"How vain it is to sit down to write when you have not stood up to live!"
H.D. Thoreau
photo: Walden Pond
1 week ago
Thursday, July 08, 2010
LeBronian Motion
2nd Update: Man, it's ugly. The NY Times, AP, Sports Illustrated and Washington Post --no doubt among others--join the negative reaction, turning LeBron from hero to villain instantly, and LeBron's ex-boss, dissed by hearing the decision on TV, unloaded on his erstwhile meal ticket, calling him a narcissistic traitor, and accused him of quitting during the playoffs. Here's a sample, from SI: "But James does not have the heart of a champion. He does not have the competitive fire of Jordan, the bull-headed determination of Kobe Bryant, the quiet self-confidence of Tim Duncan, the willful defiance of Isiah or the winning-is-everything hunger of Magic Johnson. He is an extremely gifted player who wants the easy way out."
Very ugly.
Update: It's Miami.
So tonight LeBron James is going to announce where he plays basketball next season. On a prime-time television special. About him. For an hour.
I may not be as exercised about it as this guy, but it is pretty weird. Nor have I paid that much attention to LeBron, except to note that he's a hell of a player, and his behavior in playoff games has been odd, to say the least.
But the stakes are beyond NBA basketball. James has apparently announced his ambition to become a billionaire, and if he chooses to leave his current city of employment (Cleveland), that city's economy could take a major hit.
So what will he do? Stay in Cleveland, where his team disgraced itself by quitting in their final playoff games, but where he will rake in the most salary, and be the undisputed King? Or go to Miami, where another star player (Chris Bosh) has joined the superstar Dwayne Wade, and figure to be clearly be the favorite to finally reach the NBA finals and get a ring--but where LeBron will no longer be the sole focus? Or will he go to New York, and become King of the supposed media capital of the world?
If he's serious about winning a championship and Miami can still afford him, he goes there. He is apparently less likely now to go to New York, and while there's a logic to him staying in Cleveland, I'd be surprised by that.
To suggest how really weird this is, apparently none of the teams he is considering knows whether he will choose them. He's not just announcing his choice to the world. He's announcing it to the team he will deign to play for.
For the past several decades, sports stars have made lots of money, comparable to Hollywood stars. What they do is singular, especially in the playoffs. So standards of what is obscene, especially when so many are unemployed and otherwise struggling, do change. But this is getting well into the territory of the disgusting.
So as an NBA fan, I'll want to know what he decides. But I can wait to check it online when I normally make the sports rounds. I hope whatever he decides that LeBron does make it into the finals next year, and that the Lakers kick his ass. Is that just because I'm a Lakers fan? Maybe. But I'll say this: even if he decides on the Chicago Bulls (a longshot now--it looks like either Miami or Cleveland), LeBron James is no Michael Jordan.
Very ugly.
Update: It's Miami.
So tonight LeBron James is going to announce where he plays basketball next season. On a prime-time television special. About him. For an hour.
I may not be as exercised about it as this guy, but it is pretty weird. Nor have I paid that much attention to LeBron, except to note that he's a hell of a player, and his behavior in playoff games has been odd, to say the least.
But the stakes are beyond NBA basketball. James has apparently announced his ambition to become a billionaire, and if he chooses to leave his current city of employment (Cleveland), that city's economy could take a major hit.
So what will he do? Stay in Cleveland, where his team disgraced itself by quitting in their final playoff games, but where he will rake in the most salary, and be the undisputed King? Or go to Miami, where another star player (Chris Bosh) has joined the superstar Dwayne Wade, and figure to be clearly be the favorite to finally reach the NBA finals and get a ring--but where LeBron will no longer be the sole focus? Or will he go to New York, and become King of the supposed media capital of the world?
If he's serious about winning a championship and Miami can still afford him, he goes there. He is apparently less likely now to go to New York, and while there's a logic to him staying in Cleveland, I'd be surprised by that.
To suggest how really weird this is, apparently none of the teams he is considering knows whether he will choose them. He's not just announcing his choice to the world. He's announcing it to the team he will deign to play for.
For the past several decades, sports stars have made lots of money, comparable to Hollywood stars. What they do is singular, especially in the playoffs. So standards of what is obscene, especially when so many are unemployed and otherwise struggling, do change. But this is getting well into the territory of the disgusting.
So as an NBA fan, I'll want to know what he decides. But I can wait to check it online when I normally make the sports rounds. I hope whatever he decides that LeBron does make it into the finals next year, and that the Lakers kick his ass. Is that just because I'm a Lakers fan? Maybe. But I'll say this: even if he decides on the Chicago Bulls (a longshot now--it looks like either Miami or Cleveland), LeBron James is no Michael Jordan.
Consequences: Prepare Now
Catching up to President Obama's announcement on Saturday on a $2 billion federal investment in solar technologies: the significance of this is obvious economically and in the fight to save the farther future from runaway climate catastrophe.
Further, one of the technologies being financed includes ways to store sun-generated energy for use at another time--a key feature in an adapatable power generating and distribution system.
But investment in many solar and certain kinds of wind technologies have another important feature: these are decentralized, local power sources. The ability of communities and even households to be self-sustaining, especially in energy, are key to surviving the Climate Cataclysm period of the nearer future. Soon enough, the grid is going to be more expensive and less dependable. The entire nation will continue to be held hostage to oil supplying countries, or even to what other countries can do to our economy and currency. Wars over oil can continue to cripple our economy.
Anything that increases self-sufficiency, as part of the "resilience" that's become the buzzword in certain quarters, is important--like 82,000 homes to be weatherized this summer with funds from the Recovery Act.
And the homegrown answer can't be left up to coal, which is polluting in every possible way, damaging to the environment which more and more must sustain us, and leaves communities just as beholden to machinations from outside--maybe not in another nation, but in that other country of corporate rule.
So fortunately the ship of state is also turning away from coal, perhaps slowly and even quietly, but decisively. On Wednesday the Obama administration issued new rules governing coal plant pollution.
For the ever-moving target of now, jobs are a key to community and household stability. The writing is on the wall for fossil fuel related jobs. The Union of Concerned Scientists claim that wind power can generate two to three times the number of jobs as fossil fuels. I heard someone on TV assert than even now, there are more U.S. jobs in wind than in coal. Why is this a secret?
The answer for now, the near future, the far future, is all the same: clean local energy and conservation. Just think about what they both might mean for summers with more very hot days and nights, as well as winters with more snow and rain, when you really don't want blackouts and brownouts, or energy it is too expensive to use.
Further, one of the technologies being financed includes ways to store sun-generated energy for use at another time--a key feature in an adapatable power generating and distribution system.
But investment in many solar and certain kinds of wind technologies have another important feature: these are decentralized, local power sources. The ability of communities and even households to be self-sustaining, especially in energy, are key to surviving the Climate Cataclysm period of the nearer future. Soon enough, the grid is going to be more expensive and less dependable. The entire nation will continue to be held hostage to oil supplying countries, or even to what other countries can do to our economy and currency. Wars over oil can continue to cripple our economy.
Anything that increases self-sufficiency, as part of the "resilience" that's become the buzzword in certain quarters, is important--like 82,000 homes to be weatherized this summer with funds from the Recovery Act.
And the homegrown answer can't be left up to coal, which is polluting in every possible way, damaging to the environment which more and more must sustain us, and leaves communities just as beholden to machinations from outside--maybe not in another nation, but in that other country of corporate rule.
So fortunately the ship of state is also turning away from coal, perhaps slowly and even quietly, but decisively. On Wednesday the Obama administration issued new rules governing coal plant pollution.
For the ever-moving target of now, jobs are a key to community and household stability. The writing is on the wall for fossil fuel related jobs. The Union of Concerned Scientists claim that wind power can generate two to three times the number of jobs as fossil fuels. I heard someone on TV assert than even now, there are more U.S. jobs in wind than in coal. Why is this a secret?
The answer for now, the near future, the far future, is all the same: clean local energy and conservation. Just think about what they both might mean for summers with more very hot days and nights, as well as winters with more snow and rain, when you really don't want blackouts and brownouts, or energy it is too expensive to use.
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
The Dreaming Up Daily Quote
"The most radical, audacious thing to think is that there might be some point to working hard and thinking hard and reading hard and writing hard and trying to be of service."
Mark Vonnegut, introduction to Kurt Vonnegut's Armageddon in Retrospect. Drawing is also by Kurt Vonnegut. Note the "should have been." By 2005 Vonnegut believed: "Well, it's too late! Look, the game is over! The game is over. We've killed the planet, the life support system."
Consequences: Feeling It
The consequences of climate change begin to be acknowledged and understood, but slowly. In a human sense that's understandable--denial as well as distraction and unfamiliarity slow it down, but eventually it will sink in.
It's one thing to read about possible future consequences of, say, sea levels rising. The breadth and depth of these changes can be noted and comprehended intellectually, and by some, imaginatively. In fact, intellect and especially imagination are crucial necessities.
But when temperatures rise above 100F, as they are in cities in the US Eastern and Middle Atlantic states, the consequences of prolonged bouts of heat become viscerally evident. The external ones can be observed--machinery, wiring, urban infrastructure frying along with vegetables in the garden and crops in the field, while bodies of water begin drying up. And the internal ones can be felt as well as observed in others. The growing difficulties of thinking clearly, keeping a "cool head," and of acting with energy, in periods of high heat. The obsession with keeping cool, the exasperation becoming fear and desperation.
In a postscript to his visionary book, Down to the Wire: Confronting Climate Collapse, David W. Orr confesses the personal source of his concentration on the subject, which began in a blistering hot summer. "After the summer of 1980, climate change was important to me, not because I'd thought a great deal about it in an air-conditioned office, but because I had first felt it viscerally and somatically. My interest did not begin with any abstract intellectual process or deep thinking but rather with the felt experience of the thing, or what the thing will be like. That summer is recorded both mentally and bodily in memories of extreme heat with no respite."
There was another extremely hot summer or two at the end of the 80s, especially 1988 in the Eastern US. That experience is what drove my insistent focus on climate change and the future, as well as the more personal and selfish preference for the North Coast of California, where the heat rarely rises above 70F. Those late 80s hot summers led to some of the first public alarm reflected in books and other media, and inspired some interest in what I regard as still the best film about climate change, James Burke's After the Warming.
Surely there is some correlation between the killer heat waves that western European countries have experienced and their own focus on the Climate Crisis. As Stephan Faris's reporting in Forecast shows, people living in the most affected areas of the world so far--particularly those whose lives and livelihoods are tied to the land--experience, recognize and acknowledge the signs and the consequences of the reality that others foolishly and tragically reject.
So once again this summer, TV airheads chirp about "another hot one out there" and ways to beat the heat, as if the prospect of more and longer heat waves can be cured by more ice cream. Meanwhile, the vulnerable among us, already ignored and even targeted by shameful political callousness, will sicken and die silently from the heat, unknown, probably uncounted and unheeded. Especially the old.
My sympathies to those who must endure the heat today. Keep as cool as you can. And when your head is cooler, remember today. This is something we must all prepare for, while we try to prevent even worse for generations ahead.
A Climate Progress update on the heat wave and its relationship to the Climate Crisis.
It's one thing to read about possible future consequences of, say, sea levels rising. The breadth and depth of these changes can be noted and comprehended intellectually, and by some, imaginatively. In fact, intellect and especially imagination are crucial necessities.
But when temperatures rise above 100F, as they are in cities in the US Eastern and Middle Atlantic states, the consequences of prolonged bouts of heat become viscerally evident. The external ones can be observed--machinery, wiring, urban infrastructure frying along with vegetables in the garden and crops in the field, while bodies of water begin drying up. And the internal ones can be felt as well as observed in others. The growing difficulties of thinking clearly, keeping a "cool head," and of acting with energy, in periods of high heat. The obsession with keeping cool, the exasperation becoming fear and desperation.
In a postscript to his visionary book, Down to the Wire: Confronting Climate Collapse, David W. Orr confesses the personal source of his concentration on the subject, which began in a blistering hot summer. "After the summer of 1980, climate change was important to me, not because I'd thought a great deal about it in an air-conditioned office, but because I had first felt it viscerally and somatically. My interest did not begin with any abstract intellectual process or deep thinking but rather with the felt experience of the thing, or what the thing will be like. That summer is recorded both mentally and bodily in memories of extreme heat with no respite."
There was another extremely hot summer or two at the end of the 80s, especially 1988 in the Eastern US. That experience is what drove my insistent focus on climate change and the future, as well as the more personal and selfish preference for the North Coast of California, where the heat rarely rises above 70F. Those late 80s hot summers led to some of the first public alarm reflected in books and other media, and inspired some interest in what I regard as still the best film about climate change, James Burke's After the Warming.
Surely there is some correlation between the killer heat waves that western European countries have experienced and their own focus on the Climate Crisis. As Stephan Faris's reporting in Forecast shows, people living in the most affected areas of the world so far--particularly those whose lives and livelihoods are tied to the land--experience, recognize and acknowledge the signs and the consequences of the reality that others foolishly and tragically reject.
So once again this summer, TV airheads chirp about "another hot one out there" and ways to beat the heat, as if the prospect of more and longer heat waves can be cured by more ice cream. Meanwhile, the vulnerable among us, already ignored and even targeted by shameful political callousness, will sicken and die silently from the heat, unknown, probably uncounted and unheeded. Especially the old.
My sympathies to those who must endure the heat today. Keep as cool as you can. And when your head is cooler, remember today. This is something we must all prepare for, while we try to prevent even worse for generations ahead.
A Climate Progress update on the heat wave and its relationship to the Climate Crisis.
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
Mankind's Greatest Invention
"Surely mankind's greatest invention is the sentence." So begins John Banville's essay on Robert C. Richardson's books on Emerson, in what has to be my favorite quote of recent years, perhaps of all time.
When you're a writer, no matter how famous or obscure, whether you're one of the handful anointed by income or crowned by royalties to bear the title of writer, or you're a wretch like me, insultingly underpaid for squeezing into dubious forms, sooner or later, what gives you the buzz and the meaning, is a sentence you see and hear that you've written.
Oh sure, some get off on paragraphs, and there's the lucky few that get to play with chapters or scenes, and whole books, plays, sagas. But even they share the secret (and often secretive) gleam of a shining sentence, appearing under their fingers.
I wrote a review of a book about a writer who made very good sentences: Jane Austen. And in it I wrote a pretty nifty sentence, at least I like it. And for once I will violate the code and call your attention to it. It is mere cleverness maybe, but it is musical and funny, with a touch of cultural wit at the center. Or maybe it's just cute, I don't care. These days I must take my pleasure where I can. And pointing out a really elegant sentence is forbidden. That's up to readers to discover, and if they don't, well, everybody loses.
So in connection with Jane Austen's journey from obscurity in life to Jane-mania in the 21st century, I wrote this: She has the fame of the single name: absent Tarzan, she is our only Jane.
Good. Now I can put the clipping away with all the other forgotten sentences, and make some more.
When you're a writer, no matter how famous or obscure, whether you're one of the handful anointed by income or crowned by royalties to bear the title of writer, or you're a wretch like me, insultingly underpaid for squeezing into dubious forms, sooner or later, what gives you the buzz and the meaning, is a sentence you see and hear that you've written.
Oh sure, some get off on paragraphs, and there's the lucky few that get to play with chapters or scenes, and whole books, plays, sagas. But even they share the secret (and often secretive) gleam of a shining sentence, appearing under their fingers.
I wrote a review of a book about a writer who made very good sentences: Jane Austen. And in it I wrote a pretty nifty sentence, at least I like it. And for once I will violate the code and call your attention to it. It is mere cleverness maybe, but it is musical and funny, with a touch of cultural wit at the center. Or maybe it's just cute, I don't care. These days I must take my pleasure where I can. And pointing out a really elegant sentence is forbidden. That's up to readers to discover, and if they don't, well, everybody loses.
So in connection with Jane Austen's journey from obscurity in life to Jane-mania in the 21st century, I wrote this: She has the fame of the single name: absent Tarzan, she is our only Jane.
Good. Now I can put the clipping away with all the other forgotten sentences, and make some more.
Where Are They?
Hey, GOPer Gulf Coast governors: where are the National Guard troops President Obama authorized you to call up to help clean up and protect the Gulf? In this emergency that you blame everybody else for not addressing, especially the federal government?
According to the Christian Science Monitor:
While most of the criticism has been heaped on federal agencies and the Obama administration, questions are being raised about the extent to which the four Gulf state governors (all Republicans) are responding too – specifically, on deployment of National Guard troops under their command.
In a recent investigative report, CBS News found that Louisiana's Gov. Jindal had deployed just 1,053 of the 6,000 troops available to him. "Alabama has deployed 432 troops of 3,000 available," according to CBS. "Even fewer have been deployed in Florida - 97 troops out of 2,500 - and Mississippi - 58 troops out of 6,000."
And, by the way, why do you keep harping on what you know won't work--like those phantom berms, that are destroying more than they are saving, and will likely dissolve in the next big storm?
Or all the hoohaw you're spewing about how the Jones Act is preventing foreign vessels from helping, when it isn't? And lots of skimmers and other vessels from elsewhere are deployed?
Maybe you're too busy helping the BP police state of the Gulf scare reporters away, or you're just serving your oil company masters. But hoping to pin failure on President Obama is no excuse for GOPer governors to be derelict in their duties. Stop the political flimflam and showboating, and get to work saving what's left of the Gulf.
According to the Christian Science Monitor:
While most of the criticism has been heaped on federal agencies and the Obama administration, questions are being raised about the extent to which the four Gulf state governors (all Republicans) are responding too – specifically, on deployment of National Guard troops under their command.
In a recent investigative report, CBS News found that Louisiana's Gov. Jindal had deployed just 1,053 of the 6,000 troops available to him. "Alabama has deployed 432 troops of 3,000 available," according to CBS. "Even fewer have been deployed in Florida - 97 troops out of 2,500 - and Mississippi - 58 troops out of 6,000."
And, by the way, why do you keep harping on what you know won't work--like those phantom berms, that are destroying more than they are saving, and will likely dissolve in the next big storm?
Or all the hoohaw you're spewing about how the Jones Act is preventing foreign vessels from helping, when it isn't? And lots of skimmers and other vessels from elsewhere are deployed?
Maybe you're too busy helping the BP police state of the Gulf scare reporters away, or you're just serving your oil company masters. But hoping to pin failure on President Obama is no excuse for GOPer governors to be derelict in their duties. Stop the political flimflam and showboating, and get to work saving what's left of the Gulf.
Monday, July 05, 2010
The Dreaming Up Daily Quote
"He took out his union card from his wallet it and showed them, one by one. 'These words right here"--pointing to the slogan on the back of the card--"is what it all comes down to, you won't hear it in school, maybe the Gettysburg Address, Declaration of Independence and so forth, but if you learn nothing else, learn this by heart, what it says here--Labor produces all wealth. Wealth belongs to the producer thereof.--Straight talk. No double-talking you like the plutes do, 'cause with them what you always have is to be listening for the opposite of what they say. Freedom, there the time to watch your back in particular--start telling you how free you are, somethin's up, next thing you know the gates have slammed shut...Why you could write a foreign phrase book just on what Republicans have to say.'"
Thomas Pynchon
Hoedown of Shame
First they came for the undocumented, with vicious racism masked as self-preservation. Then for the homeless, including and especially homeless veterans. Then with state budget cuts targeting the old, the injured and the ill, but keeping corporate graft. Now GOPers and their well-fed leaders are coming for the working middle class, in trouble in an ugly and changing economy, or just doing the work of the people.
The now famous documentary about the plight of migrant workers was called "Harvest of Shame." But that was 1960. Now GOPers and their supporters have no shame. They have no conscience. And libertarians and their ilk have no sense of history, of what life was like for the less than rich and therefore powerless, before unions and federal and state law protected them, in the name of decency and community, as well as (it turns out) prosperity and democracy. Like all ideologues, they're willing to cause suffering for their theoretical purity, and like all right wing dupes, serve the interests of the rich and powerful. And this is the America they want to return to. This isn't just a harvest--it's a celebration of shame. If anybody remembers what the word means.
The now famous documentary about the plight of migrant workers was called "Harvest of Shame." But that was 1960. Now GOPers and their supporters have no shame. They have no conscience. And libertarians and their ilk have no sense of history, of what life was like for the less than rich and therefore powerless, before unions and federal and state law protected them, in the name of decency and community, as well as (it turns out) prosperity and democracy. Like all ideologues, they're willing to cause suffering for their theoretical purity, and like all right wing dupes, serve the interests of the rich and powerful. And this is the America they want to return to. This isn't just a harvest--it's a celebration of shame. If anybody remembers what the word means.
Sunday, July 04, 2010
Declaration
All men--and all women--are created equal, that's pretty much how the Declaration of Independence (the July 4 we celebrate) begins. But when I google photos of Michelle Obama, I see just how racist this country remains. Such ugliness attacking this beautiful and good and profoundly patriotic woman, and you wonder about your fellow citizens. Which may also include the 26% who aren't real clear on which country the U.S. gained its independence from. Anyway, this photo and the photos below are some of Michelle that I've collected in the past few months, mostly from the White House. Today I celebrate that she is my First Lady.P.S. And Happy Birthday, Malia!
Friday, July 02, 2010
Listening
As acidly as I might characterize Climate Crisis deniers--especially the professional ones, the moral equivalents of decades of cigarette company shills-- I don't think everybody who professes skepticism about global heating is malicious. I know they are basically and tragically wrong, but I still am interested in getting as many of them on board as possible.
So I was interested to see this Chris Mooney piece in the Washington Post with the headline "If Scientists Want to Educate the Public, They Should Start By Listening." Mooney writes that skeptics aren't necessarily uneducated. "For one thing, it's political outlook -- not education -- that seems to motivate one's belief on this subject." He suggests that instead of just talking at these people, scientists listen to them. For on the Climate Crisis as well as two other examples of issues that aren't controversial among scientists but have substantial and seemingly irrational opposition among the public, Mooney writes:
"These three controversies have a single moral, and it's that experts who want Americans to take science into account when they form opinions on contentious issues need to do far more than just "lay out the facts" or "set the record straight." What science says is important, but in controversial areas, it's only the beginning. It's critical that experts and policy makers better understand what motivates public concern in the first place; and in this, they mustn't be deceived by the fact that people often appear, on the surface, to be arguing about scientific facts. Frequently, their underlying rationale is very different."
This article got an angry and typically lengthy rejoinder at Climate Progress. Part of the objection involves not naming the real culprits, which include the corporate media and the disinformation campaign heavily financed by fossil fuel industries and their pr lackeys. While I can understand the frustration--once again, the responsibility is put on the scientists, plus (though they don't say so in this post) climate scientists who do venture into the public typically are met with very organized, very aggressive and practiced deniers who spurt out spurious charges and bogus information so fast and so relentlessly that there is never enough time to properly answer them.
Those deniers aren't sincerely interested in either listening or really in being listened to. But there are some whose opposition, while not really based on questioning the science, have reasons stemming from their lives and sincere attitudes. Apart from those whose reasons are ideologies so strong and automatic that their minds can't be changed, there is probably a subset--admittedly very small (since deniers are a small percentage of the public to begin with), but there are some who are troubled but open enough to profit from dialogue. As long as it is dialogue.
Here's how I put it in my comment on this Climate Progress post:
"We’re once again into a both/and rather than either/or situation about the Mooney piece. Yes, for various reasons the media has misreported on the climate crisis. Yes, corporate power is probably part of why. Yes, science education and communication are weaker than they should be. And very much yes, a highly funded disinformation campaign has provided reasons to doubt climate change for people who are predisposed to want to doubt climate change.
There are other factors that Mooney doesn’t discuss, like the immense psychological barriers to accepting the logical conclusions, the consequences of the climate crisis, like the end of the civilization they know, one way or another. Like the political fact that there has never been a crisis quite like this: a crisis (until recently) of the future that’s invisible or easy to ignore in the present, governed by such apparently unfamiliar concepts as lag time, tipping points and cumulative impact.
But what Mooney does discuss is valid: for repeat deniers not on fossil fuel payrolls, it isn’t all about feeding them information. It is also about listening to them. About understanding where they are coming from, in their lives. Listening allows information to be translated and applied directly to their concerns. It permits analogies and metaphors, specifically meaningful to them. It means taking their real life consequences and concerns into consideration in designing the methods of addressing the causes and effects of climate change. It means allowing everyone in the community to talk about this, without fear of being demonized, and to work it out for itself.
Frankly it is unlikely that scientists or politicians can do this. They need a more neutral but creative third party. The most successful dialogues I know of came after a small theatre company’s piece on climate change, in which they employed comedy that went after everybody’s pretensions. There must be other ways to overcome the mutual not listening of today’s debates. There is very likely a significant subset of skeptics and deniers who must be listened to before they can themselves hear.
Will this convince everyone? Not likely. Will it build support to pass climate crisis legislation? Maybe not, and maybe it’s not necessary because as the polls show there is plenty of support for doing…something. Maybe the extreme rhetoric we’re hearing is sound and fury signifying nothing, which will become apparent in November. But this environment is toxic in more ways that one. We face hard times ahead. We need a wider understanding."
That theatre company--called Human Nature--was on my mind because I attended an award ceremony honoring them over the weekend. They are from the nearby and ironically named town of Petrolia, California. Despite the name (and the fact that it was the first place in the state where oil was discovered, though there wasn't much), it is in a rural-to-wilderness area of the Lost Coast, the Mattole valley. There were a lot of people at that ceremony from that community, which has supported Human Nature for a generation.
True, many of these are ex-hippie back-to-the-landers, not your typical denier profile. And true: Human Nature started doing theatre about local environmental issues, like salmon in the rivers. But they did make fun of the pretensions of both sides, and they still do. Still, I think it's remarkable that the community is so much behind them, when the show they've been doing for the past four years (as well as the new one) is about the worldwide phenomenon of the Climate Crisis.
And it's also true that the dialogues that followed their shows often happened on college campuses. But people with doubts did show up (as did climate scientists) and they did talk, and their views were honored. And sometimes, that's how it has to begin.
As I mentioned at the end of my comment, we're facing tough times as the Climate Crisis effects become more obvious and need a lot of attention. I worry about that. On the one hand, we have a country so apparently divided, with really extreme, really barbarous views being openly advocated--with a lot of hostility expressed in very violent terms towards people of color, of poorer circumstances as well as contrary political views. And there's the Supreme Court arming their "revolution." Along with government being vilified, and too broke and broken down by years of being bled for profit, that it's ability on any level to address an emergency is pitifully diminished. All that tends to suggest these communities can't survive a crisis--that they'll get the violence, selfishness and panic our Social Darwinist apocalyptic mythologies assume.
On the other hand, there's Rebecca Solnit's book, documenting the positive ways people respond and help each other in a crisis. And there's the hope that once people are listened to, they can themselves listen. And the people trying to talk to them can speak to their concerns, at least enough to convince everyone of basic good will.
What the efficacy of dialogue can be on the current efforts to get a climate bill through Congress is an open question, and I have my doubts. That seems to have it's own momentum, and it may be more important that it is an extremely hot summer so far in Washington, as well as elsewhere in the world. And that whatever temporary stall there was in the statistics has ended, and this year we're clearly again in record-breaking global heating.
Speaking of heat, the first stories on Senator Robert Byrd said he'd been hospitalized for heat exhaustion and dehydration. That was quickly forgotten when the eulogies started, but maybe it shouldn't. Lots of unnamed older people are doubtless dying in the DC heat, and elsewhere. Denying this and related effects is murderous, and eventually suicidal.
So I was interested to see this Chris Mooney piece in the Washington Post with the headline "If Scientists Want to Educate the Public, They Should Start By Listening." Mooney writes that skeptics aren't necessarily uneducated. "For one thing, it's political outlook -- not education -- that seems to motivate one's belief on this subject." He suggests that instead of just talking at these people, scientists listen to them. For on the Climate Crisis as well as two other examples of issues that aren't controversial among scientists but have substantial and seemingly irrational opposition among the public, Mooney writes:
"These three controversies have a single moral, and it's that experts who want Americans to take science into account when they form opinions on contentious issues need to do far more than just "lay out the facts" or "set the record straight." What science says is important, but in controversial areas, it's only the beginning. It's critical that experts and policy makers better understand what motivates public concern in the first place; and in this, they mustn't be deceived by the fact that people often appear, on the surface, to be arguing about scientific facts. Frequently, their underlying rationale is very different."
This article got an angry and typically lengthy rejoinder at Climate Progress. Part of the objection involves not naming the real culprits, which include the corporate media and the disinformation campaign heavily financed by fossil fuel industries and their pr lackeys. While I can understand the frustration--once again, the responsibility is put on the scientists, plus (though they don't say so in this post) climate scientists who do venture into the public typically are met with very organized, very aggressive and practiced deniers who spurt out spurious charges and bogus information so fast and so relentlessly that there is never enough time to properly answer them.
Those deniers aren't sincerely interested in either listening or really in being listened to. But there are some whose opposition, while not really based on questioning the science, have reasons stemming from their lives and sincere attitudes. Apart from those whose reasons are ideologies so strong and automatic that their minds can't be changed, there is probably a subset--admittedly very small (since deniers are a small percentage of the public to begin with), but there are some who are troubled but open enough to profit from dialogue. As long as it is dialogue.
Here's how I put it in my comment on this Climate Progress post:
"We’re once again into a both/and rather than either/or situation about the Mooney piece. Yes, for various reasons the media has misreported on the climate crisis. Yes, corporate power is probably part of why. Yes, science education and communication are weaker than they should be. And very much yes, a highly funded disinformation campaign has provided reasons to doubt climate change for people who are predisposed to want to doubt climate change.
There are other factors that Mooney doesn’t discuss, like the immense psychological barriers to accepting the logical conclusions, the consequences of the climate crisis, like the end of the civilization they know, one way or another. Like the political fact that there has never been a crisis quite like this: a crisis (until recently) of the future that’s invisible or easy to ignore in the present, governed by such apparently unfamiliar concepts as lag time, tipping points and cumulative impact.
But what Mooney does discuss is valid: for repeat deniers not on fossil fuel payrolls, it isn’t all about feeding them information. It is also about listening to them. About understanding where they are coming from, in their lives. Listening allows information to be translated and applied directly to their concerns. It permits analogies and metaphors, specifically meaningful to them. It means taking their real life consequences and concerns into consideration in designing the methods of addressing the causes and effects of climate change. It means allowing everyone in the community to talk about this, without fear of being demonized, and to work it out for itself.
Frankly it is unlikely that scientists or politicians can do this. They need a more neutral but creative third party. The most successful dialogues I know of came after a small theatre company’s piece on climate change, in which they employed comedy that went after everybody’s pretensions. There must be other ways to overcome the mutual not listening of today’s debates. There is very likely a significant subset of skeptics and deniers who must be listened to before they can themselves hear.
Will this convince everyone? Not likely. Will it build support to pass climate crisis legislation? Maybe not, and maybe it’s not necessary because as the polls show there is plenty of support for doing…something. Maybe the extreme rhetoric we’re hearing is sound and fury signifying nothing, which will become apparent in November. But this environment is toxic in more ways that one. We face hard times ahead. We need a wider understanding."
That theatre company--called Human Nature--was on my mind because I attended an award ceremony honoring them over the weekend. They are from the nearby and ironically named town of Petrolia, California. Despite the name (and the fact that it was the first place in the state where oil was discovered, though there wasn't much), it is in a rural-to-wilderness area of the Lost Coast, the Mattole valley. There were a lot of people at that ceremony from that community, which has supported Human Nature for a generation.
True, many of these are ex-hippie back-to-the-landers, not your typical denier profile. And true: Human Nature started doing theatre about local environmental issues, like salmon in the rivers. But they did make fun of the pretensions of both sides, and they still do. Still, I think it's remarkable that the community is so much behind them, when the show they've been doing for the past four years (as well as the new one) is about the worldwide phenomenon of the Climate Crisis.
And it's also true that the dialogues that followed their shows often happened on college campuses. But people with doubts did show up (as did climate scientists) and they did talk, and their views were honored. And sometimes, that's how it has to begin.
As I mentioned at the end of my comment, we're facing tough times as the Climate Crisis effects become more obvious and need a lot of attention. I worry about that. On the one hand, we have a country so apparently divided, with really extreme, really barbarous views being openly advocated--with a lot of hostility expressed in very violent terms towards people of color, of poorer circumstances as well as contrary political views. And there's the Supreme Court arming their "revolution." Along with government being vilified, and too broke and broken down by years of being bled for profit, that it's ability on any level to address an emergency is pitifully diminished. All that tends to suggest these communities can't survive a crisis--that they'll get the violence, selfishness and panic our Social Darwinist apocalyptic mythologies assume.
On the other hand, there's Rebecca Solnit's book, documenting the positive ways people respond and help each other in a crisis. And there's the hope that once people are listened to, they can themselves listen. And the people trying to talk to them can speak to their concerns, at least enough to convince everyone of basic good will.
What the efficacy of dialogue can be on the current efforts to get a climate bill through Congress is an open question, and I have my doubts. That seems to have it's own momentum, and it may be more important that it is an extremely hot summer so far in Washington, as well as elsewhere in the world. And that whatever temporary stall there was in the statistics has ended, and this year we're clearly again in record-breaking global heating.
Speaking of heat, the first stories on Senator Robert Byrd said he'd been hospitalized for heat exhaustion and dehydration. That was quickly forgotten when the eulogies started, but maybe it shouldn't. Lots of unnamed older people are doubtless dying in the DC heat, and elsewhere. Denying this and related effects is murderous, and eventually suicidal.
Climategate
Remember Climategate, the scandal involving stolen emails exposing supposedly rigged data that discredited climate scientists and their entire generation-old conclusion that the globe is warming dangerously? That was red meat to the hungry stupid media?
Anyone who took a second look at it could see that there was nothing there, certainly nothing that discredited any important overall findings. And now the whole house of cards has tumbled.
The Times of London, the paper that "broke the story," this week retracted the key elements of the story.
Then the U.S. climate scientist most consistently and virilently vilified by the fossil fools was completely (and unanimously) exonerated by an investigative committee of faculty at his university, Penn State.
Maybe the credibility problem of the fossil fools and the deep pockets that finance their relentless lies will finally penetrate the members of the media that still care about accuracy, not to mention the planet, however few or otherwise silenced they may now be.
Anyone who took a second look at it could see that there was nothing there, certainly nothing that discredited any important overall findings. And now the whole house of cards has tumbled.
The Times of London, the paper that "broke the story," this week retracted the key elements of the story.
Then the U.S. climate scientist most consistently and virilently vilified by the fossil fools was completely (and unanimously) exonerated by an investigative committee of faculty at his university, Penn State.
Maybe the credibility problem of the fossil fools and the deep pockets that finance their relentless lies will finally penetrate the members of the media that still care about accuracy, not to mention the planet, however few or otherwise silenced they may now be.
Thursday, July 01, 2010
One Good, Two Bad
Keeping our daily non-climate news bites at three, namely, one good story: After looking like the congressional agreement on Wall St. and financial reform was a case of premature congratulations, things look to be back on track: the House passed it, and the Senate is looking like it will.
Now for the ever-present bad news...The prospects for wildlife in the Gulf took a turn for the worse. Not completely unexpected really, but mournfully bad. And also not the only bad news there, but why belabor it.
And finally, while the House managed to pass the extension to unemployment benefits, the Senate--even with a last ditch effort that almost worked--did not, before leaving for vacation. Enjoy your weekend, bloodsuckers.
Now for the ever-present bad news...The prospects for wildlife in the Gulf took a turn for the worse. Not completely unexpected really, but mournfully bad. And also not the only bad news there, but why belabor it.
And finally, while the House managed to pass the extension to unemployment benefits, the Senate--even with a last ditch effort that almost worked--did not, before leaving for vacation. Enjoy your weekend, bloodsuckers.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
So It Goes
"Writing was a spiritual exercise for my father, the only thing he really believed in. He wanted to get things right but never thought that his writing was going to have much effect on the course of things."
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
The Dreaming Up Daily Quote
“I have seen so much death and never understood before that so much of the terror of death is terror of dying without having given. Without even finding what one had to give.”
Michael Ventura
The Zoo Where You're Fed to God
Michael Ventura
The Zoo Where You're Fed to God
Purpose
For ten years, between 1984 and 1994, Jeremy Brett played Sherlock Holmes in a series of 41 stories for Granada TV in the UK. His performances earned him the reputation as the definitive screen Holmes for his time, perhaps for all time. Any starring role in a long-running television series tends to absorb the life of the actor, as well as define these actors for their careers, and beyond. Often as well, these roles change the personalities of the actors, sometimes thoroughly and permanently. Jeremy Brett exemplifies all of these possibilities, except perhaps for one. The role of Sherlock Holmes did not change his subsequent career, for he had none. A year after he completed the Holmes series, Jeremy Brett was dead.In the Granada episodes, now available in restored condition on DVD, Brett created a more intense and mercurial Holmes, his sudden stillness exploding in quick motion and flamboyant gestures. Brett was a close student of the Arthur Conan Doyle stories and felt his interpretation was accurate, but it also reflected his own personality, as such long-running roles often do. But in his case, it's difficult to find the line between character and actor.
Biographical sketches as well as DVD commentaries and interviews emphasize how deeply Brett delved into the stories and the character, and how relentless were his efforts to use the TV medium and make the best possible films to serve them. It became his obsession.
In contrast to other Holmes incarnations on film which eventually invented new stories for the Holmes character (including the classic Basil Rathbone movies, and certainly the recent Robert Downey feature), the Granada series based its stories closely and exclusively on the original Conan Doyle stories. His first series of stories ended with Holmes apparent death, though popular demand would cause Conan Doyle to revive the character and write many more stories about him. Brett had just finished filming that death of Holmes episode when his own wife died of cancer.
Soon after, due to popular demand, the second Granada series was commissioned, and Brett's identification with Holmes grew even stronger. The qualities that he had already perceived as similar in Holmes and himself became overwhelming--especially that contrast of periods of fierce energy with periods of lassitude-- until Brett was forced to seek treatment for manic depression. (The symptoms apparently became pronounced during the "Return of" series, and he'd begun undergoing treatment just before starting the "Casebook of" final series.) But he kept up his concentration and his exhausting schedule, playing Holmes on screen and on stage. Yet the lithium he took for his illness began to change him physically, as became apparent on screen. The later episodes chronicle these physical changes--such as weight gain, especially in his face, gaunt and spare at first, then puffier, wan and haunting.
Though overwork and his overwrought obsession as well as effects of lithium and the manic depression itself probably contributed to physical deterioration, in the end it was his enlarged heart and scarred heart valves, basically from a childhood bout of rheumatic fever, that led to his death in his early 60s.
I first saw Brett's portrayal of Holmes when the A&E cable network--back when it actually was an Arts and Entertainment network--ran the Granada series late at night (during the period it also ran the UK Lovejoy series.) I was lost in the wilderness of western PA then, and the Holmes series was an oasis. Brett's portrayal was riveting, and inspiring.
Now I'm somewhat obsessed with watching episodes on DVD, particularly the second, Return of Sherlock Holmes series. The clarity of the DVD--much better than the prints of cable--show Brett as even more of a revelation, as well as showcasing the visual splendor of the series. And I ponder the question of whether Brett's obsession was wholly tragic, or perhaps a little to be envied. In various ways, he gave his life to being Sherlock Holmes for millions of people, including me. He'd been a fairly successful stage, TV and film actor for years, but the chance to star in an iconic TV series comes to few. He made the most of it. He made the best of it, at least as his work. He undoubtedly sacrificed something, including probably years of his life.
On the other hand, in pouring himself into Holmes, he also made the best of his own personality, and eventually of his illness. We can speculate that identifying so completely with Holmes exaggerated these tendencies into a true illness, or the opposite, that he turned the illness into something incredibly creative.
In the end, it seems to me that his tragedy is not so bad as more ordinary tragedies, of lives unfulfilled. An excellent, iconic series of 41 televised stories--of intriguing and entertaining but hardly profound popular art-- may not be the greatest accomplishment, but it is a great one. Is it worth a life? I think so--that is: I think I'd take that bargain.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
On the Road to Change
President Obama had an eventful week, and a pretty good one politically. But two of the events--his handling of the Afghanistan command situation, and particularly the congressional agreement paving the way for final passage of a financial reform bill--prompted several pundits to step back and look at his accomplishments so far. I've highlighted a few that don't get much attention.
For example, Steve Benen in the Washington Monthly: "And in the larger context, this will add to an impressive list of historic accomplishments spanning President Obama's first 18 months in office, a list that will now include Wall Street reform, health care reform, student loan reform, economic recovery, Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, expanded civil rights protections, expanded stem-cell research, new regulation of the credit card industry, new regulation of the tobacco industry, a national service bill, and the most sweeping land-protection act in 15 years, among other things. Taegan Goddard noted this morning, "Not since FDR has a president done so much to transform the country." That's not a hyperbolic observation in the slightest."
But the most impressive was Rachel Maddow ending her MSNBC show on Friday. I'm now going to quote it at length.
She began by describing the accomplishments of an unnamed President: "He signed a bill that gave amnesty to undocumented immigrants. He grew the size of the federal government and the budget, added a whole new cabinet level agency and added tens of thousands of government workers to the federal payroll. He tripled the deficit. He bailed out and expanded social security with a big fat tax increase. He raised corporate taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars. He raised taxes on gasoline. He, in fact, signed into law the largest tax increase in history. He supported federal handgun controls. He called for a world without nuclear weapons.
He was Ronald Reagan.
As a conservative saint, as the right-wing rock star, as king of the Republican prom in perpetuity, as a transformative figure for people who call themselves conservative, the facts of Ronald Reagan`s legislative record are awkward. Ronald Reagan`s record has in it a lot of things that would get him kicked out of today`s Republican Party, which is not to say that President Reagan was a secret liberal. He was not. What he was, was complex, but accomplished in his own way."
Rachel then turned to President Obama, took a step back to simply list many of his major accomplishments:
"It turns out that a lot of things that have happened in the less than two years of this administration are the biggest or first or most important in generations... Even before today`s historic Wall Street reform agreement, President Obama, of course, did what politicians have been trying to do for more than 60 years. He passed health reform, which, for the first time, establishes government responsibility for the health care of American citizens.
Consider also the stimulus bill. It didn`t just throw a lasso around our entire economy and yank and yank it back from the brink. It also pumped about $100 billion into the crumbling embarrassment of our national infrastructure and transportation system. It was the largest investment in infrastructure since Ike. For solving our country`s energy problems, something Obama has compared to man walking on the moon, it contained about $60 billion in spending and tax incentives for renewable and clean energy, also a historic investment.
It also included an unheralded but giant investment in science and tech, amping up the budgets at NASA, the National Science Foundation, and an experimental energy research agency that was created under President George W. Bush, but never funded until now.
President Obama also expanded state kids` health insurance to cover another four million kids. He signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act amending the 1964 civil rights act for equal pay for equal work.
He signed a nuclear arms deal with Russia that would reduce both countries` arsenals by a third. He created a new global nonproliferation initiative to keep nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists.
He set forth an international way forward on that radical left-wing proposition of Ronald Reagan, a world without nuclear weapons. Then there are the legislative and policy achievements that don't just build on precedents, but set new ones.
The Hate Crimes Prevention Act, also known as the Matthew Shepard Act. It had languished in Congress for years. The Food and Drug Administration permitted for the first time to regulate tobacco. Better late than never, he dismantled the scandal-plagued Minerals Management Service, broke it into three parts so that the folks who collect money from oil leases aren`t the same ones regulating the industry. And now, it will actually investigate the industry that it was busy schtupping and doing drugs with during the last administration.
Obama fired two wartime commanding generals in little over a year. He overhauled the astonishing stupidity of the student loan system in which banks were being subsidized to give loans that were guaranteed by the government anyway, a license to print money. That was ended in the savings put toward actual aid to students.
For example, Steve Benen in the Washington Monthly: "And in the larger context, this will add to an impressive list of historic accomplishments spanning President Obama's first 18 months in office, a list that will now include Wall Street reform, health care reform, student loan reform, economic recovery, Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, expanded civil rights protections, expanded stem-cell research, new regulation of the credit card industry, new regulation of the tobacco industry, a national service bill, and the most sweeping land-protection act in 15 years, among other things. Taegan Goddard noted this morning, "Not since FDR has a president done so much to transform the country." That's not a hyperbolic observation in the slightest."
But the most impressive was Rachel Maddow ending her MSNBC show on Friday. I'm now going to quote it at length.
She began by describing the accomplishments of an unnamed President: "He signed a bill that gave amnesty to undocumented immigrants. He grew the size of the federal government and the budget, added a whole new cabinet level agency and added tens of thousands of government workers to the federal payroll. He tripled the deficit. He bailed out and expanded social security with a big fat tax increase. He raised corporate taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars. He raised taxes on gasoline. He, in fact, signed into law the largest tax increase in history. He supported federal handgun controls. He called for a world without nuclear weapons.
He was Ronald Reagan.
As a conservative saint, as the right-wing rock star, as king of the Republican prom in perpetuity, as a transformative figure for people who call themselves conservative, the facts of Ronald Reagan`s legislative record are awkward. Ronald Reagan`s record has in it a lot of things that would get him kicked out of today`s Republican Party, which is not to say that President Reagan was a secret liberal. He was not. What he was, was complex, but accomplished in his own way."
Rachel then turned to President Obama, took a step back to simply list many of his major accomplishments:
"It turns out that a lot of things that have happened in the less than two years of this administration are the biggest or first or most important in generations... Even before today`s historic Wall Street reform agreement, President Obama, of course, did what politicians have been trying to do for more than 60 years. He passed health reform, which, for the first time, establishes government responsibility for the health care of American citizens.
Consider also the stimulus bill. It didn`t just throw a lasso around our entire economy and yank and yank it back from the brink. It also pumped about $100 billion into the crumbling embarrassment of our national infrastructure and transportation system. It was the largest investment in infrastructure since Ike. For solving our country`s energy problems, something Obama has compared to man walking on the moon, it contained about $60 billion in spending and tax incentives for renewable and clean energy, also a historic investment.
It also included an unheralded but giant investment in science and tech, amping up the budgets at NASA, the National Science Foundation, and an experimental energy research agency that was created under President George W. Bush, but never funded until now.
President Obama also expanded state kids` health insurance to cover another four million kids. He signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act amending the 1964 civil rights act for equal pay for equal work.
He signed a nuclear arms deal with Russia that would reduce both countries` arsenals by a third. He created a new global nonproliferation initiative to keep nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists.
He set forth an international way forward on that radical left-wing proposition of Ronald Reagan, a world without nuclear weapons. Then there are the legislative and policy achievements that don't just build on precedents, but set new ones.
The Hate Crimes Prevention Act, also known as the Matthew Shepard Act. It had languished in Congress for years. The Food and Drug Administration permitted for the first time to regulate tobacco. Better late than never, he dismantled the scandal-plagued Minerals Management Service, broke it into three parts so that the folks who collect money from oil leases aren`t the same ones regulating the industry. And now, it will actually investigate the industry that it was busy schtupping and doing drugs with during the last administration.
Obama fired two wartime commanding generals in little over a year. He overhauled the astonishing stupidity of the student loan system in which banks were being subsidized to give loans that were guaranteed by the government anyway, a license to print money. That was ended in the savings put toward actual aid to students.
He canceled a weapons program that was bloated, unnecessary and totally irrelevant to either of our current wars, the F-22. Why even mention the cancellation of a single weapons system? Because that never happens. Weapons systems never get canceled. The F-22 did, which is itself a miracle.
In each of these achievements and in the list of things he has yet to do - "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," closing Guantanamo - in each of these things, there is room for liberal disappointment. I sing a bittersweet lullaby to the lost public option when I go to sleep at night.
But presidential legacies are complex. Not even the Reagan administration's legacy is pure as the conservative-driven snow. But Taegan Goddard at "CQ Politics" was right today about nothing this big happening since FDR.
The list of legislative accomplishments of this president in half a term even before energy reform which he`s probably going to get to is, to quote the vice president, "a big freaking deal." Love this administration or hate it, this president is getting a lot done.
The last time any president did this much in office, booze was illegal. If you believe in policy, if you believe in government that addresses problems, cheers."
In each of these achievements and in the list of things he has yet to do - "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," closing Guantanamo - in each of these things, there is room for liberal disappointment. I sing a bittersweet lullaby to the lost public option when I go to sleep at night.
But presidential legacies are complex. Not even the Reagan administration's legacy is pure as the conservative-driven snow. But Taegan Goddard at "CQ Politics" was right today about nothing this big happening since FDR.
The list of legislative accomplishments of this president in half a term even before energy reform which he`s probably going to get to is, to quote the vice president, "a big freaking deal." Love this administration or hate it, this president is getting a lot done.
The last time any president did this much in office, booze was illegal. If you believe in policy, if you believe in government that addresses problems, cheers."
Saturday, June 26, 2010
The wildlife news remains not good--there's been some more environmentalist action accusing BP of burning very endangered sea turtles along with oil. (Here's a way to register your protest.) But there is this good news for a rare animal in captivity: this is a photo of the first Red Panda to be born in 15 years at the National Zoo in DC, and its mother, holding it in her mouth. Also called the firefox, this animal is actually more closely related to raccoons than panda bears. They are native to the Himalayas, and there are fewer than 2500 left alive. Now there's one more, even if in a zoo. Hooray.
Storm Clouds
Update late Saturday from Houston Chronicle: "Tropical Storm Alex strengthened Saturday as it careened toward the Gulf of Mexico with 65-mph winds approaching hurricane status. Officials are keeping a close eye on the first named storm of the season, which looks likely to avoid Houston and to remain at least 400 miles from cleanup efforts of the largest oil spill in U.S. history. A change, however, could force BP to temporarily abandon cleanup efforts in the Gulf, where oil has been gushing since an offshore drilling rig exploded on April 20, killing 11 workers.
Most computer models predict that Alex will head over the Yucatan Peninsula by this morning and weaken as it reaches into Mexico later in the week. A tropical storm warning was issued for Belize's coast and the Yucatan Peninsula's east coast, where rainfall could reach 15 inches.
The storm's presence — and the new hurricane season - is forcing the team overseeing the spill site to make contingency plans. Any system with winds over 46 mph could stop work, and a full evacuation could delay cleanup for two weeks, officials said, adding that it could take about five days to get workers and equipment out of harm's way if the storm threatens. "
Jeff Masters figures the chances of Alex heading for the oil gusher at 10%.
[Early Saturday]
As of now the tropical depression near Honduras has become Tropical Storm Alex, ( as weather guru Jeff Masters predicted.) He cited an historical analysis of 19 similar storms shows that 5 of them hit the Gulf of Mexico.
But warmer waters etc. are making rather than following history. The Houston Chronicle reports: "The probable formation of Tropical Storm Alex in the western Caribbean Sea from such a wave has some meteorologists concerned because it's early for African waves to become so well organized."
The latest storm track doesn't have it heading for the Gulf, nor becoming very intense, though both could change. The HC article notes: "About 60 percent of the named storms during a given year form from African waves. But about 85 percent of the category 3 and stronger hurricanes, the most intense and damaging ones, originate from African waves." And if it tracks to the Gulf, it could arrive there as soon as Sunday.
Strong storms used to appear not much earlier than August, but all bets are off this year--as we hope the federal government realizes. On prepardedness, Gulf oil gusher point man Admiral Thad Allen gave some mixed messages Friday, settling on "We have a very robust hurricane contingency plan." But it would take several days to shut things down and move people away--which in itself would increase the amount of oil gushing. A storm would also threaten the relief wells, and at best would slow down their completion.
A storm would probably also further scatter the oil. Nobody really knows--or could know--whether it would dissipate it or make it a great deal worse. But if such a storm threatens, this would be a good time to make the effort bigger and more visible--with Navy ships and skimmers offered from foreign countries.
While contrary to some interpretations, the oil gusher does not seem to be adversely affecting President Obama's standing, a storm in the Gulf is a necessary opportunity for bold leadership, for fast and appropriately scaled response.
As for ongoing efforts to deal with the continuing and accumulating damage,Climate Progress has published a detailed and reasoned case for why the berms won't work--the solution that Louisiana Governor Jindal has been touting, and that CNN has been covering like not building them is irresponsible and tragic. This case should have been made by the Obama administration weeks ago. Maybe it was, and wasn't reported, but let's face it--they have to find a way to communicate effectively. But there have also been reports that there aren't enough oil skimming ships out there, and that other countries have offered some. I'd like to see some answers on that.
Most computer models predict that Alex will head over the Yucatan Peninsula by this morning and weaken as it reaches into Mexico later in the week. A tropical storm warning was issued for Belize's coast and the Yucatan Peninsula's east coast, where rainfall could reach 15 inches.
The storm's presence — and the new hurricane season - is forcing the team overseeing the spill site to make contingency plans. Any system with winds over 46 mph could stop work, and a full evacuation could delay cleanup for two weeks, officials said, adding that it could take about five days to get workers and equipment out of harm's way if the storm threatens. "
Jeff Masters figures the chances of Alex heading for the oil gusher at 10%.
[Early Saturday]
As of now the tropical depression near Honduras has become Tropical Storm Alex, ( as weather guru Jeff Masters predicted.) He cited an historical analysis of 19 similar storms shows that 5 of them hit the Gulf of Mexico.
But warmer waters etc. are making rather than following history. The Houston Chronicle reports: "The probable formation of Tropical Storm Alex in the western Caribbean Sea from such a wave has some meteorologists concerned because it's early for African waves to become so well organized."
The latest storm track doesn't have it heading for the Gulf, nor becoming very intense, though both could change. The HC article notes: "About 60 percent of the named storms during a given year form from African waves. But about 85 percent of the category 3 and stronger hurricanes, the most intense and damaging ones, originate from African waves." And if it tracks to the Gulf, it could arrive there as soon as Sunday.
Strong storms used to appear not much earlier than August, but all bets are off this year--as we hope the federal government realizes. On prepardedness, Gulf oil gusher point man Admiral Thad Allen gave some mixed messages Friday, settling on "We have a very robust hurricane contingency plan." But it would take several days to shut things down and move people away--which in itself would increase the amount of oil gushing. A storm would also threaten the relief wells, and at best would slow down their completion.
A storm would probably also further scatter the oil. Nobody really knows--or could know--whether it would dissipate it or make it a great deal worse. But if such a storm threatens, this would be a good time to make the effort bigger and more visible--with Navy ships and skimmers offered from foreign countries.
While contrary to some interpretations, the oil gusher does not seem to be adversely affecting President Obama's standing, a storm in the Gulf is a necessary opportunity for bold leadership, for fast and appropriately scaled response.
As for ongoing efforts to deal with the continuing and accumulating damage,Climate Progress has published a detailed and reasoned case for why the berms won't work--the solution that Louisiana Governor Jindal has been touting, and that CNN has been covering like not building them is irresponsible and tragic. This case should have been made by the Obama administration weeks ago. Maybe it was, and wasn't reported, but let's face it--they have to find a way to communicate effectively. But there have also been reports that there aren't enough oil skimming ships out there, and that other countries have offered some. I'd like to see some answers on that.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Pass/Fail
Pass (Finally): House and Senate lawmakers reached agreement early Friday on the most far-reaching rewrite of financial rules since the Great Depression.
The final details, including creation of an agency to protect consumers in the financial marketplace and new regulations to reduce risk-taking by large banks and limit their trading of complex derivatives, were hashed out in a marathon 20-hour session that began Thursday morning."
(Think Progress has a handy chart on the details, and TPM provides more analysis. )
But the Fail is a big one--and in the short run, bigger: the Jobs bill which includes unemployment benefits extensions was stopped by GOPer fillibuster, with immediate and devastating effects for millions of people, affecting thousands of state jobs, and threatening any economic recovery.
This happened yesterday. Amazingly, there is almost nothing on the Internet news and blog sites today. (Except for something at Kos and this couple of cogent graphs at Time.) Another Fail.
Updates: So the new financial regulations will "bring new authority over Wall Street" and they won't change Wall Street much. And it's a game-changer. Uh huh.
The final details, including creation of an agency to protect consumers in the financial marketplace and new regulations to reduce risk-taking by large banks and limit their trading of complex derivatives, were hashed out in a marathon 20-hour session that began Thursday morning."
(Think Progress has a handy chart on the details, and TPM provides more analysis. )
But the Fail is a big one--and in the short run, bigger: the Jobs bill which includes unemployment benefits extensions was stopped by GOPer fillibuster, with immediate and devastating effects for millions of people, affecting thousands of state jobs, and threatening any economic recovery.
This happened yesterday. Amazingly, there is almost nothing on the Internet news and blog sites today. (Except for something at Kos and this couple of cogent graphs at Time.) Another Fail.
Updates: So the new financial regulations will "bring new authority over Wall Street" and they won't change Wall Street much. And it's a game-changer. Uh huh.
The Dreaming Up Daily Quote
"The human mind is always wiser than its most atrocious deeds, since it can give them a name."
Alberto Manguel
photo: The aurora australis — the southern lights, as seen from the International Space Station.
Alberto Manguel
photo: The aurora australis — the southern lights, as seen from the International Space Station.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
The American People
A number of public opinion polls are touting themselves and their results this week, including one from Pew Research. One of their findings--extracted from a long survey about Americans' attitudes about the future and presented on the CNN crawl--should put many other opinions in perspective:
41% of American surveyed expect the Second Coming of Jesus Christ within the next forty years.
This is actually down slightly from 1999, when 44% expected it.
41% of American surveyed expect the Second Coming of Jesus Christ within the next forty years.
This is actually down slightly from 1999, when 44% expected it.
Militaryness
I admit to being (pleasantly) surprised that the media played the Rolling Stone revelations primarily as the failures of General McBeermouth rather than embarrassing comments about the Obama administration. But while President Obama's strong action and the strong statement that accompanied it have ended a crisis and boosted his image as a leader, those comments are eventually going to provide new fodder for the Rabid Right and their insurrectionist hysteria. Until now their insanity was focused on domestic delusions (and climate, or as they would put it, weather.) Those comments provide opportunity to revive the Dem image of being incompetent on military matters. For them it will be another reason this guy should be overthrown.
This business also focused attention on the Afghanistan war. I don't support it, but I support President Obama's plan to bring it to a conclusion by 2011. He didn't start it, but he has to end it. The immense amount of money it costs as well as the attention that should be placed on more important matters, not to mention the morality of it all, means to me that it must be ended on schedule, if not sooner.
Only the Rabid Right would now think that's a radical position. But then they can't be too happy either about the most effective TV ads now running that promote clean energy--a brilliant series sponsored by VoteVets.org.
This business also focused attention on the Afghanistan war. I don't support it, but I support President Obama's plan to bring it to a conclusion by 2011. He didn't start it, but he has to end it. The immense amount of money it costs as well as the attention that should be placed on more important matters, not to mention the morality of it all, means to me that it must be ended on schedule, if not sooner.
Only the Rabid Right would now think that's a radical position. But then they can't be too happy either about the most effective TV ads now running that promote clean energy--a brilliant series sponsored by VoteVets.org.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Oil Apocalypse
The tragedy in the Gulf is an apocalypse for its non-human life. One response is simply to make sure it is seared into the hearts and minds of responsible humans, to increase the possibility that it not be repeated. So if we can find the news, we must attend. An AP story says that dolphins, sharks and other sea creatures are showing up closer to shore, apparently fleeing oiled waters farther out, like animals fleeing a forest fire. If these shallow waters become too crowded, fish could die from lack of oxygen.
The number of animals known dead--including more than 40 dolphins and other mammals--are likely a small fraction of the actual casualties. But the prospects of entire species are crossing from speculative fears to deep concern. Among them are the Gulf's sperm whales. Several species of sea turtles are vulnerable, and there is this as yet unconfirmed report based on an NPR interview that BP crews are refusing to remove sea turtles from oiled waters before the oil is burned. The most vulnerable turtle species is disproportionately showing up among dead turtles. (This report is also diaried at Daily Kos.) If this report is true, the response may include charges of violations of the Endangered Species Act. These are ancient species of turtles that in their native habitat live long lives.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
A Sobering Father's Day Quote
“We have no idea what sort of world our children will inherit, but we can no longer delude ourselves into supposing that it must resemble our own in reassuring ways.”
Tony Judt
Tony Judt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
