There’s been a lot of doom and gloom in the news lately. The first was an article last week on the Energy Watch Group’s latest report, which states that global oil production peaked in 2006. It’s only one study, and there have been no additional follow-up reports in the news lately from other groups. Still, given the Hubbert Curve, it’s probably safe to say that we’re either at the peak, past the peak, or looking straight at ahead at the peak. Personally, I think we’ve passed the peak, but we’re still at the top of the plateau– the free fall that will happen isn’t quite here yet, though I would say it probably isn’t all that far off. If you ever wanted to do an “affordable” road trip, now’s the time.

This doesn’t mean we’re going to run out of oil tomorrow– far from it. It does mean that the end of cheap oil is definitely here, and given the talk about $100-a-barrel oil lately, it’s my guess it certainly won’t be too long before the Corporate Media breathlessly opines about prices such as $125, $150, and upwards. The musings about the magic $100 mark have been around for a while, as you can see in this Forbes article from 2004. But the unease has increased now that it’s finally within sight. It certainly doesn’t help that the remaining oil we know of or that can still be easily extracted is in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, and Venezuela, to name a few. Our gummint is tight with the Saudis, but trying to pick a war with Iran, bogged down in Iraq, not about to interfere in Sudan (where the tragedy that is Darfur continues unabated), and ostensibly enemies with Venezuela. There’s oil still in places like the Gulf of Mexico, Canada, and other seemingly benign locales, but not as much as in the more volatile regions worldwide. That does complicate things, doesn’t it?

Speaking of the Gulf, Mexico itself has been a reliable importer of oil to the U.S. Last year, there was an announcement of a supposedly huge find– an underwater field that could potentially be huge. However, just a couple months later was this article, stating that Mexico’s glory days as an oil giant are coming to an end. Not only that, the decline will definitely impact U.S. - Mexico relations in more ways than just petroleum:

Oil income accounts for more than 40 percent of the Mexican federal government’s annual revenues, so the decline of oil output could leave the country’s next president with a nightmarish budget crisis.

How much you wanna bet that fence or no fence (and walls historically don’t work all that well: see the Berlin Wall, Hadrian’s Wall, and China’s Great Wall, among others…), we’ll see an upsurge in impoverished migrants seeking better opportunities elsewhere?

What’s interesting is that for all the talk about “We’ve got plenty of oil! There’s oil shales all over! Colorado has tons of oil in the rocks!”, you don’t see a lot of serious musing about taking that path. In this article discussing the cost of oil, oilman T. Boone Pickens isn’t betting his fortune on oil shale extraction– he’s putting his money and his mouth on wind power. He and others with half a brain know that the cost of extraction isn’t going to be worth it in the long run, and that any smart energy company needs to start investigating and cornering the market on alternative energy sources. There’s also the fact that oil shale extraction is fairly similar to open-pit mining, and has many of the same environmental risks (not the least of which is groundwater pollution). In an era where global warming is the watchword and a resurging environmental movement is afoot, I foresee some companies trying oil shale extraction, but the majority looking elsewhere.

It’s not just oil that’s going to be a problem. As many of you know, it’s been rather dry out West. This isn’t something new; the Western U.S. has historically been drier than the eastern half of the nation. But now in places like Georgia, we’re seeing water woes. Just this past week, most major news outlets carried the story about impending water shortages. I’ve linked to the San Francisco Chronicle out of habit (and also due to the fact that they don’t tend to toss their stories into protected archives as fast as other papers do), but the story is essentially the same:

The government projects that at least 36 states will face water shortages within five years because of a combination of rising temperatures, drought, population growth, urban sprawl, waste and excess.

A lot of people have pointed to global warming as the culprit. It is, but just to a degree. The above sentence actually has more of the complete story: population growth, urban sprawl, waste and excess.

Both oil and water are finite resources. Water’s a bit less finite, thanks to the natural cycle (water evaporates, condenses, precipitates, and collects, as most of us learned in grade school. Here’s a pretty simple diagram), but in the end, the water is essentially the same– it just gets “recycled” (unlike oil). Because they’re finite, that means there’s only so much to go around.

So what’s the point, you say? The point is the real culprit here isn’t “global warming”– “global warming” is a consequence. The real problem is overpopulation. It’s something that Al Gore touched on in “An Inconvenient Truth,” but didn’t go into much detail on. I wish he had, because the central issue we’re all going to need to face is the fact that the planet only has so much carrying capacity. Malthus, among others, has discussed this over the years. A managed population could probably have stretched out the petroleum a lot longer than it’s lasted so far. A managed population could probably exist just fine on the amount of water we have. But the exploding population worldwide means more and more people are going to want the same finite resources (and water and oil are just the tip of the iceberg, really).

It doesn’t help when nations like China and India have over 1 billion people each. It doesn’t help when religions like Catholicism and Mormonism exhort their followers to keep pushing out kids by the dozens. It doesn’t help when gummints like ours refuse to responsibly confront topics such as sexuality, contraception, and population control.

It also certainly doesn’t help when states, cities, and counties do a piss-poor job of planning, zoning, and smart growth. At some point we’re all going to need to have a serious talk about all this. We can’t keep building McMansions without responsible planning for infrastructure. We can’t keep allowing highways to be built without addressing mass transit and the future of transportation. We can’t keep draining rivers and lakes and expect that everyone will be able to turn on the tap and get what they want without any problems. We can’t keep allowing suburbs to sprout up where there once was arable land. At some point, the bill comes due. It’s looks increasingly like that bill is going to come due a lot sooner than any of us expect. The earth is home to all of us, and it’s a five-bedroom, four bath home with 100 people in it.

We can discuss global warming til we’re blue in the face. We can wring our hands about the melting polar ice caps. We can mourn the snows of Kilimanjaro all we want. But until we’re willing to have a serious, adult conversation at all levels (and yes, this means you, Mr. Bush) about the whole picture, nothing’s going to change. I believe global warming is real, and that it’s happening. But it’s happening in part because there’s too many people on this planet– we’ve pushed the boundaries of forests and savannah to the brink, we’ve siphoned billions of gallons from ultimately finite rivers, we’ve gobbled up topsoil worldwide. The word “hubris” comes to mind.

I’m not sure what the ultimate solution is, or should be. If you’ve made it this far, feel free to start the discussion that I think we need to have– start it right here. It’s as good a place as any.

California is one of the largest states geographically. It’s also the most populous state in the country. So while California has lots of acreage, it also means there’s tons of people living here. As a native Californian, I’ve lived in/traveled to three cities/metro areas in the state: Sacramento, San Francisco, and of course, Los Angeles. I’ve also lived elsewhere, including the Washington, D.C. area, and I’ve seen how these places have changed over time. Unfortunately, I’ve also seen the effects of unchecked growth and rampant sprawl in these urban areas, and it troubles me.

This past Sunday, in the San Francisco Chronicle, an article written by developer Joseph Perkins (a piece which probably should have been clearly marked and stuck in the Op-Ed section) discusses the need for the Bay Area “to rethink rules on land use” and zoning.

Perkins begins with an authoritative tone, and figures and facts intended to lead the reader into thinking that there is an alarming problem:

The Association of Bay Area Governments projects that the nine-county Bay Area region will add nearly 1.5 million residents by 2030.

Yes, it’s true that the population will continue to grow in the San Francisco Bay Area, just as it will here in the Los Angeles metro area, the DC metro area, California’s Central Valley, and in countless urban and metropolitan areas nationwide.

Perkins then posits the question that he will address in the remainder of his piece:

How and where is the Bay Area going to house its additional 1.5 million residents?

This is a good question, and is a question all of us are going to have to consider, regardless of where we live. So far, so good. But Perkins points to a major part of the problem– he feels that anti-housing activists have obstructed growth, and prevented solutions from coming to the fore. As Perkins puts it,

Yet the no-growth, anti-housing environmental alliance continues … arguing that the Bay Area is “built out,” … that Bay Area home builders have paved paradise and put up a subdivision.

This is where Perkins and I begin to disagree. While I agree that “no growth” is an impossible ideal, I do think quite a few areas around the country are “built” out, and that home builders definitely have paved paradise. To be fair, a newspaper article or Op-Ed piece is a very limited place to explore what is a far more complex issue. But it’s also a lot less simplistic than Perkins would like to pretend it is.

Let’s look at the history and geography for a few moments. Historically, people built their towns and villages near resources. These needs included sources of potable water, easy trade routes (whether by land or water), and arable land and pastures. There also needed to be materials for building homes and businesses, whether the construction was done with wood, stone, or other durable components.

As these hamlets grew into towns, and the towns grew into small cities, more and more natural resources were needed; increased amounts of water, more acres of farmland and pastures, more wood and other building materials, and additional staples.

Over time, many natural resources waxed and waned, but as the population grew, these raw materials slowly became more finite. Since the dawn of the Industrial Age over 200 years ago, the consumption rate has skyrocketed along with the population: a planet that held roughly 1 million people in 1800, and was not yet fully “explored” (take a look at the maps back then– Africa’s borders were detailed, but the center was still not filled in– California was, until the near the end of the Spanish Empire, considered an island.) has now expanded to a world that holds over 6 billion people. China and India alone account for one-third of that total (it’s estimated that China alone accounts for about 20% of the world’s current population).

When you consider that the amount of arable land on the planet was limited to begin with, the shrinking acreage should be a concern for all of us. Deforestation has been a huge problem over the centuries; Spain is an interesting example. While the Iberian peninsula was never a lush green paradise to begin with, it was heavily deforested over the centuries, especially during the Roman era and the period afterwards. Today, Spain contains the only real “desert” in Europe; the semi-desert region of Tabernas, in Almeria (this is where Sergio Leone’s spaghetti westerns were filmed). While this region didn’t develop due to deforestation, large swaths of Spain are arid, sparsely forested acres.

This isn’t a problem just in Spain; portions of Russia are starting to suffer from deforestation and desertification as well. It’s happening elsewhere too– as the Amazon Basin is rapidly clear-cut, the poor soil is overworked by farmers and ranchers, and then abandoned. While nature will eventually reclaim her own, it will take many generations before the land returns to a shadow of what it once was.

Here in the United States, the virgin forest that once covered the eastern third of the nation has been gone for ages now. Urban regions have grown where there once was farmland. Perkins neglects to mention this in his piece. In the San Francisco Bay Area alone, the orchards and fields of the Santa Clara Valley are today the office complexes, warehouses, parking lots, factories, and McMansions of Silicon Valley. The rivers and marshes have been drained and built over (with potentially disastrous consequences during earthquakes– such areas are far too unstable and have led to enormous damages– witness San Francisco’s Marina district, for example). The fields, groves, and orchards of communities like Dublin, Walnut Creek, and Livermore exist no more; in their place are massive subdivisions.

The same is true here in Los Angeles. During the 1920s, the San Fernando Valley had ranches, citrus and olive groves, and dairy farms. The orange groves and strawberry fields in Orange County were plentiful as late as the 1950s. But gradually over the decades, as the metropolis expanded, annexing numerous communities along the way, these agricultural and rural areas vanished. Today there are still patches and plots here and there, but they are largely ghostly remnants of a past that cannot return. “Paving paradise” doesn’t necessarily have to be about destroying parks and green hills; it can also be about destroying arable land– land that contains topsoil that can never be regained.

This is part of the problem that the San Francisco Bay Area faces, along with other such regions nationwide. Water is another part of the equation. There’s only so much water, and there hasn’t been “new” water since the Earth formed. When you add in measures such as flood control, you end up with problems such as soil erosion, the risks of living in historical flood plains, and the loss of nutrients that flooding can bring to the soil (ancient Egypt flourished thanks to the annual flooding of the Nile, and so did the regions along the Ganges, the Tigris and Euprhates, and China’s Yellow River). Areas that are overdeveloped beyond their carrying capacity (such as Las Vegas and practically all of Arizona) will face severe problems as the amount of potable water becomes scarce.

We are all going to have to explore alternative solutions. Desalination, relaxation of flood control, recycling treated wastewater are possible solutions for our water woes. Building more apartments, developing cities with grid patterns again, constructing and encouraging mass transit, and building smaller and taller homes are ideas we should be exploring to reduce sprawl and maximize land use.

But I digress (slightly!)… Back to Perkins. He reveals a “secret”: “Only 16 percent of the region’s land area has been developed.”

Yep, and the remainder are places like Golden Gate Park, the Marin headlands, the Coast Ranges, and other places of beauty, natural reserves, and often, impractical places to build (see yesterday’s post on the foolhardiness of building in areas such as canyons, ridgetops, and other fun places prone to wildfires, mudslides, and earthquakes– the Oakland Hills are a perfect example). Not practical, not realistic, and not going to happen, Mr. Perkins.

But again, we reach a point where I sort of agree with Perkins. He notes that environmental groups

…suggest that most of 1.5 million additional residents expected in the Bay Area over the next quarter century can be accommodated by smaller-scale, infill housing development.

No, that can’t happen either. This is a problem everywhere. Everyone thinks of solutions and lot of people jump and say, “Infill!” The problem with infill is that the infrastructure is already present, and often operating at capacity. Sure, you can build a bunch of apartments (or more likely, overpriced condos) on a parcel of land in an already developed area, but you can’t widen the streets or add roads. You likely already have a limited amount of water for that area, and an electrical grid that is most likely already operating above and beyond its specifications. Infill is a lovely idea, but it’s also a potential recipe for disaster. It also removes potential parks, gardens, and other public areas from the table– spaces that can add to the regional quality of life.

Perkins closes his article by stating that the environmentalists’ desire to “add an additional 1 million acres of land to the inventory of permanent space over the next three decades,” a decision that will “damp[en] housing production in this region… further escalating Bay Area home prices, and … making the dream of home ownership that much more unattainable for the next generation of Bay Area residents.”

Just as I don’t buy infill as a solution, I also don’t buy this argument. Sure, the Bay Area, among many other places, has exorbitant housing prices. But the outlying regions are being overrun with new houses that are also over-appreciating rapidly as well. Developments that started in the “low 200,000’s” several years back ramped up to values nearly twice as much just a handful of years later. Regardless of where you live in California (and in many other places: the Boston-New York-Washington megalopolis, the L.A. area, or any number of other highly desirable urban areas nationwide), the number of people that can realistically afford to buy a house has dropped sharply over the years.

Now that the bottom is falling out of the housing market, quite a few homes are now languishing on the market. Building new houses on additional acreage is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It would be far wiser to first let the market correct itself, and re-fill these homes at prices that are far more sane. That of course is another problem, one that Perkins touches on briefly (but fails to go into too much depth about): overpricing and a free-for-all sponsored by banks and lenders. Greed has spiraled, leading landlords to push for condo conversions, and developers to push for more McMansions and cookie-cutter developments in suburban tracts. Greed has spiraled, leading lenders to push ridiculous mortgage loans into the hands of people who financially were better off not buying at all. Now the foreclosures and defaults occurring are depressing the market, which in turn is depressing the economy. Greed has spiraled, allowing investors and so-called flippers to overreach; these folks are now suffering the backlash. We haven’t seen the end yet; excess inventory in some markets (witness the glut of condos in Florida) means developers are going to be stuck with quite a few empty houses and condos for some time yet.

I could continue; there’s a lot to say on this subject. But I’m going to wrap things up by stating that I think things aren’t black and white, and they can’t be. I’m as much an environmentalist as any of the environmentalists out there. But I’m also a wee bit more realistic than some. Until the world can get a grip on its population woes, there’s going to have to be some creativity on the part of all interested parties. That means those of us that want to preserve the land are going to have to give a little and get a little. “No growth” is not a realistic goal. “Slow” or “controlled” growth is far more realistic and pragmatic.

Developers will have to give as well. There can’t be rampant over-development of huge parcels of land, and there certainly can’t be more cul-de-sacs and other hallmarks of suburbia. In a 21st century world, we need to move beyond the fantasy of 20th-century life, and declare suburbia dead. There needs to be a stronger balance between the environmental and physical needs of the population, and that means developers need to actually plan, not just throw up a bunch of houses made out of ticky-tacky. This means working with cities and regions on a large-scale smart growth plan.

Cities and local governments are also going to have to stop the political infighting, the bickering, the jostling over revenues, taxes, and other “benefits” of development. The hard choices surrounding development that developers and officials face revolve around infrastructure. Going back to the Bay Area as an example, when BART was first proposed, each county had to vote on whether to participate in the development and support of mass transit. Santa Clara and San Mateo counties chose not to participate; thus BART was never extended past Fremont or Daly City for years. San Jose finally “woke up” and has a light rail system in place, and BART was recently extended to the San Francisco airport, but the fallout remains.

Here in L.A., the bus system isn’t bad, but we blew it by not planning our infrastructure as well as we could. Greed prevailed, allowing the automobile and oil industries to collaborate to destroy the famed “Red Car” system and instead push for the expansion and development of the freeways. Now we’re in the midst of trying to decide how and when to extend the so-called “Subway to the Sea.” But smart planning obviously wasn’t happening at City Hall or in other divisions. During the recent renovation of Santa Monica Boulevard, the remaining Red Car tracks were torn out, which means that should the trolley system ever be reconsidered, the city will have to start all over again, which will add to the headache and expense. I also don’t understand why they didn’t secure funding to install a subway tunnel under Santa Monica as well: should a “subway to the sea” ever become a reality, it would make a lot of sense for the preferred Wilshire Boulevard path to deviate from Wilshire at its intersection with Santa Monica, head down Santa Monica past Century City (which could really use a stop), and travel down to Westwood, where it could then turn right and head back up to Wilshire, with a UCLA/Westwood Village stop. But that’s short-term, short-sighted planning born of greed, indecision, and paralysis for you…

We homeowners, both potential and actual, aren’t off the hook either. We need to stop salivating over houses of 3,000 or 4,000 square feet and start reducing our overall “footprint” on the planet. How many people really need a four or five-bedroom, three bath home anyway? Nowadays Billy and Sally require their own rooms, and Mommy and Daddy really need the library, the office, and the den, in addition to the three-car garage. That’s bunk. Back in the 1940s, the average house was 1200 square feet. Children often shared rooms, even those of different sexes (at least up to a certain age). People didn’t have the outlandish number of material goods they do today. Do we really need all those extra gadgets and toys? Do we really need the lawn (that requires so much water to maintain), or the garden full of non-native plants (that also require more water than we should be sparing)?

Perkins has a vested interest in writing his article; he’s a developer, and he and his pals want to expand their income by buying up land and building homes, the consequences be damned. A lot of us are enabling that, by living beyond our means and trying to keep up with the Joneses. But the era of suburbia is past; we are all going to have to come together and plan smartly for the future.

Today, like yesterday, was a day to stay largely indoors, protecting my lungs as much as possible from any smoke that’s lingering in the skies above. While we live in an area that hasn’t been seriously threatened by any fire, we’re not immune from the shifting winds. On Saturday night, heading towards a party, we had to turn back because the road was blocked by a felled tree. This was just north of us in one of the canyons. While there haven’t been serious fires in recent memory on the scale of those plaguing San Diego County, places such as Coldwater, Laurel Canyon, and Beverly Glen are never immune from the threat of fire. Just west of us, in Brentwood, a 1961 fire laid waste to Stone and Benedict Canyons. Who’s to say it won’t happen again…?

The Santa Anas arrived late last week with a vengeance; they are our version of the Chinooks that plague western Canada and the Northern reaches of the Rockies and Great Plains. Santa Anas means those who live in or very close to canyons are always in danger of suffering damages from the fires spawned during Santa Ana season. Of course, the winds themselves do not cause fires on their own, but a downed phone line with its arcing wires certainly can spark flames, which are then spread by the winds far from their origin. Since the weekend, the region’s been suffering from the fires, either from the imminent threat of death and destruction, or from the contributing wretched air quality. Just as the Gulf and Atlantic coasts have hurricane season, we have fire season.

As usual, the folks in Malibu are suffering yet again; that area is known to most of the rest of the world as a celebrity enclave, studded with beaches. But the coastline there is relatively narrow, and right past PCH (Pacific Coast Highway for you non-locals) are the Santa Monica Mountains and the numerous canyons– canyons, I might add, that are perfect conduits for Santa Ana winds and the firestorms they help spread.

I really don’t understand why people build on hills and in canyons around here. Other than the multi-million dollar views, there’s so much risk: fires, which lay waste to the hills, which then become that much more prone to mudslides. Throw in earthquakes (which are a bane for all of us), which partially or wholly aided in shaping the hills and mountains as we know them, and you have the perfect scenario for calamity in the way of property damage, injuries, and deaths. Places like Malibu and the central portions of San Diego County are situated in mountains, canyons, and back country covered with brush and chapparal: perfect conditions for conflagrations like those happening now.

I’ve been in here most of the day, with the windows shut and the curtains down, to keep out the unhealthful air and try to keep the place cool. It’s not only smoky, it’s been unseasonably warm today (at 7 p.m., it was 82 degrees just up the hill from us…), yesterday, and expected to be warm, warm, warm until the weekend. At first glance, it didn’t seem too bad, but I recall the 2003 fires, when I woke up one morning and found ash completely covering our car. The ash had traveled from the fires in San Bernardino County, and this year, there are fires there again… The Santa Anas blow southwestward, so we’re in the path of these sometimes hurricane-level winds.

Luckily, those that we know are so far safe and have suffered no harm, but of course, that could always change. We were very worried in 2003 for our friend (and a commenter here at the Sandbox), Todos la vie; she lives in an area that was threatened mightily then. This time, her home area seems to be safe, but she’s still getting a close-up view of the fires in the Santa Clarita Valley and Piru areas, I’m sure. Quite a few news accounts today and yesterday talk of people who stayed in their homes until the last moment, sure they would have time to load up, grab pets, valuables, etc. One new homeowner stubbornly insists on staying behind:

Under a mandatory evacuation order, police could have theoretically removed Ashtari and the other holdouts by force, Odom said.

“We just don’t have the manpower,” he said. “We don’t have the bodies to drag them out kicking and screaming.”

Firefighters say authorities cannot remove residents from a home but can bar them from returning if they do leave.

Odom said he and his colleagues would man the checkpoint until they were forced to leave to protect themselves.

“If that happens, I’ll go pound on the door to give them one last warning,” Odom said. “Then I’m gone.”

Ashtari said he was ready.

“If a captain wants to go down with his ship,” he said, “they let him.”

That’s all well and good, but I half expect this guy to turn up on the casualty lists within the next few days. As Neil over at Deaf Firefighter’s Blog points out, a room can explode in flames in a matter of minutes. In this post, he links to a video that shows what happens when flashover occurs (he also notes, ironically for So Cal, that October is Fire Safety Month).

I have sympathy for people in general during this time, especially those in the Santa Clarita area; they recently had to deal with the tunnel fire on I-5, and now they have to cope with this. I have less sympathy for the Malibuites, who continue to live in their multi-million dollar palaces and beach bungalows, despite the fact that fires rage through that portion of the county every few years on average. I have even less sympathy for those in San Diego County; after the devastating Cedar Fire in October 2003, voters rejected in early 2004 ballot measures which would have increased fire protection in the unincorporated areas. Even before these bills were submitted, there was quite a bit of finger-pointing in the wake of the 2003 fires:

“…of the largest counties in the state, San Diego is the only one without a countywide fire department. Instead, residents are served by a patchwork of 44 city departments and rural fire districts – many of which rely on part-time volunteers who must be summoned from other jobs by pagers.”

Historically, voters down there have rejected time and again taxes and other measures that would improve the quality of fire protection:

“…consider that voters in East County’s unincorporated communities have historically resisted taxing themselves to fund their rural fire departments. In fact, between 1979 and 2004, rural voters had rejected 32 of 50 measures asking them to approve new fire funds.”

So while I’m sympathetic to the loss of life that occurs each time there are fires, I am not wholly in sync with fools who insist on living in fire-prone areas, then refuse to protect themselves. “No taxes” may be a favorite rallying cry for those who are selfish and insist on keeping their pocketbooks closed, but you get what you pay for. You want roads, sewage lines, public services, and fire and police protection? Better be prepared to pay up.

In the meantime, the rest of us sit patiently, trying to avoid the gridlocked freeways, staying inside avoiding the toxic air, and waiting out the fire this time.

UPDATE: the fires are still going strong in San Diego County, the Santa Clarita Valley, and the Lake Arrowhead area, as of 11 p.m. PDT on the 23rd. My hope is that there are no additional deaths, and that injuries are limited. It’s at times like these I marvel at the hard work and professionalism of firefighters. These men and women put their lives on the line ensuring the safety of life and environment.

Here’s an article that will be out in tomorrow morning’s Los Angeles Times talking about how the smoke affects those of us who aren’t anywhere near the actual danger zones.

Because of Southern California’s quirky topography and wind patterns, neighborhoods with no danger of wildfires are often the ones most affected by wind-driven smoke.

The article focuses on Long Beach, an area that almost never has serious fires beyond house fires and other structural burns, yet receives tons of smoke and suffers lousy air quality. Mr. Sandman and his wife are in a much better location, but even here, the sky’s not quite the same. Let’s hope they can get the fires contained soon, although “authorities” are saying it’s going to be a few days more…

A few years back, my permanent housemate helped her sister get ready for a bachelorette party. My sister-in-law wasn’t the one getting married, but she’d been put in charge of making a cake for the festivities. Together, the two of them worked on creating a masterpiece: a cake in the shape of a massive penis. We have a picture of the finished product somewhere, which I will *not* be posting.

I thought it was amusing, and wondered how much the bride-to-be enjoyed it, as well as what the party attendees thought. I figured this kind of thing was something people did on their own (although I’ve seen the chocolates that are molded into breasts and the like).

Well, apparently not. There’s a business in San Francisco (SOMA, to be exact) that specializes in some very naughty treats. While this bakery will do the usual traditional stuff (the bakery did “about fifty wedding cakes for ‘Mrs. Doubtfire’.”), they also will create some very x-rated material. The owner, Jerry Carson, said he decided to offer cakes for different tastes partially because  “I …wanted to have an excuse to talk dirty to girls on the phone.”

There’s a brief interview, the address, and some VERY *not safe for work* pictures here. Have fun, let me know if you order one; it definitely gives a new meaning to the old expression, “Having your cake and eating it too.”