Jim Putnam - Thinking Through My Fingers

Debate

First, let me admit that I did not watch the Democrats Debate last night.  After reading several critiques today, I don't think I missed much, if anything.  It wouldn't be fair for me to write my critique without having seen the debate.  Instead, I want to reference Kevin Drum and his post titled Piling On, and one of my own, from August 20, 2007 titled "Is there A Better Way."

Kevin, toward the end of his post, says:

... put together a panel of Paul Krugman, Brad DeLong, and Greg Mankiw to moderate a debate on economic issues. Find equally eminent subject matter experts to moderate debates on other subjects. Ditch the pundits and news anchors entirely. Third step: I'm not sure. But there has to be a third step, right?

This seems to me excellent sense, even common sense, though that's out of fashion these days.  I'm not sure the three he names would be my choice, but they are a darn good start. My own (blush) thoughts are:

...  I would like to have at least 30 minutes, without commercials, for a panel consisting of three widely skilled journalists, both conservative and liberal, questioning one candidate.  There should be several of these sessions, all within eight to ten days, individually with each candidate.  Or, perhaps to make the system more equal the sessions would be taped.  All could possibly be put up on cable and viewers could choose who, and when, to watch.  That would require that all candidates tape be available simultaneously, and also that the sessions not be leaked ahead of showing, allowing other candidates the opportunity to critique ahead of time.  After showing, all is fair game

The questions could, perhaps, be divided, one half provided the candidate ahead of the session, and the others completely without foreknowledge.  The candidate should have four minutes to respond, and then his microphone turned off.  There could be one follow-up by another member of the panel, with another two minutes to respond.

I figure this would give the candidate sufficient time to prepare for some questions and have his response times honed. The expository questions would give the audience a hint of how well the candidate knows his own positions and is not simply well rehearsed.  I think over the half hour about four, perhaps five if the time limits were strictly enforced, major questions could be explored.

Naturally, I believe my idea would provide more information to the nation.  But, realistically I know that it would have to be modified to be acceptable to both the candidates and the media.  Regardless, an Kevin Drum says, the current system starts " to look more like a witch hunt than a debate."  And the viewers, who, after all, are supposed to make informed decisions, have little of either information or faith in the system.

I firmly believe that it is very possible that we could lose our republic if we do not make good choices for our next leaders - President, Senators and Representatives.  This would be a start toward providing more information to us, the "by, for, and of" people.  It's time for the republic to work, before the only way to change is revolution.

A New Axis?

Quite often I come across some gem that someone else has written, and say "Why didn't I see that?"  This is an example, taken from Blue Girl, Red States blog:

I think the messages are quite clear. The world is realigning along an energy axis. Iran and Russia have it, and we need it. But so does China, and they can pay for it with the intrest we pay them on the debt accumulated to finance aWol Bush's vanity war!

This lady has written beautifully, angrily, accurately, and persuasively about the corrupt George W.Bush administration.  This post is no exception, and worth reading for all of its content.  I, however, am not going to discuss her complete post, just the three sentences quoted above.

For much of my life, the world had aligned itself along political lines.  The "they" that was used to justify billions be spent on armaments was "godless Communism."  Our, "good", side was capitalism, freedom, the NFL, baseball and apple pie.

I think Blue Girl has this exactly right.  The sides are competing for energy.  And yes, China can pay for it, using the interest on our debt. Somehow there seems more to me.  Perhaps I've been asleep, but I hadn't fully recognized this realignment until reading those sentences.  I'm not sure I am alone.

I've continued to view the antagonists as the same as we faced for decades across the Iron Curtain.  That is an Eurocentric viewpoint.  There are more players in this new alignment.  And, it is the poorest of nations that have no energy resources and are allowed to disintegrate.

I'm not smart or educated enough to grasp broad the meanings of this new alignment, and have not had sufficient time to let it sink through my preconceptions.  It isn't exactly a new way to view the politics being formed by the new alignments.  The idea that it is energy rather than political concepts and ideals is new to me.  I believe somewhere in the back of my mind I knew, but had not recognized how much, until I read those sentences.

This is no longer an alignment of the mighty against the mighty.  MAD isn't contained in nuclear weapon stockpiles, but destruction is quite possible unless there is a new understanding of how inter-related we are, and how much we all depend on one another.  I don't know how it will work out, but I do know that the way to avoid the Destruction in MAD, is to recognize our mutuality.

Coming Back To Blogging

The World Series is over.  I's have liked to have the Rockies win at least one game, but am satisfied that the Red Sox are the better team, at least this year.  Now it is time to get back to regular blogging.

First, let me recommend a series of three blog entries by Real Live Preacher.  They are, in sequence here, here, and here.  To my mind, this effort is the type of movement that will do more to change the world than most, if not all,  of the government's programs.

I had been aware that clean water is a very large problem in much of the world.  I recently read, and cannot now find the link, that some problems are so terrible in places that rather than provide for local wells, the leader does other, less effective projects.  But until reading RLP's series about what one private organization is doing, I head pretty much felt that Doctors Without Borders and Oxfam were the among the few organizations trying to do something.

Through RLP, I learn of another.  Edge Outreach is helping third world communities install the McGuire Purification system.  As I read his posts, it seems a viable way to address the problem.  I'm sure that there are places where it would not be possible, but for the most part, I think it is a very good idea.

I had planned on writing more, but have to go to another pressing requirement, spending some time with the wife.  I hope that I can resume a much more regular blogging schedule.  In the meantime, read RLP, and think about the way a good result can be kept simple, and about small, secular organizations can make a real difference.

One of Those Questions

Felix Grant has again written a very interesting article by this name.  I've read and re-read it.  While I certainly do not disagree, I do have some comments.  Please read his article.  It's first class.  My comments are interspersed through portions of his article.

In scientific principle: yes, it's a reasonable question. In practice, however (and more on this below), not a question which science can answer, at least in the present state of knowledge - and the asking of it is therefore a social, not a scientific, act.

JMP:  For me, the point is not whether there are racial differences.  I don't care if there are or not.  I'll explain why as we go along.

Firstly, there is no generally agreed objective definition of what "intelligence" (or "intellect")actually is. It's one of those words where we all know what we mean by it, but cannot pin it down to a precise, testable and mutually acceptable spec. So called "intelligence tests" actually measure only particular traits which some group are prepared to accept as evidence of some limited aspect(s) or other of intelligence. Our classifications of intelligence are, when you did into them, subjectively observer centred intuitive judgements.

JMP:  Here is why I don't care.  Let me first state that even if we could (And as Felix says, we can't.) measure "intelligence", any difference is likely, to borrow a phrase, statistically insignificant.  First, there would be enough outliers on the curve for any race to make any difference unimportant.  And second, measuring intelligence and making decisions about the results is akin to cutting meat with a cleaver, and then measuring the sections with a scale measuring in hundredths of an ounce.  The measuring tool is too inaccurate to make bold statements about  differences of races.

<snip>

If it ever becomes possible to universally and without dissent define both intelligence and race ... at that point, the moral issues over whether to investigate linkage between them will become live ones. Until then, to discuss the idea of linkage as if it exists is bad science playing into the hands of particular social agendas and prejudices.

JMP:  Here I repeat my belief, though without clear knowledge, that the distribution curves would have outliers.  Each race would have outliers, and though a race may have more, an individual in another race could be further from the mean.  Therefore, unless there are statistically significant differences in the curves, for practical purposes the curves for the races would likely be different but nearly superimpose themselves on each other. And, again, the measuring tools would have to be very sophisticated to measure whatever is determined to be "intelligence".  Otherwise, you're measuring with a cleaver, and explaining differences with a micrometer.

It's World Series Time

That's where I am, instead of writing.  Even this bit is during a commercial.  I don't have a team this year.  Either team would make me happy.

I'll write tomorrow.

Activism and My Blog

This morning I read Kevin Drum's blog post about the lack of activism among 20 year olds.  It has floated through the recesses of my mind since.

Kevin references Courtney Martin's blog in which she disagrees with this NY Times column by Tom Friedman in which Friedman has labeled the "twentysomethings" Generation Q, for Quiet.  He says:

America needs a jolt of the idealism, activism and outrage (it must be in there) of Generation Q. That's what twentysomethings are for -- to light a fire under the country. But they can't e-mail it in, and an online petition or a mouse click for carbon neutrality won't cut it. They have to get organized in a way that will force politicians to pay attention rather than just patronize them.

Just before the end of the column Friedman says this:

Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy didn't change the world by asking people to join their Facebook crusades or to download their platforms. Activism can only be uploaded, the old-fashioned way -- by young voters speaking truth to power, face to face, in big numbers, on campuses or the Washington Mall.

Kevin disagrees with Martin, but links to two bloggers who provide a strong debate, Ezra Klein and Brian Beutler.  Having set the scene, now I'll tell you what I think, which also has something to do with the second half of the title of this post.

At sixty-eight, I'm hardly a "twentysomething."  In the protests of the sixties, I was in the Air Force and thought much, though not all. of it wrong.  Now, with age and perhaps some added wisdom, I can see that the protesters pretty much had it right.  The question, for me, is whether the tactics of the sixties are appropriate now.  With Friedman, I want to have thousands marching the streets and mall in Washington.

At the same time, I have to agree with Klein and Beutler.  We, even us old geezers, are overwhelmed by the huge scale of the problem today, and need to find other ways to address it.  Activism takes on many different faces today.  Today's youth seem to recognize that they cannot win when arrayed against the power of the criminals who have taken over our government.   So, they decide to change what they can, addressing local problems and making small differences in other places.  I like that approach.

To the blog.  It's obvious that my posting has skipped days.  I've blamed it on being extremely busy, and that is partly true, but there is more to it.  I'm a little like the twentysomethings.  I am overwhelmed by the scale of the problems and recognize that we are losing.    I've become apathetic rather than angry.  And therefore, most subjects to post about are personal anecdotes, interspersed with the occasional rant.  In addition, I do not see things as clearly, black and white, as I once did.

As a result, my blogging is likely to continue to be less regular.  At least it will until I can persuade myself that what I write makes a difference and can find the fire again.  There are also increasing demands on my time, including my body requiring more sleep.  I will write less often, but hopefully have something more important to say than quoting my golf score, which was atrocious today.  Since I do not write primarily to an audience but for my personal enjoyment of writing, I intend to try to return to daily blogging, but cannot promise when.

Here I Am Again

I've certainly not been posting regularly, and for the most part can't give an adequate answer why.  There is the American League Championship Series, but there wasn't a game Friday and I didn't post.  There is one this evening, if you can call this massacre a ballgame, and here I am posting.  It's 10-1 in the third inning and my team, the Cleveland Indians, is on the losing end.

Another reason is that I've had very little to say.  In a personal email group I've discussed water, and the environment.  In relation to the environment , I said::

... [S]o far the US seems to be making the wrong decisions.  For instance, the insistence on converting our automobile to bio fuels is a horrible mistake.  The corn required to produce fuel could better be used to feed people.  It's possible that there is a hidden benefit to that.  Corn converted to fuel cannot be used to feed the animals we eat, and therefore the cost of meat will, I has risen.  The higher costs for meat will, hopefully, cause less meat to be consumed, and an attendant rise in health.

 

If we decided to, we probably could develop a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle within a few years.  We know how, but there is no incentive to make it commercially available.  The energy companies would probably have to be forced to convert, but surely there can be some economic incentive to get them to do so.  The reduction in gases produced would cause less deaths, and also help to slow global warming.  Oil would be available for other uses and last longer. 

 

I may be wrong, but I think I've read that some, I believe many, of the chemical fertilizers and pesticides are by products of oil.  If that is correct, and if our present consumption levels continue, food production would become increasingly expensive, adding to the pressures of war, famine, and disease.

 

We can change; we can become green.  But the corporations seem to believe green is a small, ineffective movement.  It may be now, but if all the factors pressuring the damage to our environment to continue, it will not continue so.  Right now, the power of the corporations outweigh that of the green movement.  One, or possibly both, things must occur.  One, enough people have to demand green, becoming stronger through the sheer numbers.  Their vote must become more meaningful.  Two, the political system must become more responsive to the needs of the public, and that will require a complete, thorough, extensive, and probably wrenching change in the way we elect our legislators.

Today, I read that there are spots of hope.  Kansas, as red a state as there is, has decided not to build coal powered power plants.  I'm really mixed about coal power.  I understand that they produce huge amounts of gases that damage our air.  But, there is also enough coal available to keep us going for over two hundred years.  So why aren't we pouring massive amounts of research money into ways to  clean and cool coal fired plants?  It seems to me we have  simply given up on coal, demanding our power be either oil or nuclear powered to protect the environment.  Another but, what are we going to do with the nuclear waste?  Leading naturally to another question, why aren't we pouring money into fusion or to methods that could reduce the waste?

Changing the subject slightly, but with an environment twist, I read Real Live Preacher today.  He is attending a training session to learn to install water purification plants.  An organization named Edge Outreach (E.O.) installs them in places where pure drinking water is needed. According to E.O., 42,000 persona, mostly children, die every day due to drinking bad water.  This is a relatively small organization working to change the environmental problems for some who are most in need.

It seems to me that this is how change is going to come about, individual people using small, workable methods, will raise the awareness level, and once raised, their voices will reach the legislators and, hopefully, corporations.  I have hope, but it barely glimmers through the fog of propaganda produced by those corporations and their lobbyists.

Thoughts, On GWB and Other Slightly Off-center Things

Today's GWB press conference wasn't on my list today, so I missed it live.  I've seen clips of it  and read some articles.  I'm going to add my two cents on Bush.

George W. Bush frightens me.  Here, in my opinion, we have a person who believes he has a divine mandate to change our nation.  He actually believes everything he does is directed by a higher power.  He seems unable to consider various points of view, and seems convinced that he is always right.

His actions seem deliberate to cause more war, with Iran, Turkey versus Kurds in Iraq, and it seems that his heavy handed policies are returning us to the cold war with Russia that we thought was over.  I believe he  and the Republican members of Congress are deliberately setting up the next President to have to keep our nation on a war footing, thus causing the Democrats to be saddled with responsibility for the disaster coming.

I believe he has allowed the Vice President and National Security Council to operate largely unmonitored operations.  He has placed zealots who answer to him rather than the Constitution into various posts, the Attorney General among them.

In short, this man is extremely dangerous.  I believe that it is entirely possible, even probable, that somehow he will orchestrate a disaster of major proportions next year and declare martial law across the nation.  I can only hope I am wrong, but if I am not, this nation will erupt in flames.  I believe that he wants extreme power, enough to quell the resistance..

I suppose it is clear I do not like this person or those who surround him.  But he cannot change the way we govern ourselves without two things, the acquiescence of enough members of Congress, including Democratic members of both houses, and fear of us all.  Essentially, we allow it through living in fear, of losing our job, of losing our homes, and losing our dignity.  We, the people, have ceased to be citizens, becoming a people moving through life doing what we are told, engrossed in making a living, sports, and television.

I realize I am being very harsh, perhaps too harsh, but I fear that I am closer to the truth than I would like.  It seems to me that we've allowed our education system to teach facts for tests and not how to think critically.  It seems to me that there isn't the capability to examine events, extracting the core and exerting the energy to correct what we believe is wrong.  Either that, or perhaps we've become complacent and do not believe that anything we do will make a difference.

Our toys keep everything going, cell phones, computers, iPods, all the endlessly variable ways we entertain ourselves and communicate electronically.  I read that the telecoms are under pressure to provide the government information about their customers.  Think about how devastating it would be if government were to stop all electronic communication.  I believe they could, simply by cutting off all non-military satellite communication, and by stopping all forms of electronic communication.  It wouldn't be easy, but it is possible, at least in my opinion.  The effect would almost eliminate commerce, at least within the US.

The southeast is in the grip of a major drought.  Cities can forecast that they will run out of water in weeks.  The longest time before running out for local cities was 180 days.  I've made an unofficial poll of neighbors, asking what would happen if there were no water.  Almost to a person, they said that it wasn't going to get that bad.  The News and Observer had a front page article on the drought this morning.  Reading it, not only neighbors, but also legislators seem indulging in wishful thinking.

For years I've said that the water distribution systems across this nation will cause severe problems.  More than one local war has already been fought over water rights.  I saw all the water that flows in the fountains of Las Vegas, and wondered how the farmers and cattle ranches felt about having such displays and their crops and cattle being so dry.  I can't see the future, but I can forecast that we must begin to develop ways to distribute water.

I'm about to get into something I know nothing about, but what fun is a blog if you can't speculate?  I can remember reading some time ago that Israel has salt water conversion plants providing some of their water.  I understand that our Navy uses salt water conversion to provide water for the sailors.  After all, it's impossible, or seems so to me, to carry enough water to maintain water for 3000 persons on an aircraft carrier.

If Israel can build conversion plants, why cannot the US?  Sure, it's expensive, but this nation needs to be considering such drastic measures, and it would certainly assist the coastal cities.  Water will be as important as oil before too long, and equally important to our economy and lifestyle, and there must be measures of conserving it just as with oil.

This evening I've wandered through several topics.  None are within my range of knowledge or understanding, but I've certainly got opinions.  I hope I've stirred your thought processes, whether or not you agree.

Following Last Night's Semi-promise

The first of the recommended articles is on Znet and titled "David and Goliath in Iraq."

There is something off-kilter when a movie about war, returning soldiers, and PTSD.  There's something even more kilter about writing about a movie and drawing conclusions about the war.  But that's just my take.  And I suppose the furthest off-kilter is me writing about the Znet article.

For me, the final two paragraphs are the most important.

Each member of Mike’s unit has become a killer, drug addict, patron of sleazy sex bars. All have become pathological liars; his own son turned into a sadist in Iraq. “In the Valley of Elah” is about the changing nature of American axioms -- we are good, our cause is noble, to serve in the military brings honor to the family. Like the Vietnam veterans -- alas, did we really need another lesson? -- the soldiers returning from Iraq also suffer from post-traumatic stress. Some have committed horrible crimes.

Mike disobeyed orders after committing an unthinkable act which his superior ordered. He stopped his vehicle, got out and photographed the scene where he lost his soul -- in the service of his country.

These paragraphs draw harsh images.  Each member of Mike’s unit has become a killer, drug addict, patron of sleazy sex bars. All have become pathological liars.  The only portion that ring true for me are when the writer points out the "... changing nature of American axioms -- we are good, our cause is noble, to serve in the military brings honor to the family."  For me, that's the core lesson of the article.  We have changed, and it's possibly true that Vietnam began the change.  And the we is all of us, not only the soldiers our idiot leader sent over there.

As for the movie, I'm mixed.  I can understand that the writer and director want to draw the harshest, black versus white, comparisons.  I can only hope he has obfuscated reality, though I'm not convinced he has.

I've been reading a lot today about health care reworking.  David Broder has the second "here" cited in yesterday's post, entitled "A Market Makeover for Health Insurance."  For me, the best news in his column is that there is beginning to be a serious conversation about health care in the nation.  Today I've read that the Republicans are about to offer their plan.  The interesting part of Kevin Drum's post is in the comments.  Absolutely no one believes they are sincere, and that they are trying to obfuscate.  I don't care if they are.  Just having the discussion will be an improvement.

All I can say about David Ignatius' article, "The Dignity Agenda," the third "here" in my list, is that he has truly recognized what motivates people, Iraqi or US citizens.  He has certainly given me an idea to think about.  I've known some people who were bereft of dignity, and it's painful to see.

As a rule of thumb, I don't often read Glenn Greenwald.  I have to leave something out of my daily blog reading and his has been dropped.  Whenever someone I respect recommends one of his columns I follow the link.  In this case, the fourth and last link of my "here" was well worth following it.  The article is titled "The Beltway Establishment's contempt for the rule of law."  This article is one of the better, most useful illustration of what we have allowed this crowd of criminals to do to our country.

Greenwald asks a very serious question toward the end of his column.

In his Foreign Affairs essay, Carothers warned of the primary obstacle to the installation of the "rule of law" in developing third-world countries:

The primary obstacles to such reform are not technical or financial, but political and human. Rule-of-law reform will succeed only if it gets at the fundamental problem of leaders who refuse to be ruled by the law. Respect for the law will not easily take root in systems rife with corruption and cynicism, since entrenched elites cede their traditional impunity and vested interests only under great pressure.

Is it possible to find a more accurate description than this of what has been taking place over the last six years in Washington, as the rule of law for our political elites has completely eroded?

It isn't only accurate; it is an indictment.  Every one of us should be concerned about how the rule of law has been violated.  Unfortunately, we are not.

 

Brief Finger Thoughts

There is really not enough time for me to explore everything that Felix's comment on this post.  This day has slipped away, though I've made some progress on a schedule.  The glimmer of a truth came to me in the middle of last night.  I'm going to have to schedule some of the items I listed by the half day or more, leaving some for another day.  I cannot get them all in every day.

I've decided to view that as good news.  Among the reasons for my stress recently is the feeling that I had to do something on every one of the items every day.  That will not work, at least not for me, and the primary alternative I saw was that one or more of them would simply have to be eliminated from the schedule.

There were a couple of articles recommended by email and by other blogs today, as well as some blog entries I found particularly interesting.  I've read them, and will list them here for other readers, here, here, here, and here.

I would promise to discuss them all tomorrow, but I've found that it isn't always a good idea to make that promise.  Invariably some new event occurs to capture my scattered mind, and I don't get it done.  But I will try to discuss at least some of them.

That's it for this evening.