The ramblings of an Eternal Student of Life     
. . . still studying and learning how to be grateful and make the best of it
 
 
Friday, July 27, 2007
Current Affairs ... Outer Space ...

I got a laugh today reading about the NASA astronauts who might have been launched into the heavens after a night of heavy drinking. Supposedly one of these cases involves an American going up in a Russian Soyez capsule to the Space Station. Well hey, you can’t really count that one. He was probably just trying to keep up with his Russian comrads. The Russians probably wouldn’t launch a guy who couldn’t hold his vodka. As to the American Space Shuttle flights, well — remember that the Shuttle holds 7 or 8 astronauts, and most of them don’t do anything during the launch anyway. The thing is so automated that even the pilot pretty much just watches. Therefore, it probably wasn’t such a big deal, so long as the other crew members kept the guy from touching the wrong switch before he would dry out and get over his hangover. Yes, if there was an accident he’d have less chance of getting out alive. But I gather that most Shuttle accidents are fatal. In all of its flights, we still haven’t seen an Apollo 13 situation where something went bad but a lot of struggle and effort eventually brought the ship home safely.

Well, now that the truth has become public, NASA will have to crack down; the age of “the Right Stuff” will finally be over. According to Tom Wolfe’s book, the true Right Stuff brothers were the rocket plane test pilots of the 1950s, who would stay out until 1 am sloshing down the hard stuff, then be up at 6 in a silvery fire suit, ready to be stuffed into a little winged thermos bottle full of liquid oxygen and other highly explosive stuff. They’d take him and his steed up into the sky attached to the belly of an old bomber plane, then drop him over the desert. He’d hit the switch to fire the rocket engines and then grab the steering stick and try his darndest to keep the little shooting star from flipping over and hurling him into the ground below, to perish in a ball of flame. If luck was with him, he’d be landing the thing in a few minutes with another mighty, heroic tale to tell. If not, his picture would go on the next available slot in the dead test pilot’s hall of fame.

I suspect that the Space Shuttle guys who had downed the better part of a bottle on the night before launch were trying to re-imagine those days. But obviously they couldn’t. After the sun came up, they were surrounded by a cocoon of computers that would make all the decisions and would determine their fate. The glory of the old days can never be re-lived. But we keep on trying until it’s all shown to be just as silly as it really is. That’s what I see happening in this little NASA tiff about the lack of bureaucratic discipline on the launch site. The bureaucrats have won, as they always must. Enjoy your excitement while you may, for the season of folly is brief.

◊   posted by Jim G @ 10:04 pm       No Comments Yet / Leave a Comment
 
 
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Current Affairs ... Religion ... Society ...

I just read an article about secularism and atheism in Europe. Religion and belief in God is not very popular amidst the native populations of western Europe these days. However, it’s still pretty popular amidst the Muslims, whose numbers are growing a lot faster than the natives. As far as the Catholics go, Pope Benedict is on a mission to “re-Christianize” Europe. I’m sure he’d like to get those heathen French and Belgian folk back into the old cathedrals, but it looks as though his new Euro-Christian army is going to be comprised mostly of African and South American immigrants. Like the Arabs and Turks, they also embrace the old-tyme religion and have a lot of babies.

So, it looks like the European scene is in for some conflict in the coming decades. If the script from the past is followed, the Christians and the Muslims will resort to violence in competing for the right to show the faithless the error of their ways. And the atheists will just write more books about the stupidity and hypocrisy of it all. But you never know – history does have its twists. Perhaps Benedict and the sheiks will find common cause in the campaign (dare I say “crusade”) against modern Godlessness in Europe. Perhaps they will unite in various political campaigns to outlaw abortion, women’s equality, stem-cell research and academic freedom. That will go a long way to cast Europe back into the middle ages.

I think it’s a terrible shame that the Catholic faith, which for a short time back in the 1960s seemed ready to make peace with the modern world, is now on a campaign to bring back the past. Obviously, I’d much rather see Rome engage the secularists instead of going head-to-head with them (just what we criticize the Islamics for doing). But the much-acclaimed Pope John Paul II wasn’t in the mood for accommodating the secularists, and they went their own way. Now his right-hand man is finishing the job. JP2 is still celebrated for helping to reclaim eastern Europe from Communism; but he also has to take the blame for losing western Europe to atheism. It happened on his watch. As with President Ronald Reagan, I think JP2 is over-rated. They were both very good at leadership; the fall of communism made it look as though they were leading in the right direction. But just because you avoid one dead end, doesn’t mean that you know the right way. In the end, both Ronnie and JP found other wrong directions to take their flocks.

◊   posted by Jim G @ 11:02 pm       No Comments Yet / Leave a Comment
 
 
Friday, January 26, 2007
Current Affairs ... Politics ...

I wouldn’t want to be a kid growing up these days. There’s a fairly good chance that the world is going to get worse over the next 50 to 100 years. The two things that scare me most are global warming and nuclear proliferation. We’re now starting to see that all the concern expressed about these two issues over the past 10 years is turning out to be justified. What’s worse is that there’s going to be synergy between them — global warming is going to encourage the use of nukes, and nuke use is going to make global warming worse. If global warming causes starvation and refugee movements, and nuclear weapons are a dime a dozen, then someone’s gonna be desperate enough to use them. It ain’t gonna be pretty.

Obviously, the brainy people at The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists are rather worried too. About 10 days ago, they moved the minute hand on their “Doomsday Clock” two minutes closer to midnight; it now reads five minutes to midnight, just about as bad as back in the early 1960s, when atomic missiles were arriving in Cuba. The sign next to the clock says: “The threat of a second nuclear age and the expected consequences of climate change push the Doomsday Clock closer to midnight”.

One more bit of pessimism, if I may. President Bush asked the Democrats in Congress to give his new plan for Iraq a chance. So, in effect, GWB and Condi are taking that good old John Lennon / Yoko Ono tune from the late 60s and twisting the refrain a bit: ALL WE ARE SAYING – IS GIVE WAR A CHANCE. I’m sure that someone is doing a comedy skit about that somewhere. Just too bad that people have to die in order to prove that the failed policy of a failed presidency really has failed.

◊   posted by Jim G @ 9:47 pm       No Comments Yet / Leave a Comment
 
 
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Current Affairs ... Science ...

There’s a pretty good article in the September Atlantic about global warming (“Some Convenient Truths” by Gregg Easterbrook). Mr. Easterbrook makes the point that global warming is an air pollution issue, and thus far, humanity is batting well over .500 with air pollution issues. Once the USA and the other industrial nations decided to do something about smog, ozone depletion and acid rain, progress came more quickly and more cheaply than was thought possible. Right now, greenhouse gasses have everyone spooked. The Republicans stayed in denial as long as they could, but the scientific evidence is now quite strong. So they have shifted gears in their arguments against Kyoto and other proposed global warming efforts. They now argue that the problem is too big; in order to really change the situation, we’d all have to go back to living in teepees and riding horses. Unfortunately, the Democrats (Al Gore and his “Inconvenient Truth” lecture and movie) play into this line of thought. Mr. Gore says that we’re all going to have to live with less in order to avoid raising the oceans by 20 feet and flooding out the coastal areas where roughly 40% of humankind now lives.

(Of course, the Republicans make it sound much worse than it might have to be. Perhaps with some technology and emission credit markets, we could all get by with driving small cars, using public transit when possible, eating vegetarian foods, and living in houses or apartments having around 400 square feet per person. I do that right now!)

Mr. Easterbrook argues that it’s time to get optimistic and get busy about global warming. He says that Democrats should reaffirm their trust in big government and Republicans should reaffirm their faith in technology and capitalist innovation. As with smog, ozone depletion and acid rain, big government should call the tune, and innovative capitalists should figure out how to dance to it. In other words, let’s go back to the mix of capitalism and socialism that hasn’t always been pretty, but has served America rather well since the Great Depression (despite efforts to take it apart by Ronald Reagan and now G. W. Bush).

Personally, I’m all for turning back the Bush Revolution and returning to the regulated capitalist economy of the 1950s and 60s. I really hope that the Congressional elections this fall will convey a similar mood on behalf of the American public (and if so, I hope the Democrats will pick up on it; right now they are still a bunch of whimpering cowards).

But as to whether we can count on technology to come thru again with regard to global warming, as Mr. Easterbrook seems so sure of . . . . . I’m not sure I agree. The other air pollution issues Mr. Easterbrook cites involved chemistry that was somewhat optional to the underlying processes. The substances at issue represented “one way to do it”, i.e. one way to accomplish greater efficiency or greater effectiveness in running a motor or cooling a refrigerator. With some tinkering and testing, it wasn’t so hard for chemists and engineers to find another way to do the same thing, sometimes even better than the original way.

However, carbon dioxide (the main greenhouse gas) is a lot more fundamental to the energy process than nitric oxides (smog) and sulfur dioxide (acid rain) were. If you burn anything with carbon in it, you get carbon dioxide. So why not burn hydrogen instead of coal, oil and gas? Fine, but to get hydrogen, you have to run electricity thru water, and to get that electricity, you have to first burn coal or oil, i.e. something with carbon. Then why not go nuclear? Because we still haven’t figured out what to do with all the nasty radioactive crap that nuclear plants leave behind. How about solar, wind, geothermal, tidal generators, etc.? Cool, but it takes a lot of investment to set those things up and you don’t get nearly as much energy [yet] for each dollar of capital invested into a wind farm or solar panel that you get from a coal-fired electricity plant. Since our economy has only so much capital to invest, alternative energy can only do so much; the technology is just not there yet.

Right now, about all you can do with carbon dioxide is to suck up the exhaust put out by power plants and hide it somewhere, probably deep under the earth. There doesn’t appear to be an easy and cheap way of turning carbon dioxide back into pure carbon and oxygen. You’re dealing here with fundamental chemistry and physics, the basic thermodynamic laws that govern our planet.

Over the past 10,000 years or whatever, the human race has dodged a whole lot of extinction threats by using its brainpower. It’s arguable that the power of the human mind in coming up with new technologies and better medicines and improved economic systems has made things better for all of us. I myself would agree, but the human mind still has a whole lot of work to do in recognizing and getting around it’s evolutionary bias toward tribal aggression. We’re still using our technology to kill each other more effectively; we still don’t see the deadly game that we’ve locked ourselves into. We still haven’t taught each other to share in those ultimate words of hope, i.e. “it doesn’t have to be this way.”

But back to global warming. I honestly wonder if this is where the technology-fix road comes to an end. Carbon dioxide is a very, very basic substance. Technology will certainly help to deal with it, but you may not be able to just make it go away like CFC’s. Permanently disposing of excess CO2 may make dealing with spent uranium fuel from nuclear power plants look like child’s play. Bottom line, it’s probably gonna be expensive. And the longer we wait, the worse it will get.

Therefore, there may be good reason why Al Gore and other global warming activists aren’t rushing to “give in” to techno-optimism like Mr. Easterbrook has. Solving the problem of global warming may yet require global-scale sacrifice regarding standards of living. And even if the necessary sacrifice is mild, sacrifice is not something that humankind does very well on a global scale. That old fashioned, hard-wired tribal aggression instinct kicks-in pretty quickly. The many tribes of the human race already have a long list of reasons to go to war with each other. The question of just who is going to give up their creature comforts because of all the coal and oil that the western world has burned over the past century or two is probably going to add to that list.

When I was around 12 or 13, I was very interested in science and chemistry. I knew what carbon dioxide was; I even used it once in a class presentation (more on that below). And I remember thinking to myself just how boring carbon dioxide was. I couldn’t imagine how anyone other than a few nerdy engineers working on certain kinds of chemical plants or machines would ever have to get interested in the stuff. Wow, I was really wrong there; little did I realize that carbon dioxide is just like the comet in Deep Impact or the asteroid in Armageddon. It’s a serious threat. And this time, it’s not a movie (“Inconvenient Truth” not withstanding).

(As to the class presentation: back in 8th grade, me and another guy had to give a short lecture about the growth of industry in China. So after gleaning a few facts about China from an encyclopedia, we got some balsa wood and built a model of a factory. Then we got some pipes and hoses and plastic containers, and rigged up a way to get hot water into a container with dry ice. Dry ice is frozen carbon dioxide. The concentrated carbon dioxide gasses that were given off as the dry ice melted in the water then came up thru the chimneys of the little factory, looking just like smoke. As such, we were releasing carbon dioxide and contributing to global warming. Little did we realize just how accurate our little Chinese factory model was!)

◊   posted by Jim G @ 12:45 pm       No Comments Yet / Leave a Comment
 
 
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Current Affairs ... Personal Reflections ... Philosophy ...

I’m sitting at my computer after having dinner, sipping a little glass of B&B.; I listened to a CD lecture on Nietzsche while preparing my stir-fry, and two points got stuck in my mind. First off was Nietzsche’s disdain for the desire shared by so many people to have a predictable and comfortable life, to avoid tumult and surprise. Well, two nights ago here in my over-rated little town of Montclair, New Jersey, a macho thunderstorm came roaring thru. Nothing that you southerners couldn’t ride out on the porch, but a bit much for our precious little community. It knocked down a lot of trees, blew out the power, and caused some property damage.

I went without power for 24 hours, and had to put up with some traffic jams on the way to and from work; the town had to temporarily close various roads to clean up the damage. It wasn’t really much, but the locals seemed shell-shocked. You can read about their angst on the Barristanet blog. If that sort of thing interests you. The power goes out fairly frequently here (well, not quite like in Baghdad or Khartoum; maybe every two months or so). And they favor tall old trees in Monty Clair, so the city won’t cut them down before they fall down. Thus, seeing tree trunks and limbs blown on to the road is not exactly a new thing.

My point is, if a few wind gusts and lightning bolts could cause such consternation, what would we Montclairians do if we had to face what the people of southern Lebanon and northern Israel are now going thru, i.e. war? Or suppose we were in New Orleans at about this time last year (reminder, we’re coming up on the 1 year anniversary of Katrina)? Going back to Nietzsche, the boring and routine way of life starts looking pretty good pretty quickly, once it’s taken away.

But I know what the great madman was getting at. He was urging us to find a cause in our lives, find a passion to follow. Find something that makes living on the edge fulfilling, makes taking a few bruises and losses all worth while. This makes me think of the Phil Collins / Genesis song “Land of Confusion” aka “This Is The World We Live In”. It’s a good song which tries to be an inspirational song. An interesting cover was recently released by Disturbed.

One line in the song goes “I won’t be coming home tonight; my generation is going to put things right.” At the age of 20, I would have been elated by that sentiment. Nietzsche would have applauded. Who cares if you’re going to sleep in a smelly cellar instead of your own comfortable bed, so long as you’re out there with your peers changing the world?

At age 53, however, I’m less than impressed. The world we live in is a rather tough nut to crack. Not to say that you can’t do any good; not to say that it’s not worthwhile to try. But don’t expect to find any one theory or political doctrine or manifesto or religion (or special concert produced by Bob Geldoff) that is going to make us all act as responsible, cooperative world citizens. The human brain is hard-wired to be tribal. That ain’t gonna go away any time soon, unfortunately. The Israelis and Hezbollah are now vigorously adding another chapter to the thousands and thousands of chapters in that litany of proof.

One other interesting thing about Neitzsche; he more or less came up with the idea for the movie “Groundhog Day” (which I still need to see). His doctrine of eternal recurrence asks whether it would be worthwhile if all you had to look forward to was an afterlife EXACTLY the same as your current life. I won’t go thru all the philosophical ramifications of that question, but it certainly is very good food for thought.

As to check up on how old and behind the times my observation linking Neitzsche with Groundhog Day is, I did a search on Google and some other search engines. And yea, “eternal recurrence” is hooked up with Groundhog Day all over the web. My blog is maybe the 10,000th site to make the point. Oh well. Eternal recurrence, indeed. Trees are toppling in Montclair, and Israel is at war again. It’s just another Groundhog Day, unfortunately. And yet, if I had to do it all over again, Friedrich, . . . .

◊   posted by Jim G @ 7:51 pm       No Comments Yet / Leave a Comment
 
 
Thursday, June 8, 2006
Current Affairs ... Food / Drink ...

HEADLINE FROM IRAQ: head-chopper al Zarqawi finally got a taste of his own poison, courtesy of the U.S. Air Force. Nice work, dart-drivers (i.e., F-16 pilots) and spooks (intelligence people). Enjoy your post-mission beers.

Z’s death is certainly front-page news, but is it cause for joy and celebration? Not really. Not that the guy didn’t deserve it. But in the end, it’s just another facet of war. They kill our guys, we kill their guys. Nothing really new here. If we someday figure out how to change our genetics in a way that eliminates the drive to go to war, now THAT would be front-page news. The world would then become a truly different place. But until then, it’s just the same old world as it has been for what, oh, maybe 5000 years.

WHEN THE DOG BITES, WHEN THE BEE STINGS, WHEN I’M FEELING SAD, I SIMPLY REMEMBER MY FAVORITE BEERS AND THEN I DON’T FEEEEEL — SOOOOO — BAAAAAD: Despite war and all the other horrible things, beer makes the world almost worth living for. Here’s a list of some of my favorite beers, in no particular order:

Stoney Creek Vanilla Porter
Molson Golden Ale
Dixie Blackened Voodoo
Victory Storm King Imperial Stout
Samuel Adams Cherry Wheat
Wyerbacher Raspberry Imperial Stout
Sierra Nevada Pale Ale
Lancaster Four-Grain Ale
Shipyard Export Ale
Alaskan Oatmeal Stout
Buffalo Bill Pumpkin Ale
Dogfish Head Raison D’Etre
Lancaster Milk Stout
Genesee Cream Ale
Otter Creek Stovepipe Porter

As you can see, I have a thing for flavored beers and heavy ales (porters and stouts). Also I don’t include any German beers or Belgian ales. I appreciate the German purity law, and a fine Belgian (like Chimay) can be a real treat. But those beers just don’t seem like home to me. Oh, I didn’t include any IPA’s; sorry, but all those hops get on my nerves after a while. That’s just me. And the light, high-production American lagers don’t make the cut, although Yuengling Lager on tap sometimes has a nice, nutty flavor to it. So maybe it should make the list (but in bottles, I’d go with Yuengling Premium first).

So, here’s to good beer drinking. At my age, you don’t want to drink much, so you might as well drink quality (even if quality for you is meibocks or extra special bitters or pilsners).

AND FINALLY: In War and Peace, Tolstoy argues that the great men of history were actually powerless to change the course of history. They were simply the puppets of their times. By contrast, Tolstoy praises people who learn to make the best of things by going with the flow, such as Commander Mikhail Kutuzov. Tolstoy is very Taoist in this regard. In contrast to Tolstoy is Hegel, who says that the “great men of history”, driven by a will to change things, pull the right levers at the right time and in fact do change things (if they’re at the right place at the right time). This change is not necessarily for the better; but certainly things do change. E.g., Julius Caesar in the transition from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire. Was al-Zarqawi a man of history, or just a chump? Something to think about, is all I’m saying . . . . . while drinking a Stout’s Fat Dog.

◊   posted by Jim G @ 7:22 pm       No Comments Yet / Leave a Comment
 
 
Saturday, May 27, 2006
Current Affairs ... Society ...

When I see little kids today, I wonder what the heck are they in for over the next 60 or 70 years. (Yea, I know, I’m an incurable wonk; most people notice the cuteness in kids before they worry about the future. I make Al Gore look like Mother Goose). Members of my generation (the wonderful Baby Boomers) were pretty lucky. Once the Vietnam thing finally died out, things were pretty good for us. Yea, there were some oil shortages, and now we have terrorism here on our shores to worry about. But still, we’ve had it pretty good. But between now and 2099, a whole lot of fecal matter is going to hit the fan.

First off, the terrorism problem may not just fade away anytime soon. Second, a whole lot more nations in the world are going to get nuclear weapons, and eventually terrorists are going to get them too. Third, world oil and gas production are going to peak at some point in the next 50 years, driving prices thru the roof (what we’re now seeing in terms of energy price run-ups is probably part of that trend, although we may yet see some temporary downswings). Next, there’s global warming. Al Gore’s move (An Inconvenient Truth) will soon be playing at a theater near you, and hopefully a lot more people will soon be worrying about a 5 to 10 degree increase in average temperature. But if all that wasn’t enough, how about world population growth? We’re marching steadily toward the 10 billion mark.

The conservative crowd responds to all this by advising us to stay cool. The stock conservative answer to all problems, i.e. unfettered market capitalism and the technological advances that it inspires, will ride to the rescue once more. There’s money to be made in finding new sources of energy, securing our shores, and cleaning the carbon out of our air. So just keep the government out of the way of big business, let the military do it’s thing, and everything will turn out just fine.

But hey, this time we’re betting the farm. Business usually makes its plans according to the time horizons of its capital sources. Bonds usually have 20 year terms (or less). Stock market investors theoretically have an infinite ownership horizon, but in reality most stock investors get in and get out in a few years. No one today buys stock for the sake of passing it on to their grandchildren. Profession investors managing retirement funds and mutual funds are always buying and selling, changing their portfolios in response to what they see as emerging opportunities and threats (mostly though just generating fees for themselves). Thus, business managers have no profit incentive to worry today about the way that the world will be in 50 years. Even if consumers express concern about problems such as global warming and fossil fuel depletion, businesses will run nice ads about how concerned they are (for example, those ads by Chevron and BP about their investments into alternate energy sources), and then get back to their short-run profit concerns.

Europe still thinks that government should start doing something about most of these problems (but not all), but the US has the rest of the world convinced that government should just stay out of it (except for terrorism). So China and India and Russia go their merry way, burning irreplaceable fossil fuels and polluting the air and looking the other way as nukes make their way to every corner of the globe, while famine and poverty get worse in Africa and the Middle East (and South America ain’t doing so good, either).

Actually, I think that each of the major world problems that I’ve identified could be dealt with, if the human race were a highly intelligent and cooperative lot. But we’ve still got that “me first, I got mine” instinct deep within our genes. And that causes war (including terrorism, another form of war). And war makes things fall apart. I believe that the worst threat for the 21st century is war. Technology may continue to expand our resources, but global warming, population growth and other factors will change where those resources are, how they are used, and who gets to use them. There are going to be a lot of winners and losers, and the game is going to be played very fast. Will everyone just stay calm, play fair, and wait for their cut? Will everyone trust that the winners will share some with the losers? Or will a fight break out?

Hugo Chavez, Osama Bin Laden, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Kim Il Jong and the leadership of Hamas don’t seem content to sit peacefully as the pot stirs. As things in the world change faster and faster in the upcoming decades, there may well be more like them. I hope that those little kids I see in the soccer fields and school busses will be able to figure out how to make the world that we give them work. The world today is indeed like a big stew pot that we’ve filled up and lit a very hot fire under. For a long time, the pot of stew just sits there calmly, despite all the flames. But at some point, it’s going to start boiling. My generation will be checking out just as things get bubbling. It will be up to those kids and their peers in Moscow, Cairo, Bombay, Buenos Aires, Seoul, etc. to try to keep the froth from sloping over the side and putting out the fire.

◊   posted by Jim G @ 1:04 pm       No Comments Yet / Leave a Comment
 
 
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Current Affairs ... Politics ...

I’ve just become aware of the Kinky Friedman phenomenon down in Texas (OK, you have the right to ask where I’ve been, since he’s already been featured on CNN, Sixty Minutes, USA Today, NPR, etc.). On the off chance that you’re more in the dark about celebrity politics than I am, Mr. Friedman is a 60 year old Jew from Texas who wants to run for governor this November, and is trying to get enough signed petitions to get on the ballot (as an independent). Mr. Friedman is a former country singer, comedian, and mystery writer — probably some other things that I’m missing. You can check the Wikipedia on that. Oh, just in case that’s not unusual enough for you, he’s also a vegetarian (a man after my own heart). Some describe his as a mix of Lenny Bruce and Hank Williams; whatever, this dude is truly an American original.

Given the lock that the Republican and Democratic parties have on politics here in the USA, an independent generally has an icicle’s chance in hell for any elected post of greater stature than county park commissioner. And how could a Jewish vegetarian ever get the support of the voters in the Lone Star State? If you like underdogs, this guy is your man (or dog).

But “the Kinkster” (as he calls himself) does seem to be picking up some momentum, at least outside of Texas. The national press loves him, and relishes his colorful aphorisms (his two campaign slogans are “why the hell not?” and “how hard can it be?”; he told Wolf Blitzer that he wouldn’t play in one of his golfing fundraisers because “the only two good balls I ever hit was when I stepped on a garden rake”). He’s got Willie Nelson out on the trail with him, and his campaign manager worked previously for Jesse Ventura, the former wrestler who got elected governor of Minnesota as an independent.

And believe it or not, there’s some substance behind the vaudeville show that the Kinkster is putting on “deep in the heart of Texas”. He has a policy agenda that is fairly detailed and seems to make sense. It’s an eclectic blend of liberal and conservative ideas, with a little something for everyone: prayer in schools, gay marriage, biofuels, tough border enforcement along the Rio Grande and a liberal policy for illegal aliens.

The big question is whether Texas is taking Friedman seriously. Zogby’s latest poll (taken in March) showed him at about 17%, behind Republican incumbent Rick Perry, Democratic challenger Chris Bell, and another independent, former state comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn, a former Republican. However, that was up from around 10% late in 2005. Perry still leads the pack, but with only 36%; not exactly a landslide. The political analysts are calling Friedman a long-shot, but there’s still a lot of time yet. If he does get on the ballot (which is still up in the air), it could get interesting.

If I could give the Friedman camp one bit of advice: aprenda hablar español! Take the Latino vote seriously. The Friedman campaign web site does not have a Spanish version; that has to be corrected immediately. Mr. Friedman is running as an anti-establishment candidate and needs to attract people who normally don’t bother going to the polls. There are plenty of Latinos in Texas who qualify for that. Here are the stats: in 2002, Latino citizens (i.e., excluding illegals) were 27.6% of the voting age population. However, they were only 23.4% of registered voters, and comprised only 18.6% of the turnout. Given high rates of growth in Hispanic populations, the numbers for 2006 (and the disparities) are probably even higher. Friedman needs to lead voter registration drives in the Latino neighborhoods and needs to appeal to their concerns.

If the child of a German – Jewish immigrant family can be taken seriously in Texas politics, there’s no reason why he can’t relate to the Latino community. ¿Por qué, para el motivo del infierno, no debemos hacer eso, el Kinkstero?

◊   posted by Jim G @ 5:58 pm       Read Comment (1) / Leave a Comment
 
 
Friday, September 30, 2005
Current Affairs ... Economics/Business ...

I’ve been trying to figure out what’s up with the economy these days. That ain’t easy, because you can’t look at America alone any more; you’ve got to look at the whole world. Fortunately, the good people at The Economist magazine in London enjoy looking at the whole world, and thus they publish some rather thoughtful articles about it. After reading some “big picture” articles over the last few days, I thought I’d offer my own thoughts about where America might be heading – i.e., are we going to be richer or poorer in the future? (And if richer, just how evenly is the wealth going to be spread?).

I’ve been alive for over 50 years now, and things were much simpler when I was young. Back then, America made most of what it used; grew most of what it ate or wore; and mined most of the minerals and oil and gas that it needed. And it did all of that right here on American soil. We didn’t think much about the “service economy” back then, but there still was one, e.g. lawyers, doctors, entertainers, retailers, bankers, educators, etc. But again, it was all-American.

Today, by contrast, we are much more integrated into the world economy. We depend on factories in Brazil and China and Germany to make most of what we use, and we import about half of the oil and gas that we need to keep us powered up. We still grow most of our own food and much of our own wood and clothing fibers (cotton, wool), although other countries can now do that cheaper (and are thus doing more of it for us as time goes by). A lot of minerals and metals like iron ore and copper now come mostly from other countries. Even some of our services are now coming from India or the Ukraine, via “outsourcing”. For an old timer like me, it’s kind of scary to be so dependent on other peoples and other lands for the basic things that we need in our everyday life, e.g. toothbrushes, shirts, telephones, autos, bedding, paper, tools, appliances, etc. If these other countries and peoples didn’t want to sell to us, we’d be sunk. So just what do we do to earn our keep these days? What do we have that they want out there in India and Japan and Oman?

America still provides the world economy with a whole lot of stuff. We still manufacture a lot of specialized products, e.g high-tech weapons and cutting-edge pharmaceuticals, which other nations aren’t set up for. And we still export some agricultural products and certain minerals (including coal). But most of what we provide to the world these days is “service oriented”. E.g., they know we are good at banking, financing, insurance, education (we still have the best universities, now filled ironically with foreign students), scientific research (still have the best laboratories), computer programs (e.g., Microsoft’s Windows operating suite and Office applications), entertainment (they still love our movies and pop music), management and engineering services, etc.

So we’ve now become dependent on the world at large, but so what? It all seems to be working. Despite an occasional loony dictator with an anti-American agenda (like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela who doesn’t want to sell us oil), most foreign leaders and business people know that if they don’t trade with us, they’ll go down too. People tend not to do stupid things when there’s money at stake.

The problem is, America seems to be buying more from the world then they buy from us. Our trade deficit seems to get worse and worse every year. According to the Economist, Americans spend over $700 billion more than they produce each year, the equivalent of 6% of our economy’s output. How do we do that? As with any family living beyond its means, we borrow. So far, the rest of the world seems perfectly willing to keep loaning us money, since our consumption habits help fuel their own economies. But you know this can’t go on forever.

Oh, another problem — most of what we sell the world these days requires brains. In a lot of ways that’s good; but we don’t seem to be putting enough effort into helping our youth to develop world-class minds. Other countries are doing much better in terms of getting their kids thru engineering schools and business degree programs. America still seems to be cranking out way too many lawyers and literature professors, while India and Ireland and China are nurturing scientists and engineers and entrepreneurs.

When I got out of high school, I went to engineering school for about $200 a semester, with maybe another $50 for books. In today’s money, that would be around $1,000 — even the cheapest state schools now charge much more than that. Back in the 60s and early 70s, the federal and state governments gave huge subsidies to the higher education system. They considered it to be an investment in the future. That investment paid off in the high-tech economic boom of the 1990s. But since the 1980s, government support for colleges has been cut way back, and tuitions have gone way up. Kids from poor and working class families in America can’t afford to get college degrees like they used to. American colleges stay in business by finding wealthy foreign students to take the place of the sons and daughters of the American working class. What is wrong with this picture?

And a further problem — the brainy economy is making things worse for the poor. Kids growing up in Appalachia and the inner city ghettos and Midwestern rust-belt towns are pretty much shut out from the high tech world. The worsening distribution of income here in the USA (rich clearly getting richer, poor clearly getting poorer, middle class clearly shrinking) is definitely tied to this. If the trend continues, with maybe 1/3 of America living well in the international economy and the other 2/3 stuck with stagnation at best and despair at worst, you wonder if social unrest will eventually rear its ugly head.

At present, interest rates in the USA are low because foreigners don’t seem to invest on their home turf. There are plenty of good things to invest in out in the developing world, but America has a much more stable legal and financial system. Plenty of good investment projects in South America and East Asia (e.g. factories, mines, shipping ports, roadways) went bust over the past 20 or 30 years, not because they weren’t working out economically, but because of politics. Here in the USA, the politics are also dirty, but there are more protections against greedy leaders getting their hands on economic wealth (Russia being an extreme counterexample).

As a result of interest rates being low (and having been low for almost two decades now), housing values are very high in the US. The lower the mortgage rate, the more house you can theoretically buy. However, you can’t really buy more, as prices go up. So if you’re a young couple looking for your first home, things are worse than ever. However, if you already own a house, you believe that things are swell. So swell that you stop saving and spend all of your paycheck. American businesses likewise aren’t investing as much as they used to, and thus more money is available to takeover other companies, or to pay higher dividends. This helps to support stock prices, which in turn promotes consumer spending.

For now, this crazy mechanism all seems to work. But in the long run, America is going to have to pay off its borrowings with interest. Had it used the borrowed money to invest in better physical infrastructure and better education for its youth and more efficient industrial facilities, it would experience enough GNP growth to comfortably meet these debts and still improve income levels. However, it hasn’t done that; it seems to be letting its capital, both tangible (e.g., production machinery, computers, Interstate highways, research laboratories) and intangible (accumulated knowledge held by scientists, engineers, management
experts, patents, etc.) run down, just so that it can keep spending today. In other words, it is spending its past wealth to live well, while forgoing the investments needed to live even better (or just as well) tomorrow. At the same time, China and India are investing in education and in facilities very heavily.

At present, the American economy is still very robust. Even $65 a barrel oil and $3 a gallon gasoline and some disastrous hurricanes don’t seem to be slowing it down very much. But everything has its limit. During the 1990s, a whole lot of wealth accumulated in America, as computers and technology finally kicked in to improve business efficiency while creating all sorts of new opportunities. Much of that wealth is still with us. Unfortunately, most of it did not go into cheaper education or improved roads and subways or new scientific discoveries or more efficient factories and warehouses; instead it went into inflated stock prices, bigger automobiles, and bigger houses. Now we’re seeing what a bad idea that was as stock prices stagnate and fuel prices skyrocket. There is a savior technology coming over the horizon: hybrid autos, which get fantastic miles-per-gallon. However, that technology did not come from Detroit; it was engineered for consumer use in Japan by Toyota and Honda. Obviously, the Detroit automakers were too busy building huge SUVs in the 1990s and weren’t interested in investing in R&D; for hybrids.

Various economists are warning of a huge interest rate jump that will be triggered when foreign governments stop buying US securities, followed by a rapid deflation of the housing “bubble”, triggering a severe recession and an escalating unemployment rate. I don’t think that scenario necessarily has to happen (although the danger is certainly present). But if the current trends and policies (or lack thereof) continue over the next decade, I do see America falling behind in terms of wealth and strength throughout the 21st Century. Or even worse, 2/3 of America will be locked into long-term decline, while 1/3 will continue to get richer. At some point, the unlucky two-thirds might start resenting the talented third.

The couple living next door to me has three kids; one who is 5, one is 3, and one is 2 (a cute little girl). Unless some kind of unexpected techno-economic miracle comes along that lifts all boats (e.g., if cold fusion can actually can be made to work), or a new wave of leadership emerges which encourages sacrifice today to finance investment in tomorrow, I don’t want to imagine the America that these kids will face in their adult years. As with Rome in the 6th Century or Constantinople in the 15th Century, it may not be a very exciting — or safe — place to be.

◊   posted by Jim G @ 10:37 pm       No Comments Yet / Leave a Comment
 
 
Saturday, April 2, 2005
Current Affairs ... Medicine ... Public Policy ...

I had a chance the other day to download and read the original court decision that started the whole Terri Schiavo fracas (In Re Guardianship of Theresa Marie Schiavo, Incapacitated, Feb. 11, 2000, Cir. Ct. for Pinellas County, Fla.). To be honest, Judge Greer’s description of the decision process gives me jitters about how the legal system responds to artificial life-support situations. I don’t want to second guess Judge Greer, or all of the appeals courts that upheld him. I firmly believe that he carried out the law in a responsible manner. But I wonder if the law is truly ready for cases like this. Remember, the laws and procedures that apply to situations like this derive from English Common Law, which basically goes back to the Magna Carta. However, the technology that makes a Terri Schiavo situation possible only goes back maybe 25 years.

The first thing that you should ask about a legal case is, who is the moving party – who is starting the whole thing (in this case, initiating a request to terminate extraordinary medical efforts that were being used to keep a human body alive). Well, that’s not so hard; the moving party was Michael Schiavo, the husband of the late Ms. Schiavo. OK, next question: does the moving party have legal authority to request what he is requesting? In this case, yes, Michael Schiavo had such legal authority, given that as husband, he was the recognized legal guardian. So what about the parents? Were they just chopped liver? No, not quite. They were allowed to be heard in court. And they were. They hired an attorney who made legal and factual arguments, presented witnesses, and cross examined the witnesses presented by Mr. Schiavo. Even though a spouse trumps a parent with regard to legal authority over an incapacitated person, the parents still got their day in court.

In the decision allowing “discontinuance of artificial life support for Theresa Marie Schiavo”, Judge Greer made it clear that he carefully considered everything that both sides presented. He weighed up the veracity and relevance of all evidence, and found that it tipped, however slightly, towards the conclusion that Terri Schiavo would want the feeding tube removed if she could had envisioned the present situation while she was still conscious. That was the axis and the focal point of the law and the decision. That was what everything revolved around. And that’s where I’m having trouble.

NOT that I think that there was a murder here. I believe that for all practical purposes, Terri Schiavo was dead – dead UNTO HERSELF, that is, and dead for mind-conscious people like myself. But most people are more body-conscious (yes, there I go again, using a mind-body Cartesian dualism, the scourge of hip philosophers over the past 50 years or so; but maybe this case shows why that dualism was invented and retains its power). So, for many people, most notably Mr. and Mrs. Schindler, Terri was NOT dead, despite not having any brain or mind. Quick footnote: my brother said that he liked the pictures of Terri Schiavo as an attractive young woman, as she possessed a certain look – the svelte look of the 80’s, the “big hair” look. He said that he misses the “body consciousness” of that period. Not surprisingly, then, he feels that removing the tube was wrong. (Ironically, excessive body consciousness might have contributed to Ms. Schiavo’s heart attack.)

But let me go back to the first question for a moment. Judge Greer had no problem with Michael Schiavo’s authority as husband and guardian over Terri Schiavo. And again, I have no reason to think that the Judge was messing up. But I do have trouble with the law that he was applying (which, again, is based partially on unwritten Common Law principals and partially defined by written constitutions and statutory laws passed by our State and Federal legislatures). In a case like this, where the definition of life is fuzzy and a whole lot is at stake, I would like the law to require the judge to ask more questions. Such as, has the spouse in question been loyal and devoted entirely to the incapacitated spouse, just as we would expect in any other marriage? The answer in this case might be no.

Hey, not that I think that Michael Schiavo was evil or bad in finding another girlfriend and getting on with his life. It’s just that when the stakes are so high, maybe you can’t have it both ways – if you’re not the perfect husband, then maybe you shouldn’t have the biggest say when the question comes down to what is life and what is death. (I think that the law should still allow a not-quite-perfect husband like Mr. Schiavo to have SOME say, maybe a BIG say, but not THE say, as the law required here).

Now, back to the question of determining intent in a situation like this, where there are no written instructions. (If there IS a living will and it’s very clear that you don’t want your body kept going if you’re brain dead, no matter who thinks what about it, then the law must respect that – just my $0.02). Judge Greer based his decision on some casual comments that Terri Schiavo had made at some point to her husband and to his brother and sister-in-law. These comments indicated that she didn’t think that artificial life support in hopeless cases was such a good idea. I.e., Mr. Schiavo and his brother and sister-in-law testified in court as to what they remember Terri saying, and were subject to cross-examination by the parents’ lawyer.

In the decision, Judge Greer seemed to acknowledge that this wasn’t much to stand on. However, the cross-examination by the parents’ lawyer didn’t seem to fluster anyone, so the testimony was accepted as factual. The parents didn’t offer anything indicating otherwise (other than some comments that Terri made about the Karen Ann Quinlan case when she was around 12 years old, which the Judge discounted because of Terri’s age). So, using standard legal mechanics, a judgment was rendered: Terri would want to pull the plug here.

What bothers me about the legal process (again, not about Judge Greer, who was doing his job) is that it tried to come up with a simulation of Terri Schiavo’s mind, i.e. what she would have wanted if faced with this terribly complex and wrenching situation. More troubling, it based that simulation upon just a few passing comments. To me, it would have been more intellectually honest for the law to have admitted that a few comments were not enough to build a reliable model of how Terri Schiavo’s mind would work in an extremely important and complex situation. So, maybe we have to allow the Judge to step in and build a more general “decision model”, one that considers what we do know about Terri Schavio’s statements and expressed beliefs, but that also allows consideration of what is currently at stake. In such a process, I think it would be legitimate to ask, just how would pulling the plug affect other people. In this situation, it obviously affected the parents quite negatively. (It also hurt George W. Bush and Tom DeLay and all the Roman Catholic toadies, but their cynical interests disqualify them from ANY consideration whatsoever.)

The Schindlers were obviously locked into a typical parental body philosophy. Every human being presents both a body and a mind to others. Some people are more affected by our bodies and some people latch on more to our minds (I personally am more of a mind person, or try to be). Ms. Schiavo’s parents appeared to tip more towards the body side (which parents naturally tend towards, given that they helped to create the body of their child). So, maybe the court should have been allowed to ask, is Terri still “alive” to the parents? (I would disqualify consideration of anyone outside of immediate family, especially Tom DeLay and all the wacko priests and pro-life nuts who cynically professed their eternal body-love for Ms. Schiavo). Perhaps Terri Schiavo would have wanted to have been kept alive if she could have known how her parents responded . . . . at least so long as they were alive and conscious.

Well, as far as I am concerned, Terri Schiavo died a long time ago. But I appreciate the fact that other people have other viewpoints on that, and I especially sympathize with the parents’ viewpoint. (Not that I condemn Michael Schiavo either; I believe that he honestly represented the Terri Schiavo that he knew – but in marriage, you never really know the dynamics of the relationship that your spouse has with her or his parents — believe me, I know that from bitter experience!). I’m troubled that the law did not allow this to be considered. Then again, I’m also troubled by the notion of spending gobs of taxpayer money keeping brain-dead people alive for their elderly parents, while leaving younger parents who don’t have health insurance unable to provide basic care for their children. Well, there’s no easy answer here. All I can say right now (in a spiritual fashion) is rest in peace, Ms. Schiavo, and may the scars heal amidst those who were close to you. And thanks for making us all think, however inadvertently, about many things in our nation that need thinking about.

◊   posted by Jim G @ 1:14 pm       No Comments Yet / Leave a Comment
 
 
TOP PAGE - LATEST BLOG POSTS
« PREVIOUS PAGE -- NEXT PAGE (OLDER POSTS) »
FOR MORE OF MY THOUGHTS, CHECK OUT THE SIDEBAR / ARCHIVES
To blog is human, to read someone's blog, divine
NEED TO WRITE ME? eternalstudent404 (thing above the 2) gmail (thing under the >) com

www.jimgworld.com - THE SIDEBAR - ABOUT ME - PHOTOS
 
OTHER THOUGHTFUL BLOGS:
 
Church of the Churchless
Clear Mountain Zendo, Montclair
Fr. James S. Behrens, Monastery Photoblog
Of Particular Significance, Dr. Strassler's Physics Blog
Weather Willy, NY Metro Area Weather Analysis
Spunkykitty's new Bunny Hopscotch; an indefatigable Aspie artist and now scholar!

Powered by WordPress