The Ramblings of An Eternal Student of Life

Sunday, August 17, 2008

Politics ...

The Democrats have a familiar litany about how viciously and unfair the Republicans fight (e.g., the Swift Boat ads of 2004, the Willie Horton ad of 1988, etc.). And about how they themselves have always stayed above board, but now need to get tough. A recent Eleanor Clift column is a good example.

I’m sorry, but this stuff doesn’t bring any tears to my eyes.

I’ll be the first to admit that G.W. Bush and his lackeys (especially the nefarious Karl Rove) have practiced an extremely divisive brand of political governance over the past 8 years, and have hurt our nation because of it. But regarding the Democrats and their theories that their misfortune over the past 30 years is because of unfair political tactics, I can’t help but respond: what about Bill Clinton. Ole Bubba was a guy who was politically skilled and knew what the majority of Americans wanted to hear. He showed that a skilled Democrat could win and win big, if he or she could ‘go mainstream’. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party is a ‘very big tent’ which caters to a wide variety of interests, including many that demand large-scale, active government interventions (gays, minorities, feminists, environmental activists, academia, artists and entertainers, etc.). I.e., the kind of interventions that mainstream Americans don’t want to pay for.

In a better world, this wouldn’t be so; these special interest groups have suffered injustices and often have legitimate claims. But this is not a better world, and this mix of interests forces many Dems to lose sight of the average ‘Jane and Joe’ out there in middle-America. Bill Clinton managed to get thru to middle America and still give a nod to the specialized Democratic interests. But this is an extremely difficult balancing act, one that the average politician cannot handle. Only once in a blue moon does a Democrat come along who can ‘stay on the wire’ and not be toppled by either special interest demands within the party, or by attack campaigns from without. By requiring such a tightrope act, the Democrats make their candidates vulnerable to GOP smears that paint them as being out of touch with “average America”.

If Barack Obama can exercise the same skill that Bill Clinton had in getting through to the working family and still keep his ties with the special interests that stoked his meteoric rise (and continue to fuel his magnificent fundraising machine), then he will become the 44th President. But even with struggling working families looking for leadership alternatives that would bring better economic conditions, Obama remains disadvantaged by his lack of touch with such families. And thus he remains vulnerable to GOP attack campaigns. Even if a Democratic counter-attack strategy were to successfully rebut whatever arguments the GOP smear artists are making, it may not be able to establish Senator Obama as a “man of the people”. Even if Mr. Corsi is shown to be the nutcase that he is, the damage will still get done.

It seems to me that the best thing the Democratic special interests could do for the party would be to leave. Democratic candidates could then focus more on bread-and-butter economic issues, and would be less vulnerable to the GOP. Perhaps these interest groups should form their own political party. Actually, I’m surprised that they don’t. They could then play the Dems and Republicans against each other in return for their endorsements and fundraising abilities. They might actually gain power and leverage in the system, instead of going down in flames so often behind the Democratic standard bearer. As to what would remain of the Democrats — admittedly, they would need a new base of support, especially financial support. The big unions were once enough to keep the party going, but unions have since become a vanishing breed.

So, for now, the Democrats will go on in their haphazard fashion. If Barack Obama wins this November, he may be setting out a blueprint for a successful Democratic Party paradigm (although that’s what was said regarding Bill Clinton’s presidency). But if not, the Democrats are in for some heavy thinking about their relevance and viability. It’s not just a question of heading off the swiftboats, as Ms. Clift seems to imply. The Dems may need some big changes — maybe even a divorce — if they are to get back in the game.

◊ posted by Jim G @ 9:33 pm Read Comments (2) / Leave a Comment

Thursday, August 14, 2008

◊ On Russian Invasions

Current Affairs ... Foreign Relations/World Affairs ...

The Russian invasion of Georgia is giving me the creeps. I can’t help but wonder if we are back in 1936, when Nazi Germany invaded the Rhineland. The big powers decided to mostly look the other way. Don’t worry, Hitler won’t go any further, he has a legitimate gripe. Yea, right.

This Georgia thing is really bad news. And given that oil and gas prices probably aren’t going drop significantly, Russia will only get stronger in the coming years. Stronger and bolder. I hope that whoever is elected President this fall is ready for some nasty weather. Only good thing about it: it will put us back into a triangulation with China. I’m sure that they’re going to be doing some militarizing on their northern boarder in the near future. Hopefully that will take the pressure off Taiwan.

PS, I’ve read the articles saying that the USA has no right to criticize Russia after what it did in Iraq and Kosovo. OK, the USA is not without its sins, especially in Iraq. But two wrongs don’t make a right, and the Russian wrong of trying to crush a legitimate democracy so as to reestablish a vassal state is in a different league.

PPS, I also don’t buy the argument that the USA has ‘taunted the bear’ by allowing former Soviet block nations to join the European Union and NATO. Hey, if Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, and now the Ukraine and Georgia want to be part of the west, what right do we have to say ‘oh no, you have to go back to your former slavemaster, we don’t want to get him angry’. Also, I understand that until recently, we have shown restraint by not stationing US and British battalions and warplanes along the Russian border. Now we are going to put US military personnel and equipment in Poland, as part of Bush’s anti-missile system. I don’t completely agree with the anti-missile system, but I don’t feel sorry for the Russians after their recent conduct in Georgia.

PPPS, the thing to watch now is Cuba. Will the Russians re-kindle the old friendship with the new Castro regime, through promises of cheap oil and gas (like back in the Cold War days)? And also re-establish a Russian military presence there, e.g. Russian warships using Cuban ports, or Russian radar and electronic listening posts on the island? Stay tuned for the next exciting episode!

◊ posted by Jim G @ 10:15 pm Read Comments (2) / Leave a Comment

Monday, August 11, 2008

◊ THEY DONT BUILD ‘EM LIKE THAT ANYMORE

Personal Reflections ... Technology ...

I was reminiscing the other day about the cars that I used to drive. The one that I had the longest was a 1974 Plymouth Duster. My mother bought it new for me in early ’74, and I finally got rid of it in early 1988. Somehow I survived fourteen years with that car. And I am most grateful for surviving those years. That car would do the craziest things, things that could have cost me my life. Luckily — VERY luckily — the car pulled its tricks in relatively tame circumstances.

Just what did this car do? Well, it stalled a lot. And not just at stop lights. It once stalled on the Garden State Parkway while doing 55 MPH. I was able to pull over safely since it was on a Sunday night. But had that been in heavy traffic on a weekday afternoon — well, I don’t want to think about it. What else? Well, my Duster had something call torsion bars. They were part of the suspension system. I learned about them while driving with some guys out on a back road near the Delaware River around sunset. Boomp! What was that? And why is the car driving so funny now? The answer was that the right torsion bar had cracked and failed. And without it, you couldn’t do more than 10 mph without losing control. It was a long night getting home, and a couple of days getting a new torsion bar installed (with the help of one of the guys).

Then there was a cold January day on a photo road trip to middle New Jersey, where the car was doing just fine. Until it decided not to start at all; no amount of cranking with the pedal floored did any good. A ballast resistor suddenly failed. And my brother had to come to the rescue with a tow chain, which came unhooked in the middle of downtown Newark, NJ on Route 21. I’ll never forget standing in the middle of the road at sunset with a line of blocked cars honking, big office buildings on either side, waiting while my brother and my friend got the chains re-hooked. Somehow we got away before the cops could hassle us.

And then there was the time that the floats in the carburetor went, causing the car to stall during a left turn. Not every left turn, mind you. You just never knew when you’d lose all power during a left turn. Another time, the carburetor came loose while I was tooling along in a 40 mph zone, heading for work. I hit a bump and poof, red lights and a stalled engine. I called up the gas station guy who lived next door to my family, and walked the rest of the way.

I still don’t know how I nursed 14 years and 125,000 miles out of that confounded Chrysler contraption. I do remember spending a lot of time under the hood and sometimes under the frame. It was a lot easier to work on cars back in those days; you can’t get to anything on a modern car. But you were always working on your car back then; there was something to tend to just about every weekend, even if there wasn’t an emergency breakdown. I got to know a lot of auto parts stores back then. Even a radiator place that supposedly didn’t sell to the public (but they gave me a break).

Today I’m driving a Toyota Corolla. Knock on wood, but so far it’s acting like — like a Toyota Corolla. Nothing much goes wrong, so long as it’s taken to a good mechanic every 5000 miles (where I walk out a hundred bills or two lighter). Almost everything under the hood is now a mystery to me. But it starts up and runs, and keeps on running.

The overall intent of both cars is about the same: basic transportation. But so far, the Toyota seems to provide it with much less drama. Sometimes I almost miss getting my hands all greasy and sweaty with a socket wrench, or standing at an auto store counter telling the guy that I need a whatchamagizmo for a ’74 Plymouth one-ninety-eight six cylinder. And it’s worth a laugh remembering those crazy breakdown situations, and what I had to do to get out of them in one piece (and without going bankrupt, given that we didn’t have too much money back then). But here in my old age, a Toyota is the right car for the times. Thankfully, they don’t build ’em like Chrysler-Plymouth used to!

◊ posted by Jim G @ 10:15 pm Read Comments (2) / Leave a Comment

Saturday, August 9, 2008

◊ Parable of the Morning Glories

Personal Reflections ... Photo ...

Right around Memorial Day, I got to thinking about my college days. I was still living with my mother and father and brother in the same house that I grew up in; we couldn’t afford to go away to college. During the summers I had a job with the local railroad, and much of it was on the night shift. Which I sort of enjoyed, actually.

Anyway, when I got home after working nights, I would often notice the morning glories that my mother had planted along an old swing set. The vines climbed up along some strings that my mother had strung from the swing frame. If it was a sunny morning, the purple and blue and white flowers would be in full bloom. I always gave them a look as I dragged myself from the car into the house, carrying my utility bag, ready to get some sleep.

Well, back here in 2008, I got an inspiration from that memory: why not grow some morning glories out in my landlord’s back yard? He wouldn’t care; he might even like to see them himself. So I shleped over to the local hardware store and bought two Burpee seed packages. Then I found a spot near the back fence that seemed fairly sunny, and did some planting and watering. It was a bit late in the planting season, but there was still all of June, July and August to come, so I figured it was worth a try.

Eventually some vines started growing and I found some wood stakes in the backyard for them to wrap around. But it took several tries. Just as the seedlings were starting to come up on the first try, the people next door did some work on the fence, and the workers stomped out most of the young shoots. So I tried again, with similar results as they came back and put a new fence in. Well, I had just enough seeds left for a third attempt. OK, this time it worked. Or it seemed to work.

As July progressed, the vines made good progress moving up the wooden stakes. If it didn’t rain for a few days I would go outside with a plastic bottle to provide some moisture. Eventually, the 5 or 6 surviving vines sent out all kinds of side shoots and leaves that started wrapping together, which is part of the knotty charm of morning glories. However, as we entered August last week, I started to look for flowers. Unfortunately, there aren’t any signs of that.

As you can see in the picture below, there are plenty of leaves and vines, but no flowers. Without flowers, there won’t be any new seeds falling to the ground to continue the effort next spring. It seems that the plant doesn’t get enough morning sun; because of the trees and the northeastern start of the sun’s daily arc across the summer sky, my morning glories don’t get any sun until around noon. So I guess they just can’t find the genetic inspiration to put out any flowers. Instead, they put out lots of offshoots, searching in vain for an angle that will catch the dawn’s early light. It was a good try, but it turned out to be the wrong place for morning glories.

It’s too bad that many human lives go that way. You can’t help but admire the people who really makes it in the world; they have lots of grit and spunk and tell their tales of how they were kicked around and brought down, but they always picked themselves up and kept right on going. But there are plenty of other people who also did this, but their lives and their potential never fully bloomed. The stars just weren’t in the right place.

So, just a reminder not to be so hard on people who seem like losers and under-achievers. They might have thought just as creatively and struggled just as valiantly as an admirably successful person, but because of fate were always one bridge too far. For every Barack Obama or Warren Buffet or Bill Gates or Mother Theresa, for every athlete in the Olympics or performer on the superstar list, there are millions of others who had good ideas and wonderful inspirations and abilities, but just never found the morning sun.

◊ posted by Jim G @ 7:09 pm Read Comments (2) / Leave a Comment

Monday, August 4, 2008

◊ An American Tragedy?

Current Affairs ... Politics ...

This year’s presidential election campaign was supposed to be different than the rest. The mudslinging, innuendo-ridden tactics of the past were supposed to be disposed of. Both candidates agreed to be “civil”. Both sides were all for bi-partisanship and cooperation. The divisive days of Bush and his hatchet men (Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, etc.) were to be left behind. No “swift-boating” this year (ditto for the Democrat’s lame attempt to counter-swiftboat Bush with doctored reports about his service in the National Guard — remember?).

Here we are in early August, with the conventions still three weeks away, and things are already heating up. Both sides have gone ugly early. I won’t try to assign the blame for “who started it”. There has been a simultaneous escalation on both sides, really. McCain pulled back on his promise to run a civil campaign and started attacking Obama’s character, comparing him with airhead celebrities. Obama broke his promise to stay within the public campaign financing system. He also implied quite strongly that the McCain campaign was using racist tactics (before backing away from this claim after being called on it by McCain’s campaign manager). Obama’s campaign staff lied about why Obama didn’t visit wounded American troops in Germany; McCain issued an ad that wrongfully accused Obama of not going specifically because he wanted to bring the press and was refused. Then McCain issued an ad mocking Obama for his oratorical eloquence, i.e., “The One”.

Let me inject a sidenote here about “The One” — about 3/4th of the way thru this ad, a Charlton Heston movie scene appears depicting Moses parting the waters of the Red Sea. I couldn’t help but laugh at the audacity of that. It was just too campy. Advantage McCain, for putting out a political ad with a bit of humor in it. That’s extremely rare.

What isn’t a laughing matter is that the nation seems more polarized than ever because of this election. Right now the polls indicate that it’s going to be another squeaker. People are taking sides and getting emotional, even before the candidates have been officially nominated. The “red versus blue” analysis seems to be more relevant than ever. Common ground is fading, just when it is needed more than ever.

The USA is facing some of its most severe foreign and domestic challenges since the 1960s. There’s an energy crisis, an economic and financial crisis, growing unemployment and inflation (remember “stagflation” from the early 80s?), two wars that have no end in sight, a Middle East situation that could go nuclear too quickly, increasing competition for global resources from three growing powers (China, India and Brazil), a long-term environmental crisis (global warming) that requires massive resource allocations today in order to prevent great disasters in 50 years. Oh, and did I mention terrorism? We hope that it has gone away, but just when you think that it did, it has a way of suddenly rearing its ugly head. A divided America engaged in continual political warfare is not likely to take decisive action to meet big challenges. Problems that may still be controllable are thus festering into major crisis situations.

I apologize for the pessimism, but both candidates have repeatedly testified to the need for national unity, but can’t help but promote division. They both seem locked into a dance towards the ledge, into a Greek tragedy controlled by uncontrollable human fate. It’s just happening, and no one seems able to stop it. I can’t help but be reminded of the western Roman Empire in the fourth and fifth centuries. Those who were supposed to be running things were locked into continuous battle, while the barbarians were advancing through the provinces and the economy started going to hell. I’m not saying that the USA is near a state of collapse; America still has an incredible array of strengths. But so did Rome in 250 or 300 AD. And yet that mighty empire sleepwalked its way over the edge. I can’t help but think that America today is a few steps closer to such an edge than when I was a young man.

PS – I see that Obama has come out with a proposal to use oil from the Strategic Oil Reserve as to bring gas prices down. That idea is just as stupid and short-sighted as McCain’s “gas tax holiday”. And both are now favoring off-shore oil drilling. It’s becoming a real race for the bottom. But it’s especially sad to see an intellectual like Obama giving up on being smart, and selling out to the “dumbing down” of politics. It’s amazing what the dream of ambition and power can do to a good man; especially a good young man.

◊ posted by Jim G @ 8:18 pm Read Comments (2) / Leave a Comment

Friday, August 1, 2008

◊ Energy Ups and Downs

Current Affairs ... Economics/Business ...

I’m just as perplexed as everyone else about the huge run-up in oil and gasoline prices over the past two or three years. Some say it’s the Chinese, some say it’s the speculators, some say it’s politics that’s to blame. To get some perspective on the issue, I decided to download some data from the federal EIA web site and make a chart that analyzes changes in world oil production, usage, and prices over the past quarter century (with reasonable projections for 2008 and 2009). My chart doesn’t show actual prices and barrels of oil produced and used. Instead, it plots the ratio of usage, production and price statistics for each year relative to the same statistic for the past year. So, if prices went up 10% over the previous year, the chart will show 1.1 for prices. If production went up 2% from the previous year, the chart will show 1.02 for production. If usage went down by 4%, it will show 0.96 for usage.

So here’s the chart; the price line is green (the color of money), the production line is blue, and the usage line is pinkish-purple.

What gets me about this chart is that over the past three years, nothing really extraordinary has happened (and is not expected to happen into 2009). In the 1970’s and 1980’s, the lines on the chart swing all over the place, reflecting the price shocks from the OPEC oil boycott of 1973 and the Iran hostage situation in 1979. But after 1984 or so, things seemed to settle down within a certain range of yearly change. And it’s hard to see any big changes from that trend, even over the past three years. The biggest movement, which you have to look really hard to see, is that yearly oil demand increases haven’t gone significantly below 1% since 1994. Between 1983 and 1997, yearly demand increased between 0% and 1% in five years. After ’97, it only went below 1% once. So yes, increasing oil demand in the developing world (India and China, mostly) is being felt. But it’s not any really huge change relative to the past. Demand increases are generally staying under 3%, as they have since 1977.

With that increase in demand, prices are rising more often than falling. In the same ’83 to ’97 period, average prices went down from one year to the next in nine instances. After that, average yearly price declines have only happened twice. Oil production, by contrast, seems to fluctuate between -1% and plus 4% per year, as it has since 1983.

What I take from this analysis is that we are severely pushing this planet’s ability to yield petroleum at a reasonable price. Supply does not seem to be keeping up with potential demand, so increased prices help manage demand by reducing it back to sustainable levels (in the short-run, anyway). The marginal costs of bring forth new sources of oil are thus seen to be going up, significantly. Unless we get really lucky and find an unanticipated cheap supply of oil or gas, or devise some technology that makes oil and gas recovery much cheaper, the days of easy energy are over. Speculators will make the pain a bit worse, and quick fixes like drilling for oil along the US coastal shelves might provide a temporary palliative. But until America and the rest of the world learns to wean itself off of petroleum, which could take many decades, our economies and our standards of living are in for some ups and downs; and the downs may outnumber the ups.

◊ posted by Jim G @ 11:24 pm Read Comments (2) / Leave a Comment

Sunday, July 27, 2008

◊ Disillusionment with liberalism

Politics ... Society ...

There is a saying popularly attributed to Winston Churchill that roughly goes as follows: if you’re not a liberal when you’re young, you have no heart; if you’re not a conservative when you’re old, you have no mind. (The phrase actually originated with Francois Guisot, 1787-1874: “Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.” It was revived by French Premier Georges Clemenceau 1841-1929: “Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.”)

Well, my own political philosophy has gone something like that over the course of my 55 years. As a young twenty-something, I was an enthusiastic supporter of George McGovern in the 1972 presidential race, and felt that big government and high taxes (especially on the rich) were the answer to the world’s problems. Thirty six years later, I haven’t given in to Rush Limbaugh and the GOP yet, but I certainly would not support George McGovern anymore. And having worked in government for much of my career, I know that government can only do so much good and has many bad side-effects while doing it. There certainly do exist cases where the bad from government intervention outweighs the good.

I was attracted to liberalism because I am concerned about people. I would like to see as many people as possible saved from injustice, oppression, economic calamity, disease, war, and other bad stuff. I really did think that liberalism and its advocacy of socialistic governmental interventions was the best way to achieve those aims. And I still think that governmental interventions are necessary in our modern world to help make life better for as many people as possible.

BUT. I’ve become a lot more pessimistic over the years about just how much good can be done by government before the bad side-effects drown out the original intent. First off, government is a clunky thing. It tried to do too many things and answers to too many masters, and thus gets bogged down with paperwork and rules and uninspired bureaucracy, as implemented by uninspired bureaucrats (like me!). It costs a lot of money to operate, money that causes higher taxes. Higher taxes make a lot of people unhappy; and even worse, they eventually threaten the non-governmental world, i.e. the world of business and capitalism. But business and capitalism are all about greed, and liberal government is all about trying to help people, right? In a perfect world, yes; but in the real world, good intentions often lead to hell, and bad intentions sometimes get us closer to heaven (however unintentionally).

Second off, government can’t be separated from politics. And even the best form of politics, i.e. a balanced semi-democracy as spelled out in the US Constitution, too often goes off the rails and is hijacked for greed and power lust. And even worse, politics involves internecine warfare between factions competing to satisfy their own greed and power lust. In the middle of all that, government has to remain timid and survival-oriented. New ideas and innovations are feared. Old ways become entrenched and remain long after their time has passed. So in the end, the scalpel that liberals would use to remove cancers like racism and poverty and inhumane working conditions from the social body becomes a dull blade.

In some cases, a dull blade is better than no blade. In others, it does more damage than doing nothing. And if liberals took that into account and chose their battles based on a realistic assessment of which of their laudable goals could actually be enforced, I would still be an enthusiastic liberal. But most liberals don’t give much thought to the many side-effects of their remedies. As such, I can’t support the liberal cause wholeheartedly anymore.

Another problem with liberalism is that it is ultimately just another faction seeking political power. Liberals want political power, hoping that it will allow them to carry out their ideologies. And they make many compromises to gain that power. Right now, Barack Obama is the “great white hope” (irony intended) of the liberal cause. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), Obama is himself doing what he has to do to gain such power — including selling out the liberal policy line.

President George W. Bush has been a bad president. But he and his neo-conservative cronies have gotten away with what they have because of the general bankruptcy of the liberal alternative. Liberals have to “get real” with regard to economics and the practicalities of changing society through governmental interventions. They might, for example, be able to improve the schools and the children who are educated in them, but might not be able to assure that all minorities (including women and homosexuals) are given an equal playing field in terms of economic and social opportunities. Liberals would be better off if they would learn to choose their battles. But politically, that means saying no to certain interest groups. And in American politics, the art of saying ‘no’ is almost non-existent. So, I expect that the liberals will remain a very inclusive and very irrelevant political movement into the future, and that the conservatives will continue to rule the day. And that’s a big regret.

PS, with regard to Barack Obama and the so-called liberal bias in the national media: I’m afraid that it’s true. I never gave much credence to conservative GOP complaints that big media favors the liberals (for what little good that it does them historically). But this year, big media has been especially enamored of Barack Obama, most likely for liberal reasons (i.e., his minority status, his pro-big government policies, etc.). The numerical evidence is available: according to the Christian Science Monitor, the Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) conducts a weekly news index, surveying more than 300 newspaper, magazine, and TV stories, and has found that in the six weeks since the general campaign began, Obama has had significantly more exposure than McCain. Last week, Obama was found to be a “significant presence” in 83 percent of campaign coverage, versus 52 percent for McCain. You can also see a chart prepared by PEJ on their web site tracking this.

And yes, I do believe this to be unfair to Senator McCain. This is despite the fact that I still can’t embrace the ideas and philosophies that McCain espouses, despite my break-up with liberal orthodoxy.

◊ posted by Jim G @ 7:20 pm Read Comments (2) / Leave a Comment

Thursday, July 24, 2008

◊ POPULAR SOCIOLOGY

Society ...

According to the Census Bureau, about 28% of adults in the US have earned bachelors degrees, and another 28% have associate degrees or have taken some college courses. As such, about 55% percent of Americans probably know something about the academic field of sociology. It’s too bad that number isn’t higher.

One of the most important things that sociology teaches, in my opinion, is that we humans do the things we do largely because of social influences. And most of the time, we don’t even know it. A fish in water doesn’t stop to think about water. And a social animal in a society doesn’t usually stop to think about whether the crowd is going in the right direction. As social animals, we mostly go with the flow.

That’s a good thing, in many ways. But there are cases where it causes problems. Take race relations, for instance. I was browsing a page on pollingreport.com recently, which showed the results of various recent polls on race relations. The results clearly show that white people tend to think that racial relations aren’t much of a problem anymore and that discrimination barriers are mostly a thing of the past for blacks. By contrast, black people more often think that race issues have not been settled and that discrimination is still a big problem for them. Another poll appearing in the NY Times a few days ago said basically the same thing. So why the difference?

In my opinion, racism is still alive, but it is manifested in a much more subtle way. The days of “back of the bus” and separate white and “colored” restrooms are long gone. But a lot of white people who make decisions that affect blacks, such as teachers deciding on how to instruct students, or business owners deciding who to hire and promote, could well be influenced by race and not even know it. Social notions and evaluation standards, such as who is more trustworthy or more industrious or more likely to cheat or to be violent, are not formed through overt discussion; they come about through subtle signs and unspoken assumptions, sometimes even through sub-conscious processes. So yes, it is entirely possible that a form of continued racism is going on within white American society in a sub-conscious fashion, and is manifested by people who don’t overtly hold any bad feelings towards people of color.

So, blacks complain about continuing racism while whites aren’t sure what they are talking about. Perhaps they think that blacks are just being political or are being outright ‘whiners’. (As to the political aspect, I do believe that some black political leaders draw the racism card too quickly). But mostly what they are trying to say is that a certain sociology is at work, and that whites need to be more aware of this and work to end it. Unfortunately, sociology is not an easy thing to talk about, especially if half the country isn’t very familiar with it.

I’m not saying that popular sociology is the answer to race relations. But it would at least be a way to get some movement from the present stand-off between whites and blacks, a possible grounding for an open, intelligent discussion. (As part of that openness, common black attitudes about whites would also need to be discussed.)

And here’s another sociology problem: our nation is currently in an economic crisis fueled by too much debt. Over the past ten or twenty years, too many people spent too much on housing and consumer items using borrowed money. And now the banks and investors are sweating because it turns out that a whole lot of that debt isn’t going to be repaid.

There have been a lot of “profile” articles in the papers lately on the people who borrowed all this money and are now in hot water over it. You’ve seen the story, e.g. a couple in their late 40s making around $50,000 bought a big house and an SUV and much other good stuff. Then something went wrong and one of them got hurt or was laid off, and had to take a lousy job paying only half of what they used to make. And then the mortgage payments jumped, and they couldn’t refinance to draw out equity because housing values starting sinking. In the article, the couple is quoted to say that they were duped by the lenders and credit card companies who offered them all sorts of easy loans just a few years ago, and are now pestering them day and night about their past-due balances.

So do we blame the couple or the banks and mortgage brokers who bombarded them with all sorts of tempting loan deals so that they could live even higher on the hog? Well, David Brooks of the NY Times just wrote a very intelligent article that suggested another way to look at such a couple. Brooks feels that we have to consider the “culture of debt” that has been developing in America over the past few decades. In other words, borrowing and spending to the limit has become a sociology thing, a crowd phenomenon. Everyone was doing it, because everyone else they knew was doing it. It’s easy to think that it must be OK to do when no one else is worrying about it. But now things have changed, and social attitudes will eventually adjust to the new conditions. America will go back to a somewhat more frugal and thrifty way of life. Living within one’s means may come back in fashion, although the banks and credit companies will try not to let that idea get too far (through massive advertising campaigns).

Had everyone thought a little bit more about sociology, had everyone been aware that they were following a crowd and questioned whether that crowd was moving in the right direction, perhaps some of this mess could have been avoided.

Sociologists of the world — where are you now that we need you? How about getting out a bit from your ivy-covered halls and making yourselves more accessible to the masses. You too are following your own little academic herd, living in your (relatively) protected world of universities and conferences and journal articles. It’s time to get out there into the evening news and the local papers and the shopping mall bookstores. And maybe even make some appearances in church basements and at evening adult-school courses. American society has some nasty messes to untangle, and we need people who can help us to see the big picture. Elsewise, we’re going to just keep on dancing in circles, thinking everything is fine while an increasingly competitive and hostile world, jealous of our comforts and our past achievements, closes in around us.

◊ posted by Jim G @ 9:11 pm Read Comments (2) / Leave a Comment

Sunday, July 20, 2008

◊ Beating the heat

Current Affairs ... Weather ...

It’s that time of year in northern NJ — temperatures in the mid-90s and near-liquid humidity. And I hear a lot of people complaining about the discomfort of it all. They’re ready to cry bloody murder as they break a sweat while walking between their air-conditioned cars and their air-conditioned houses or offices or shopping malls. Air conditioning has become a social expectation here, as in most other places outside the “third world”.

Being a bit out-of-step with the world around me, I don’t embrace air conditioning. I have one in my apartment, but it doesn’t work anymore. I never use the one in my car; I’d rather get a few extra miles per gallon, especially now with four-dollar gas. The only place where I do need air conditioning is at work. And even there, the system can barely hold 80 degrees on summer afternoons. Obviously there is a lot of complaining. But not by me.

So how do I survive a weekend at home in late July and early August? I have some fans to keep the wet 90 degree air moving. But most important, I find that my body knows how to adjust to the weather. Basically, it does what people used to do in primitive hot-weather cultures; my metabolism throttles back and I sleep a lot during the day. I do all of my chores and projects in the morning, and by 2 pm I’m in my reading chair with an open book and closing eyelids. As the afternoon drifts by, I go back and forth from nap to nap. By 6 or so, I get up for dinner, and then snooze some more. Then around 9 pm I get some energy back and putter around until about midnight.

I’ve thus gone into the classic “siesta” cycle of Latin countries in the tropics. In the last 50 years or so, many people in these countries have abandoned the traditional “lazy afternoon” way of life in favor of air-conditioned hyperactivity all day long. And that has driven up the demand for oil; air conditioning, no matter how efficient, will always be an energy-intensive proposition. And now oil production is not keeping up with demand, thus threatening the world economy with spiking prices. (As I previously discussed, investor speculation in oil futures has made things worse. But until some of the speculators get hurt and the bubble bursts, there’s nothing you can do about it; it’s just a nasty little side-effect of free market dynamics).

So, perhaps our modern society will eventually be forced to re-adopt some of the old traditions like lazy, sleepy afternoons and active evenings (not all old traditions are bad; although admittedly, stuff like nationalism, racism and warfare have to go). Another thing: the heat isn’t as bad when you maintain your proper weight. Obesity is becoming an epidemic in the USA, and I think that it has something to do with the notion of universal air conditioning, air conditioning as a right. If energy scarcity forces us to restrict air conditioning to places of work and to those who need it most, e.g. the elderly and the medically frail, perhaps Americans would watch their weight more carefully, reducing diabetes and heart disease and increasing life spans.

Yea, I know, I sound like a communist autocrat telling people how they should live and forcing social changes on the unwilling masses. But no, I’m not. All I’m saying here is that if $8 gasoline and outrageous electricity bills do ever cause Americans to re-think their ways of life, their dread regarding going back to older ways of life may be somewhat unfounded. Take my word for it — a lazy, sleepy afternoon in a hot and humid room (with open windows; no more sealed-in buildings with “central air”) really isn’t that bad!

◊ posted by Jim G @ 4:55 pm No Comments Yet / Leave a Comment

Friday, July 18, 2008

◊ Where’s the Oil Flood?

Economics/Business ... Foreign Relations/World Affairs ...

The escalating price of oil is throwing the world economy into a spin, a downward spin. The big question is whether recent price levels ($140 to $150 per barrel) are permanent, or just a stop on the way further up, or instead represent a high-water mark driven by speculators who can’t make a killing right now on the stock market or in real estate. As a person with part of my retirement money in a mutual fund that promises long-term performance but for now is doing very poorly, and which is staking its comeback on the notion that the oil markets are currently in a bubble which will soon break, I have some skin in this game. So here’s my 2 cents on what’s going on with oil.

The bottom line is that we’re in a twilight zone; we see through a glass darkly right now. One of the biggest questions is whether classic microeconomic theories regarding market behavior still apply in the oil markets (or to what degree). Economist Paul Krugman and others believe that the lack of supplier hoarding (above ground oil storage increases) indicates that the problem revolves around the demand fundamentals. I.e., current oil prices accurately reflect growing demand relative to the increasing inelasticity of output (i.e., inability to ramp up output significantly due to political and geo-technical factors). The oil that is left is in the worst places with higher and higher marginal production and distribution costs.

On the other side of the coin, there does seem to be a lot of ‘restless capital’ out there, in the hand of investors who drove the stock bubble of the late 90s and the real estate bubble of the 00’s. So I’m leaning towards the bubble theory, despite the dearth of signs regarding above-ground inventory hoarding. The ‘smart money’ and its corresponding panic psychology is focusing on oil futures, not on actual oil barrels from the spot market. So, if there is hoarding (as seen in bubbles of the past, e.g. the tulip mania of 1636), it would logically occur further up the production chain — i.e., in-the-ground hoarding, reflected in lack of effort on the part of the oil owners and producers to ramp up drilling and production. That might – again, MIGHT – be consistent with the surprising lack of production increase over the past few years despite the amazing price run-ups. (Only a year ago, oil was around $70 a barrel; two years takes you down to $45).

The oil markets are pretty wacky; you can’t assume that all producers are fiscal profit maximizers, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez being a case-in-point. I’m still waiting for the flood of new oil that analyst Daniel Yergen predicted in 2005. Is that new oil just around the corner — admittedly, deep sea and tar sand projects do take a lot longer to bring on-line than the good old Texas gusher from days past. So what if this is a bubble being driven by in-the-ground hoarding, what breaks it? Some combination of reduced demand because of business recession and increased output once long-term oil production projects of a more exotic nature finally come on line MIGHT cool the fever. I hope.

But, the real wild card is in the situation between Israel and Iran. Once Iran tests its bomb, or once Israel finally runs out of patience with negotiations and fires up its jets for a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, the oil market will go off the rails. Especially if an Israel strike fails to thoroughly destroy Iran’s nuclear program. Maybe I need to get my $$ out of that overly optimistic mutual fund!

PS, what we clearly DON’T need right now is John McCain trying to be humorous, doing a takeoff on an old Beach Boys song (Barbara Ann), using the refrain: bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.

◊ posted by Jim G @ 11:25 pm Read Comments (2) / Leave a Comment

TOP PAGE - LATEST BLOG POSTS
« PREVIOUS PAGE -- NEXT PAGE (OLDER POSTS) »