can sometimes lead to wrong conclusions in new environments.

The natural introduction of a new species causes an imbalance in an existing ecosystem that in time will sort itself out. In the case of Hawai'i new plants, animals and insects arrived at a relatively slow pace due to the isolation of the islands. However, beginning with the arrival of humans 1,600 years ago and accelerating tremendously with Cook's discovery of the islands a little over 200 years ago, hundreds of new species of plants, animals, insects, and diseases have been introduced within a very short time.  And the ecosystem is still in turmoil, according to biologists who are studying this process and who find Hawai'i a fascinating and valuable natural laboratory to observe both ecological adaptation and evolution in action. The biologists naturally and understandably stress the negative impact new species have had on native populations but they are also intrigued by how these new species interact with each other and in some cases how native species have adapted in positive ways to the newcomers.

Apapane -- Endemic

For example, the Pue'o (endemic owl) and the I'o (endemic hawk) never saw a rat or a mouse until their recent introduction.  Their diet consisted mainly of other native birds.  Now, however, they are learning that these new furry critters are a tasty source of protein.  They also are quite happy to eat introduced birds, particularly now that the native varieties are scarce. Another example is that one species of endemic bird, the beautiful Apapane, is apparently developing a resistance to Avian Malaria that is carried by alien birds -- this disease, transmitted by mosquitoes that breed in terrain uprooted by European wild boars, has decimated many native Hawaiian species. As I said, evolution in action.

There are also examples of new arrivals controlling each other. Mongoose, rats, and feral cats -- justly demonized for preying on native birds -- are now major controllers of burgeoning populations of introduced birds that would otherwise become an even greater destructive problem than they are now. This is why I call the Mongoose a Kona Coyote -- in this environment it performs a controlling role similar to the coyote on the mainland U.S.. Although mongoose, rats and feral cats are themselves a serious problem, if they were to be suddenly eradicated in Hawai'i the populations of introduced bird species would skyrocket, with severely negative consequences.

Note that this is another illustration of how our prior experiences can lead us astray in new situations.  Many of us from the mainland U.S. are very familiar with the negative impact of cats on bird populations there.  But in that case the birds are not alien and not invasive. Of course, eradicating introduced birds in Hawai'i would likely also cause problems.  For instance, the Myna bird from Southeast Asia has become very fond of eating geckos from Madagascar, which aside from humans and cats have no other predators here and are very prolific breeders.

These examples illustrate the complexity of the mess we have created and the fact that solutions can't be as simple as we often assume -- some approaches will just make matters worse here in Hawai'i even though they might be appropriate elsewhere.  And since rolling back the clock isn't really possible, we are left with developing ways to substitute the control forces that are absent for the species we have introduced, an expensive and risky proposition given our historical record in this matter (remember the lesson from the curious case of the Kona Coyote).

If you look back at the list of qualities for defining an invasive species you might agree that humans fit nearly all of them.  We are able to spread quickly and widely over most of the planet. We are a predator that threatens to extinguish beneficial native species. We have qualities that give us competitive superiority over other species for food and territory.  And we certainly have a record of altering the habitat in unsustainable ways. A key difference between us and other invasive species, however, is that we are aware of what we are doing and we can alter our behavior and mitigate the effects of our own presence as well as the effects of those species we have introduced either intentionally or unintentionally.

The question is whether we have the will to do so.  And whether we still have time.
__________________________________
Some Resources and References:
Hawai'i's Invasive Species, 2001.  Staples, G.W. & Cowie, R.H. (Eds.). Mutual Publishing, Honolulu.
"Invasive Species"   U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Encyclopedia of Invasive Species: From Africanized Honey Bees to Zebra Mussels by Susan L. Woodward & Joyce A. Quinn
Encyclopedia of Biological Invasions - edited by Daniel Simberloff & Marcel Rejmanek
Biological Control by H.M.T. Hokkanen & James M. Lynch
Fighting Invasive Species in Hawai'i  The Nature Conservancy
Invasive Species in Hawai'i University of Hawa'i'
Mongooses by A. M. S. Dunn & H. E. Hinton


Other Blogs in the "Critters of Hawai'i series:
Tons of Fun
"Lei"zy Horses and Hot Malasadas
More Than You Ever Wanted To Know About Geckos

Celebrating Nothing: Twenty Years Without Smoking

I quit smoking twenty years ago, in March, 1994. It was one of the hardest things I have ever done.

For those of you who have never smoked, and those of you who were smokers who quit easily, it might be hard to understand why it can be so difficult for some of us.  It is because of this general lack of understanding that I consider those few who are still puffing despite the external and internal pressure to stop to be kindred spirits for whom I have great empathy and sympathy.  My heart goes out to them when I see them huddled together in desperate little groups outside public buildings from which they have been banned, or when I inadvertently come across one sneaking a smoke in a stairwell or a restroom.

I had been trying for years to break the habit and had managed to get down to just a few cigarettes a day, but quitting entirely was something I just couldn't do. I thoroughly understood the risks, dangers, annoyances, personal and social costs, effects of second-hand smoke, etc., etc., etc.  I knew all the reasons why quitting was a good idea and continuing was idiocy.  It didn't matter.

To punish myself for my lack of will power, I restricted my smoking at home to outside areas (during the winter this meant many cold hours in our unheated garage). I wouldn't smoke in our cars or in most public places. In my office I would sit huddled by a window blowing the smoke outside.  Long plane rides were agony, and the minute I got off I would sprint for the nearest smoking area.  Four hours seemed to be my comfort limit, as I recall. I tried to delay or avoid smoking at times it was most enjoyable, like after a meal or with a cup of coffee.  Nothing worked.  The thought of finishing my very last cigarette and having none available in case I changed my mind filled me with a very irrational sense of panic.

In those days there weren't the wide-spread smoking cessation programs there are now.  My physician was dutifully down on my habit but shrewdly realized that too much cajoling wouldn't work with me.  He knew of my efforts to cut down and he offered to help when I decided to quit entirely -- at that time a prescription was required for nicotine patches.

My turning point came one night when I woke up with pain in my chest.  Actually, not just pain, but PAIN -- like my heart was in a vice that someone was cranking tighter and tighter each time I took a breath.  And with this pain came a sense of fear close to terror -- something I thankfully haven't experienced as strongly again.  After the one and only ambulance ride of my life (well, so far) and a blur of activity in the Emergency Room, I wound up in the Intensive Care Unit overnight.  When my physician visited me the next day he gave me the wonderful news that I had not suffered a heart attack but rather a bout of something called acute pericarditis, which is an inflammation of the membrane surrounding the heart. The causes of this are not always clear, it happens most often to men between 20-50, and it often never occurs again.

Of course, I was waiting for the inevitable lecture about how smoking had led to this and was yet another reason to stop.  But my physician was honest and straight with me -- smoking was most likely not the cause, but of course it does contribute to the likelihood of heart attacks, something I really didn't want to experience if the pain was anything like the pericarditis attack.  Also, being in the ICU gave me the opportunity to achieve my 24-hour smokeless goal, because I had already gone 20 or so hours without a cigarette.  So I told my physician I wanted to try to quit smoking if he would help me.  He wrote me a prescription on the spot for a round of nicotine patches, and also for something which turned out to be critical -- an anti-panic drug.

I started with the biggest patch possible. I joke that I opted for the full wet-suit size. The patches helped numb the craving but it was the anti-panic pills that were key to continuing my effort to quit (I think it was called Xanax).  As I progressed to smaller patches the panic attacks grew less intense and less frequent.  But I learned that the patches couldn't provide the sudden "hit" of nicotine that was one of the things that made smoking so pleasurable to me, and the pills didn't deal with the craving for those.  These days there are substitutes that can provide a sudden increase in nicotine but they weren't available then.

After several months I made it to the nicotine-free level and though I had to continue the anti-panic pills occasionally, I didn't relapse into smoking and eventually I stopped them.

Before I quit smoking the public campaigns against the habit were relentless and often hyperbolic.  Smoking was the evil weed, responsible for everything from lung cancer to hangnails to global warming.  And life after smoking was touted as marvelous and just short of heaven itself.  Your sense of taste and smell would return from the dead, you would have fewer colds, better eyesight, and your hair would grow back. You would become a sexual athlete, your IQ would go up by 30 points, and you would succeed at business without really trying.  I think in retrospect that these over-the-top campaigns were probably responsible for as many relapses as they might have been for attempts to quit smoking because when the promised benefits didn't happen the residual cravings took over.

Indeed, I found that most of the promises were empty or misleading, at least at first. I believe it was my pre-existing skepticism of the claims that prevented my relapse when I found they weren't true or were exaggerated.  I did not immediately feel better.  I had just as many colds as before and they were just as severe.  My sense of taste didn't change, although I immediately gained weight because my appetite increased.  I did notice an increase in my sense of smell, but as one friend who had quit a few years before me joked, "The good news is you can smell better.  The bad news is that a lot of things smell really bad."  He was absolutely correct.  For example, I soon found a lot of men's colognes and women's perfumes to be really obnoxious -- scents that had been pleasantly muted before I quit smoking were now almost nauseatingly strong.

One thing that didn't smell bad to me was cigarette smoke. In fact I embraced it even though it occasionally re-kindled my desire.  Even to this day it doesn't smell that bad to me and I'm not one of those people who complain loudly if they get even a hint of someone's cigarette smoke.  Often these complainers are the very people whose cologne or perfume fills the air with a near-choking intensity-- they are habituated to it, otherwise it would probably completely mask the smell of tobacco smoke.  In general, I've tried to avoid becoming one of those holier-than-thou ex-smokers who show no compassion whatsoever for those who are still struggling with the habit. When I was smoking those crusaders had the opposite effect on me than they intended -- their stridency actually deepened my resolve to assert my own will, no matter how self-destructive that was.

Twenty years have passed and so far I've avoided the cancerous consequences of smoking, though the probability of lung cancer will never fall to what it would be had I never smoked.  Another sobering thought comes from the fact that I started smoking at a very young age (as an 8-10 year-old trying to emulate my two older siblings) and smoked more or less continuously for the next 40 years. Given my age when I quit, it is very unlikely I will live smoke-free for as many years as I smoked.

I'm very glad I quit, if for no other reason than recovering my self-esteem.  As an intellectual I knew full well that I was killing myself and harming others in the process, and that the logical, prudent thing was to quit.  But my habit was way beyond control by logic -- I was addicted and addiction required a different approach than simply reasoning with myself.  I'm very thankful for the pericarditis attack kick-starting that different approach.

People often ask if I still crave tobacco.  The answer is a sad one.  Yes. The craving isn't very strong and I have no intention of smoking again, but this shows just how thorough a grip something can have on you.

No matter how smart you think you are.

Fasten Your Seatbelts: Your Reward Miles Are In For A Bumpy Ride

I predict that airline reward "miles" will soon disappear, judging from a recent move by Delta.  In a stunning display of "it's a feature not a flaw," the company announced that starting in 2015 it will determine the number of reward "miles" on the basis of the ticket price, not the miles flown, and tried to tout this as an improvement for customers. As one Delta executive said in an interview with CBS news, the change was necessary because people paying top dollar for Business and First Class were having difficulty because so many seats were already taken by award travelers who had upgraded using their miles.  Imagine the gall of those riff-raft -- actually cashing in their award miles!  (Obviously my snide addition).  By changing to a revenue-based reward system, the company wished to recognize those travelers who contribute most to the bottom line.

Most industry analysts have determined that the new change effectively cuts the miles awarded for most travelers by 20-50%.  Despite what Delta says, this includes those who purchase more expensive tickets in Business Class because Delta is also dropping the bonus for this higher class of service. For instance, in a careful analysis by The Points Guy, the current award for an economy Delta ticket from Seattle to Boston is 4,992 miles versus 2,240 under the new system. For Business Class it is currently 7,448 miles (including the bonus) but will be 7,050 miles next year. The only time Business and First Class will actually benefit from the new system will be on very long haul flights, such as New York to London. Economy travelers, though will see dramatic cuts on these routes.

And there is still another shoe to drop -- Delta has held off announcing what the new requirements will be for obtaining award travel (i.e., cashing in your miles), which will likely be raised (again).  In other words, fewer miles awarded and more miles required to actually benefit from being in the Delta loyalty program. Hmmm.

Airlines have been moving in this direction for some time by issuing reward credit cards that allow people to earn miles for purchases that have nothing to do with travel.  The more you spend, the more miles you accrue, whether it is on buying milk or magazines.  Delta has now completely disconnected actual travel and reward miles -- the only thing that drives the reward process is money spent.  The more expensive the ticket the more you earn.  Period.  At this point it will be more accurate and honest to drop the "miles" and use a term like "points" or "units."  This seems to also be more in the spirit of what drives our economy -- spending, not saving.  Perhaps we should just give Delta credit for being honest:  you get what you pay for -- nothing is really free -- and the more you have the more you get.

In fact, I have to admit that if airlines had begun their rewards programs with this kind of structure I think I could have easily accepted it.  I use other programs that are based on this idea -- cash back credit cards, for example, and they seem perfectly reasonable to me.  I think what irks me here, though is the change from one kind of philosophy to another, and the motivation behind it.  It feels like a "bait-and-switch" -- I joined reward programs because I saw the value of the reward structure, but now the structure has been altered in a way that doesn't recognize my past loyalty and seems not to care much for my future loyalty, either. But then, I've never paid for a Business Class or First Class ticket and never will, and Delta is making it very clear that unless I do they aren't interested in rewarding me for using their airline.

The other irksome thing to me is that this kind of change comes when Delta is earning great profits and is hardly cutting corners in some areas.  For example, based on a $1 billion profit for 2012, Delta boosted CEO Richard Anderson's total compensation by 42%, to $12.6 million (about $ 3 million in cash, the rest in stock options and deferred retirement compensation).

I suspect he'll get a big bonus this year, too.  Perhaps we should give it to him in Reward Miles.
____________________________________
Some Relevant Resources and Related Blogs:
Delta to Frequent Flyers: Distance Mileage Is Over, Show Us the Money - Businessweek
Taking a Deeper Look at Delta’s New Mileage Earning Structure for 2015 and Beyond | The Points Guy

Delta Air Lines boosts CEO's pay package by 42%|USA Today| 

Top 10 Reasons Why I Dumped Delta | The Points Guy
Business Math + Banker's Math III:  Flying High (Snow Crash)
Flying the (Un)Friendly Skies (Snow Crash)

Bombs Away! America's Lethal Legacy in Laos

A huge 2,000 year-old stone jar was standing miraculously unbroken on the edge of a crater about 30 feet in diameter and 15-20 feet deep created by a bomb dropped by the U.S. on Laos during the Vietnam War. The jar is one of thousands clustered in several sites around the Plain of Jars in Laos, a place of archeological mystery, agricultural richness, and great strategic importance during the Vietnam War.  The jars were probably funerary urns but no one knows for sure because the people who made them left almost no other trace. 

Also unknown is how many jars were destroyed by the heavy American bombing campaign in this area, but fortunately enough survived to make a visit here very rewarding.

My wife and I had the good fortune to spend about three weeks traveling throughout Laos recently.  It is a beautiful country of only about 7 million people, many of whom live in mountainous rural farming areas. The country is rich in natural resources but sorely lacking in infrastructure, and it is clearly the least developed of its neighbors, Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam.

It is also the most heavily bombed country in history.

Bombing Sites in Laos.  Peter Larson

From 1964 through 1973 the U.S. dropped approximately 2.5 million tons of ordnance on Laos, about 1,700 pounds for each man, woman, and child. Although the primary military target was the area in eastern Laos where supplies from North Vietnam traveled south along the Ho Chi Minh Trail, nearly all parts of the country were bombed during more than 580,000 bombing missions carried out by the U.S.  According to analyses by epidemiologist Peter Larson the tonnage dropped in some regions reached 5 tons per person.

The full scale of the U.S. bombing operations was kept secret from the American people for many years, but is now well documented by recently declassified military records, U.N reports, Congressional Hearings, and evidence provided by NGO organizations working in Laos to remove unexploded bombs, such as the well-regarded international Mines Advisory Group (MAG) and the U.S. Legacies of War educational and advocacy organization.

Over 280 million bombs were dropped on Laos by the U.S. Many of these were anti-personnel and anti-tank weapons called cluster bombs which open before reaching the ground and release dozens of smaller grapefruit-sized devices informally called "bombies" by the Laotians. Unfortunately an estimated 30 percent of the bombies, or about 80 million, failed to explode upon initial impact and now pose a serious risk to those who disturb them. During the war years the bombing campaign and other military actions killed around 30,000 Laotians.  Since then another 20,000 have been killed or injured from encounters with UXO, or unexploded ordnance.  In the last decade 40% of the casualties have been children.  According to the Mines Advisory Group, approximately 25 per cent of the country's villages are contaminated with UXO, and contamination is found in all 17 of the country's provinces. Finding and removing 80 million unexploded bombs would be a challenge even for the richest and most technically sophisticated country.  Laos is certainly neither rich nor technically sophisticated and UXO continues to be a significant deterrent to its development and a serious threat to the safety and well-being of its citizens.


Many of the casualties from UXO occur when farmers attempt to cultivate land that has not been thoroughly cleared.  Despite the risk, economic desperation makes large numbers of poor rural farmers ignore the dangers. Another even more widespread problem is that villagers can earn a lot of money from UXO scrap metal, leading them to collect UXO even though it has not been properly defused.  Not all the scrap metal is sold, however. As we traveled through Laotian farming areas we saw the bomb casings that once held the bombies being used for barn supports, water troughs, flower pots, and even supports for t.v. antennae. Seeing remnants of U.S. weapons used in these ways was a poignant moment for us as Americans.

During Congressional hearings on the UXO problem held in 2010, Deputy Assistant Secretary Scot Marciel of the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs offered a positive-sounding account of the U.S. role in helping Laos cope with the UXO problem:

"To address the explosive remnants of war problem in Laos, the Department of State supports a variety of humanitarian demining and unexploded ordnance clearance projects, with funding from the Non-proliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining and Related programs (NADR) appropriation account. One of the top goals of the program is to clear all high priority areas (specifically agricultural land, health and education facilities); another is to develop indigenous mine and UXO abatement capacity. These projects are selected and managed by the Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement in the Bureau of Political Military Affairs, in close coordination with the Bureau of East Asia and Pacific Affairs and our Embassy in Vientiane. Although the bulk of U.S. NADR funds for Laos goes to UXO Lao — the Government of Laos’ quasi-independent government agency charged with conducting clearance operations — we also fund NGOs that conduct independent clearance operations and run school-based campaigns to educate children about the dangers of tampering with UXO. Our funding supports work performed by Lao national entities (primarily UXO Lao) as well as by international NGOs such as the Mine Advisory Group, Norwegian People’s AID, the Swiss Demining Foundation, and the World Education Consortium. We view our programs in Laos as very successful overall, and one in which the national authorities have established a credible and effective UXO action system."

 And the monetary support for these programs?  Read carefully:

"The U.S. is the single largest donor to the UXO sector in Laos. Other major donors include Japan, the European Commission, Ireland, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Germany, and Australia. From 1993 through 2009, U.S. assistance has totaled more than $25 million...In FY 2009, our total assistance for Laos UXO projects was $3.7 million. In FY 2010 we will provide $5 million on UXO funding for Laos."

Whoa! In this day of a billion here and a billion there, the U.S has provided a total of just $25 million over a 16-year period .  And though we provided the most of any other donor, this still suggests that the overall international support for mitigating the Laos UXO problem is rather small given the scope of what needs to be done.

I will avoid getting into the geopolitics of the Vietnam War and whether it was justified.  I'll also dodge the question of whether hiding the scale of military operations in Laos from the American public was justified or not.  But I suggest that no matter which side of those arguments you are on, surely we can agree that America has left a dangerous legacy in Laos that is still killing and injuring innocent people 40 years later.  If we really are the compassionate and well-meaning country we believe ourselves to be, then maybe we can do more to contribute something positive to the lives of the Laotian people. As we traveled through Laos were were treated warmly even when people discovered we were Americans. The most negative reaction was usually one of puzzlement over why the U.S. had done what it did and why it doesn't seem to recognize the extent of its legacy today.  Why, indeed?
__________________________________
Some Additional Source Material:
Scot Marciel's Congressional Testimony, 2010.
2010 Congressional Hearings on UXO in Laos
Entire Congressional Record Account of Congressional Hearings on Laos, including written follow-up material requested by Committee members.
Analyses of U.S. Bombing Missions by Peter Larson
Mines Advisory Group in Laos Website
Legacies of War Website
"Forty years on, Laos reaps bitter harvest of the secret war."  2008 article in The Guardian summarizing UXO problem
"Laos' Unexploded Bombs: Deadly Scrap Metal, Toys." Transcript of 2010 NPR segment on UXO scrap metal dangers.

Geezer Olympics: Competitive Complaining

[Note: Yes, this is yet another blog in my Geezerhood series. I usually advise younger readers to go amuse themselves in some other way, but in this case they might find the topic pertinent.]

My blog on "Geezerhood Can Suck" got a lot of responses, including one from a long-time friend who expressed sympathy but then said he was refraining from commenting further in order to avoid "competitive complaining."  Thanks, D.P. for stimulating this little essay.

Well, my warped sense of humor was immediately tickled by the phrase "competitive complaining."  I then did what any red-blooded fading intellectual would do.  I Googled it.

Yup, there at the top of the results were links to two pages with that exact phrase.  Both of them were blogs by university students -- one at Tufts and the other at Carnegie Mellon.  The one by the Tufts blogger illustrated the phenomenon particularly well with a made-up conversation between several students approaching exam week (Student D obviously wins):

Student A: “This weekend is going to be absolute hell. I have an econ problem set and two papers to write.”
Student B: "Ugh, I know. I have three research papers and it’s gonna take hours to finish all the programming I have to do.”
Student C: “Whatever, at least your thesis isn’t due in like, three days.”
Student D: ”Oh yeah? Well four of my professors decided to schedule their finals five days in advance. Plus I have eight theses underway, I have to translate three Chinese novels into Swahili, and I’m performing in the Mongolian Culture Show for peace in the Middle East...."

This is clearly a negative version of conversational one-upsmanship where each participant tries to outdo the others in a strategy of "bet-you-can't-top-this!"  It's also an illustration of the social psychological phenomenon of Impression Management in which we attempt to control the attributions others make of us.  Note that in the example above, the students have prepared others (and maybe themselves) to attribute their potentially poor academic performance to external circumstances rather than to low ability, bad time management, or perhaps to a lack of willpower when it comes to beer and partying. Of course this only works if the obstacles listed are plausible and not under control of the student giving them.  Student D's litany of difficulties walks a fine line between the two but does so magnificently.  Note that D has covered his/her bases very well -- a bad performance can be explained away as not the student's fault, and a good performance will suggest superior capabilities because it was achieved in the face of tremendous challenges.

As I read these two blogs by the university students I began to realize that competitive complaining is hardly the sole provenance of young people --  it also characterizes a lot of the conversations I have with other Geezers.  In fact, I'd say Geezers can complain rings around these young whippersnappers and would easily win in any competitive complaining contest. The young'ns are mere novices in this sport and getting to our Olympic level of performance will require lots more training -- years' worth, I'd say.  We Geezers have also perfected a number of specialized forms of competitive complaining, like "Prescription-Pill-Problem Parrying," "Frugality Fencing," "Travel-Woe Takedown," and the ever-popular "Politician Pummeling."

There are at least three reasons for our superior complaining ability.  First we have been doing it for a long, long time. And as they say, "practice makes perfect."  Second, we have way more serious things to complain about, like diseases, surgeries, and how inconsiderate our adult children are.

Third, we have personal historical perspectives on a very broad range of topics that give us a rich repertoire of complaints.  For example, a twenty-something complaining to a Geezer about the current state of the economy or the level of violent conflict in the world today will be buried by the Geezer's recollection of past personal experiences of depressions, recessions, and wars -- no contest at all.  And of course the coup de gras is the Geezer's comparison of each contestant's future time-line, a technique guaranteed to elicit sympathy and a concession of defeat:  "Ah, well you're young and have plenty of time to see things turn around and get your life in order.  Me?  Well..., you know how it is.  I doubt I'll live long enough to see things get much better...."  Top that, whippersnapper!

I've also been in conversations where competitive complaining has made attributions for a Geezer's positive performance even more positive, though these are less common.  Imagine the following exchange among Geezers at the gym:

A:  "Hey Guys, how's it going?  Haven't seen you for a long time. I pulled a leg muscle and haven't been working out much lately."
Geezer B:  "Oh, well I've been forcing myself to come even though I'm recuperating from my knee replacements.  Gotta do all that painful physical therapy, you know?"
Geezer C:  "Oh, boy do I.  I had both knees done, three toes amputated, a pin put in my ankle, and a hip replaced last summer.  Really slowed me down in the Fall when the wife and I scaled Kilimanjaro, hiked the Inca Trail, and trekked to Everest base camp." 

Geezers A and B have not only lost the competitive complaining contest, they are probably thinking Geezer C is some kind of Superman, which of course is C's ego-boosting payoff.  (Indeed, if he really did those things, I'd say he is.)

Don't get me wrong.  I acknowledge that Geezers have legitimate complaints about a range of difficulties that face them, particularly those involving health and finances.  But I think that competitive complaining in a group conversation may be serving functions for Geezers that are similar to those for the young university students approaching exam week described above.  By focusing on obstacles and issues that are not under our control, we Geezers prepare others to attribute our limitations and degraded performance to those factors, rather than to our lack of effort, unhealthy diet or slovenly habits.  For Geezers, competitive complaining establishes a public basis for pardoning our failure to take responsibility for doing what we can, despite the challenges of aging. Although this may be effective in managing the impression others have of us, it can be also be very dysfunctional to the extent we come to believe our own excuses -- see my blog on The Power of Negative Thinking. The irony of competitive complaining is that it may be self-fulfilling -- we may unwittingly worsen the problems about which we are complaining.

And of course the irony of this blog is that I'm complaining about competitive complaining.  Hmmm.  I may have just invented a new form of the game: "Meta-Competitive Complaining," or competitive complaining about competitive complaining.  Top that!!
___________________________________________________
The Geezerhood Series so far:

Geezerhood Can Suck
Embracing Your Inner Geezer
How to Compress Your Morbidity
The Power of Negative Thinking
Thoughts for a New Year
So, What Do You Do All Day?
Jogging the Memory of a Geezer
Decision Making In Geezerhood
Don't Go To Your 50th High School Reunion!
Taste Buds Are Wasted On The Young!

A "Pele" Merry Christmas

Pele (pronounced "Peh - Ley," almost rhymes with "Merry" if you're British) is the Hawaiian goddess of fire, believed to be currently residing in Kilauea Volcano, about 95 miles from where I live.  I'm not sure what she thinks about the celebration of Christmas, but I bet she likes New Year's -- all those great fireworks!

The Holiday Season in Hawai'i is ..... well, different.  

First, there's the weather. Certainly there are a few places in the mainland U.S. where it is warm at this time of year, and some even have palm trees, like Florida and southern California. But in Hawai'i  the warmth is most often accompanied by "makani olu'olu"  -- pleasant, caressing breezes.  Also, few other places have comfortable temperatures day and night.  Even at this time of year we eat dinner outside on our lanai, where we can see the Christmas lights of our neighbors and look back inside to our own Christmas tree glowing brightly.

But more noteworthy is how Christmas has been adapted to express the local culture and traditions.  For instance,  people frequently decorate their open convertibles with bows, candy canes or wreaths on the front grill or hood, and our annual evening Christmas parade along the waterfront features hula dancers and Santa with a floral lei around his neck. Speaking of Santa, he often arrives here in an outrigger canoe or even on a surfboard wearing board-shorts. The Salvation Army bell ringer at our local Walmart has traded the bell for an ukelele, which she strums as she sings Christmas Carols and hymns. Holiday parties are almost always outdoor affairs, featuring "pupus," appetizers that usually are enough to feed an army and can always be a substitute for a full meal.

Some of the season's traditions are followed even though they are a bit out of place here, and for me it adds to the charm of Christmas in Hawai'i.  For instance, our climate makes it very difficult to grow spruce and pine trees.  Even so, many people are keen on using them to decorate their homes and so boatloads of trees are shipped each year in refrigerated containers from tree farms in the Pacific Northwest. The big-box stores are the best places to obtain these, and people watch closely for the containers to arrive because the best trees sell quickly.  And unlike on the mainland, a new shipment may not arrive very soon, if at all.  (Actually, living in a place where nearly everything is brought in involves being quick to take advantage of the availability of things -- if you don't you'll very likely lose out).  The trees actually last pretty well, probably thinking it is a nice warm spring after a short but chilly winter.

Just like people living on the mainland, Hawaiian residents enjoy decorating the outside of their homes, though too many lights can make the season rather expensive -- we have just about the highest electric rates in the nation.  Still, you see many houses with the usual glowing icicles hanging from roofs, and reindeer, snowmen, and traditionally-dressed Santas in people's yards.  Perhaps we appreciate these all the more because we know the expense of lighting them.  Of course, icicles, reindeer and snowmen do not really exist here and it can seem odd to see them side by side with orchids, hibiscus, and bougainvillea.  Oh, actually I'm wrong about snowmen.  Occasionally during this time of year snow does fall on 13,000-foot Mauna Kea and ambitious residents will drive to the summit, fill their pickups with a load then rush down to their homes or to the beach and build a snowman.  Of  course it lasts maybe two hours, max.


New Year's Eve celebrations feature a LOT of fireworks, both the big institutional displays like on the mainland (here provided by the fancy resorts), and also more private shows set off in front of people's houses.  The weather encourages this outdoor activity, of course, but also it is probably an expression of our large Asian culture that embraces fireworks in a big, big way. A week or so before New Year's fireworks are on sale in supermarkets, drug stores, and of course the big box stores like Costco, where they have prepackaged assortments that range from small to humongous.  My wife only lets me indulge in one of the smaller assortments.  Fireworks have become much more tightly regulated in the last 10 years or so in an attempt to cut down on fires and injuries, but New Year's celebrations here still more closely resemble July 4th on the mainland.

One final noteworthy aspect of the Holidays here has to do with the spirit of the season -- the feeling of warmth toward others, generosity, compassion and joy at being with loved ones.  This of course is the spirit emphasized by seasonal music, greeting cards, media specials, etc.  But here it is called the Spirit of Aloha and one of the best parts about living in Hawai'i is that it lasts all year......

Mele Kalikimaka (Merry Christmas) and Hou'oli Makahiki Hou (Happy New Year)!

Geezerhood Can Suck

[Note:  This is another blog in my Geezerhood series.  Younger readers or those still in denial might just bookmark this for future reading and go do something more fun, like doing a SnapChat or Tweeting something. Also, please be advised that the content below might be regarded as "TMI" or "over-sharing"].

I've written several times about my journey through Geezerhood, often putting the emphasis on the positive aspects of getting older (see list of blogs below).  In the spirit of being "Fair and Balanced" (choke) it may be time to talk about some of the more sucky parts of Geezerhood I've encountered recently.

I realize that my recent conditions pale in comparison to those of other people out there and I sincerely apologize for making my difficulties seem so bad.  But my problems are severe enough to make me much more sympathetic for the plight of those who are worse off and to make me admire them for their ability to face their situation and continue their lives with grace and good humor.

Up to this point I've been fairly healthy -- maybe three overnight hospital stays in my entire lifetime, no significant surgeries, ZERO prescription meds on a daily continuing basis.  Not to say there are no issues at all -- family history of glaucoma so I've been monitoring my status often, pre-hypertensive (I take my pressure at home regularly), medium high cholesterol buffered by very high HDL (the good kind of cholesterol), a few pre-cancerous lesions on my forehead, treated and monitored regularly, and of course a slightly enlarged prostate, common in men of my age but being monitored.  Oh, and an irritating susceptibility to bruising on my arms and hands attributed by my dermatologist to years of unprotected sun exposure.  She also blaims the sun for those "age spots" on my hands -- embarrassing reminders of my passage into Geezerhood, but not life-threatening. All in all, not too bad for a 69-year-old.

Then, about a month ago, I began to disintegrate.

In very short order my blood pressure went up by 10 points, I had a retinal hemorrhage in my right eye, and not long after that I had a dandy case of shingles, an affliction that has led me to reset my "worst pain you've ever experienced" index.  I went from zero prescription meds to three, all of which have potential side effects and interactions, and from visits to doctors maybe once or twice per year to once or twice a week. 

One of the most disturbing things about all this is that the appearance of the problems was so unexpected and unpredicted.  For example, the glaucoma risk had nothing to do with the retinal hemorrhage, though the spike in blood pressure might.  Of course the rise in pressure is a puzzle that so far none of my platoon of medical experts can explain.  Shingles can occur in anyone who has had chickenpox, and though the risk increases with age, it can strike young whipersnappers as well.  By age 80, 50% of the population will get shingles. Having the shot (which I did) only cuts your chances by about 40-50%, though in my case it lulled me into complacency and a false sense of invulnerability. The trigger is uncertain, though some research suggests high stress (which I don't have) or a compromised immune system (which I don't have) may be causes.

Another disturbing aspect is the feeling that I've been sucked into a giant medical-industrial complex that seems designed not to let me go.  I've seen a half-dozen doctors, all of whom make me fill out the same forms over again, then perform the same tests the others have performed shortly before, apparently not trusting their colleagues or not liking the exact way the tests were performed.  They then have prescribed medications that have possible side effects that have a good chance of limiting my fairly active life-style, leading to other kinds of problems. And of course they all want me to come back in the near future to do the same tests over again.

The drug side effects are potentially very problematic and it is troubling to me that my doctors, while aware of the effects, are so focused on treating my symptoms that they don't fully appreciate the impact on my quality of life, i.e. , their impact on me as a person.  Here are a few of the possible side-effects from the drugs they have selected for me:

• Drug A (Eye Drops): Eye discomfort/itching/redness, blurred vision, dizziness, dry mouth, drowsiness, or tiredness (my emphasis).
• Drug B (Blood Pressure):  Dizziness or lightheadedness may occur ...
• Drug C (Shingles pain):  Drowsiness, dizziness, loss of coordination, tiredness, blurred/double vision, unusual eye movements, or shaking (tremor) may occur.

Note, these are possible side effects, not things that invariably occur.  Each drug's highlighted side effects has a fairly small (but known) probability of effecting any one person.  But when all three drugs are being taken at the same time, the probability that at least one of them will produce the side effects is much greater.  And guess what -- I feel tired, dizzy and clumsy. Of course which drug(s) is (are) causing these problems isn't clear because I started taking all three at the same time. Oh, and I checked online and found that these three drugs have the least severe side effects of those available for my conditions.

So the good news is that I'm receiving treatment for my retinal hemorrhage, my Shingles pain, and my blood pressure.  The bad news is that my fairly active lifestyle (hiking, working out in our pool, aerobic exercise of various types), is possibly extinct.  For the potential negative consequences of this, see my blog How to Compress Your Morbidity.

All in all I've been pretty bummed out by the whole thing.  The physical problems are themselves rather hard to deal with, but so is the treatment.  And I feel somehow cheated that my attention to diet, exercise, and precautionary actions wasn't enough to avoid these problems. I was being such a good boy, why did this happen to me?!!  The unsettling answer is, of course, "who the h*** knows?"

After lots of careful analysis, research, and intellectually rigorous consideration of the various probabilities and alternative scenarios I've come to a conclusion. My advice to myself is "GET A GRIP!"

Ok, I've got some problems that pose challenges -- this is part of living. And dying. There will be more challenges ahead, no doubt, and they may occur just as unexpectedly.  Geezerhood will end someday no matter what I do.  But I can control my mental state as it approaches, or if my mind deteriorates to the point where that isn't possible, I can still control it until my sense of self dissolves. I can choose a positive or negative path through Geezerhood.

It's up to me.
_______________________________________
Related Blogs on Geezerhood:

Embracing Your Inner Geezer
How to Compress Your Morbidity
The Power of Negative Thinking
Thoughts for a New Year
So, What Do You Do All Day?
Jogging the Memory of a Geezer
Decision Making In Geezerhood
Don't Go To Your 50th High School Reunion!
Taste Buds Are Wasted On The Young!