Jim Putnam - Thinking Through My Fingers

Change Begins With A Dream

My title is stolen from the RLP blog.  In fact, I'm going to lift bits of his blog post of that title.  It is an important essay, one that speaks so much to us all as the politicians are all talking "Change".

I recently watched “Roving Mars,” a documentary film about Spirit and Opportunity, the two rovers sent by NASA to explore the surface of Mars. NASA’s main mission was to find evidence that water once existed on the Red Planet. The evidence for that seems clear now. Mars once had enough water to make a significant mark on its geological landscape.

NASA’s greater goal is to find out if life exists outside of the earth. The only life-model we have is our own, and water seems to be the essential ingredient. To that end, scientists are seeking to find water on celestial bodies that are close enough for our analysis. One of Jupiter’s moons, Europa, seems another likely candidate for study. Primitive life may be found in the waters below the ice cap of Europa. If so, it would be the most important scientific discovery in the history of humankind. For if life occurs twice in the same solar system, then you can assume the universe is teeming with life forms of unimaginable diversity.

<snip>

Currently we have spent nearly a trillion dollars on the war in Iraq*. No one really knows how much we will end up spending because there are so many hidden costs.

It is not my purpose to make a case for whether or not we should be at war. I happen to think we should not, but that’s not the point here. I simply observe that as long as we are at war, we will never have the resources to learn very much about the Universe. Because of this war, things that might have been known in our lifetime will go unknown for decades, perhaps longer if this war leads to other wars, as they often do. That’s too bad. I’d really like to be alive when we get our first peek into the waters of Europa. But that may not happen in my lifetime.

The question is: How do we want to spend our money? Do we want to explore the heavens or do we want to fight amongst ourselves? Amazing, isn’t it, how global politics begins to sound like something from an elementary school playground?

<snip>

Imagine if the spiritual people, the dream keepers of the sacred, archetypal stories that arise from our collective unconscious, were to embrace one another and celebrate the ancient beauty of our various traditions. Imagine if we spiritual people held hands across the world and called for peace instead of causing religious wars, which is what we are doing right now.

If that were to happen, the people of our world might see us differently. They might see the beauty and necessity of caring for our myths and traditions. Even brother and sister scientist would celebrate our ancient stories which are, after all, our earliest attempts to understand the world around us.

Peace would be our hallmark, and we would preach that it is the birthright of everyone born on this planet. And we would be set free to pursue truth in all of its wondrous forms.

Wouldn’t that be amazing?

And maybe there would be energy and money enough to take a peek at what lies below the ice on Europa. What we find there might show us that life is bigger and broader than we ever imagined.

Change begins with a dream.  Read the whole thing.  And dream.

Let Down By Politicians

This morning I read a blog entry by Michael Scherer titled "On Wby It Matters When Politicians Treat Voters Like Fools".  In other reading, I've read complaints that the media are the ones treating readers like fools.  I've rolled this all around for a while, and believe that   Both these perspectives are probably correct.  Scherer's article is very interesting, and worth reading the entire thing.

He writes:

... The American people want a president they can trust, someone who will do what he or she says, someone who will not play this country for a fool. ...

All things considered, this seems like a modest request. But we as a country know better. We have all been let down so many times before. It is painful, in fact. When our politicians try to deceive us, when they slant reality or dumb down the details, it makes us want to turn off the television and put down the newspaper. It chips away at our faith in democracy. In 2000, David Foster Wallace described beautifully, in a Rolling Stone article, how many Americans react to their politicians.

What one feels when they loom into view is just an overwhelming lack of interest, the sort of deep disengagement that is often a defense against pain. Against sadness. In fact, the likeliest reason why so many of us care so little about politics is that modern politicians make us sad, hurt us deep down in ways that are hard even to name, much less talk about. It's easier to roll your eyes.

This is why candidates who say things they know to be misleading should not be excused for just "playing politics." What they are actually doing is much worse. They are hurting America. And we in the news media have a role to play here. We should be shaming them back towards honesty. It is nothing less than a patriotic duty.

But it isn't only the media's responsibility to shame them back.   The "We" of the next to last sentence refers to all of us.

I've known for a while that politics and politicians don't keep promises.  It's clear how low in esteem many of us hold politicians.  We've become numb to the pain Scherer mentions.  And we do more than put down the newspaper or turn off the television.  We distrust all politician, distrust leads to apathy, and apathy leads to politicians succumbing to corrupting acts because they know we aren't paying attention.

Since John Edwards, has suspended his candidacy, I turn to my next choice, Barack Obama.  I've listened to several of his speeches, and read a few of his policies.  I like him, and feel positive that he will be a good President.  But the fear of politicians not being honest with the voters, and the distrust of them I've built up over years, has me concerned.  I ask: since he is such a compelling speaker and says the things I want to hear, am I falling for the lines of just another politician?  Are my positive feelings misplaced?  Will he be another politician who "chips away at our faith in democracy"? 

Quilting and Magnetism

I'm a relatively new quilter, having begun in the early 90's.  Since shortly after I began, I've had an oval plastic pin holder, approximately 3X1.5 inches on the table.  It has a concave top for holding pins I need to hold pieces together.  Somewhere within its surface there's a magnet, which keeps the pins together.  I've used the holder without thinking much about it.  It does come in handy in other applications.  I once dropped a washer in the grass when working on a project.  After searching for a few minutes, I came in, got the pin holder, and swept it around the area.  It snatched the washer up and I was back at work.

Today, as I sewed pieces, for some inexplicable reason I began wondering how magnetism works.  Yeah, I realize that's a bit strange after so many years of using the holder.  But that's me.  I wondered enough that when I needed to break from sewing, I came to the computer and Googled "magnetism".  I sat and read a list of articles about magnetism, learning more than I really wanted or needed to know.  For a layman, or at least this layman, this article provides the most understandable information.

Now, thinking about that sequence - quilting, pin holder, magnetism, Google, reading - I wonder what set my mind off in that particular direction when I've been using that pin holder all these years.  Why, today rather than hundreds of previous days, did I consider it important enough to do that small amount of research?

I learned a lot about magnets and magnetism, but there is one small (?) point that wasn't in the literature today.  It may be somewhere, but I didn't find it today.  I know magnetism and electricity are very related, that the earth itself is a magnet, that the Chinese began using compasses centuries before Europeans, that Columbus documented that true north moves according to location, and other interesting facts.  Nowhere did I learn exactly why magnets work.  Albert Einstein understood how magnetism and electricity affect each other, but did he ask why they do?

So, with that you can see how my mind works while quilting.  It can sometimes lead to quite interesting places, though usually not very deep into any of them.  I suppose I should be asking why it works that way, but truthfully, I'm a little afraid to go there.

Thoughts From "Goodbye To Hegemony"

I've been led to this article, "Waving Goodbye to Hegemony", from two sources, Joe Klein of Time Magazine, and Prof Juan Cole of Informed Consent.  I've a few thoughts, primarily from its periphery.

I believe "Waving Goodbye" is very important.  Were I able, I would recommend that everyone read it and then be a part of discussion groups about its implications.  It sure  would provide some animated discussions.

My first thought was; Why is this a bad thing?  Why is the strengthening of second world countries and alignment among them something that we should be concerned about?  Why is a strong E.U. and China necessarily bad for the U.S.?

I don't believe it is.  It sounds to me like strong trilateral economies, coupled with an inevitable globalization, would be better for all the world, first, second, and third world countries included.

In fact, it seems a  smelly hubris that the U.S. believes it must be the world's leader. 
The second from last paragraph of page 6 seems accurate to me, and indicates that we aren't trying to lead but to coerce. 

To understand the second world, you have to start to think like a second-world country. What I have seen in these and dozens of other countries is that globalization is not synonymous with Americanization; in fact, nothing has brought about the erosion of American primacy faster than globalization. While European nations redistribute wealth to secure or maintain first-world living standards, on the battlefield of globalization second-world countries’ state-backed firms either outhustle or snap up American companies, leaving their workers to fend for themselves. The second world’s first priority is not to become America but to succeed by any means necessary.

Why would the U.S. want to resist that?  Is it fear that our prestige or ability to compete would be damaged?  If it is, then it should be.

There is so much that we could accomplish to develop and maintain peace if we don't assume that our way is the only, or the best way, to live within a world of differing cultures and needs.  Our responsibility is partly to assure that others have the opportunity to grow and to be as their cultures allow, without imposing our view of whom they should become.

Our needs cannot determine how they develop.  There will be areas in which we disagree.  I cannot read this without considering that the first world is causing the problem and is going about the solution in exactly the wrong way.  We demand the products that Brazil produces, then despair at the destruction of the rainforest.  We need to recognize that we cannot have it both ways.  When we tell Brazil that they must protect the rainforest in order to ease global warming, we are also telling them that they must remain poor.  It's that simple, or maybe it isn't.  I don't know, and shouldn't be making such blanket statements.  The point is, excusing my own hubris, that the first world must recognize that their needs aren't necessarily those of the third world.

I was right about one thing; what I've written is certainly around the periphery of the NY Times article.  As I said, the article is important.  I'm sure that others can discuss it much better than I, but in conceit, I think I've done a better job of applying a lesson from the article that Joe klein.  And with that, I'll hush.

The movie "Atonement" and Cats! The Musical

Yesterday, Marrianna and I were treated to dinner and movie sister by Marrianna's sister and her husband.  We saw "Atonement" the movie based on Ian McEwan's novel by the same name.  I went in with no expectation that I would enjoy the movie.  I was wrong.  It is a beautifully done  movie;  a good story, well told and acted.  I wholeheartedly recommend it.

This afternoon, we went with the church Fun and Fellowship Group to see the Broadway play Cats!  I know; it has been around for a long time, but this was the first time either of us had seen it.  I loved it, absolutely loved it.  It has good music, costumes, with an interesting story hidden within the music.

We have had three days of high style living.  Thursday we dined at the Fearrington House, North Carolina's only five star restaurant.  Friday, an excellent barbeque dinner with family, followed by a beautiful movie.  And today a play that simply put a classy top to it all.

This evening, I'm sitting at the computer trying to keep my attention on what I'm typing.  I have the TV on, with the sound muted, so that occasionally I can get an update on the South Carolina Democratic primary.  Ice skating is on NBC, and I'll admit that I really enjoy watching that.  As a result though, my attention isn't exactly on what I'm writing.

It does look, however, as if Barack Obama has won the primary, with Clinton coming in a distant second, and Edwards a weak third.  I'm not politically sharp enough to know what that means.  In my opinion, we would be well served by any one of the three as President.  I still support John Edwards, and don't think he should drop out of the as some pundits have suggested.  But for me, his role switches now to one of forcing the other two to respond to issues rather than being argumentative with each other.  I believe that it's essential that the Democrats bring their positions to the front before the national campaign begins.  Because the Republicans will be slinging mud once it does.

Politics and ice skating don't blend very well.  So, I think I'll concentrate on the skating.  Marrianna is watching the skating downstairs, and I will go be with her.

Science and the Humanities

Marrianna had an appointment this morning, so rather than return home and then have to go back to get her, I went three blocks to Chapel Hill's excellent library.  When I lived in Chapel Hill, I was a member, but I'm too cheap to pay the $50 per year for non-residents to belong, so when we moved to Fearrington, I let my membership expire.  But thank goodness, they don't require membership to browse and read in one of the comfortable easy chairs they have scattered around.

I pulled a book from their shelves that I have at home but have not yet cracked open.  It's "Great Ideas in Physics", by Alan Lightman [McGraw Hill, 2000].  Quoting the book jacket:

Alan Lightman, PhD., is the John E. Burchard Professor of Humanities and Senior Lecturer in Physics at MIT.

Page four of the Introduction gave me something to think about.  I'm sitting in a library and mutter aloud when I read:

...  The relationship between science and the humanities is two-way.  Science changes our view of the world and our place in it.  In the other direction, the humanities provide the store of ideas and images and language available to us in understanding the world.  The exploding star of A.D. 1054, the Crab Nebula, was sighted and documented by the Chinese, but nowhere mentioned in the West, where the Aristotelian notion of the immortality of stars still held sway.  We often do not see what we do not expect to see.

It is more than expectations.  It also measures cultural bias.  It's interesting to me how much we have become so sure that most significant inventions have been made in the US.  Where Dr. Lightman sees Aristotelian ideas blocking how science was viewed, I see similar instances in today's science.

Here is another instance of ideas coming from separate sources that seem to bee very similar.  In today's Crooked Timber, I read this:

This reminds me of a conversation I once had with an American historian and a Russian computer scientist. It went something like this:

American: … but that’s TV, I suppose. Philo Farnsworth didn’t know what he was getting us all into.
Irishman: Who?
Russian: Who?
American: Philo Farnsworth. He invented the television.
Irishman: No he didn’t. John Logie Baird invented the television!
Russian: Who are these people? Television was invented by Alexander Televishnevsky!

I forget the Russian inventor’s real name. As I recall, further discussion established that for many 20th century developments the Russians had a counterpart developer who, according to the schoolbooks, had just gotten there before. And while this may seem like a standard bit of Soviet-era oddness, the phenomenon of simultaneous discovery in science well-established, together with Stigler’s law of eponymy.

I've not yet read the link to Stigler's law, but it's irrelevant to my point, as confused as it is.  Not only do we not see what we do not expect to see, we also don't allow ourselves to see accomplishments by those whom we don't expect.

With that, it's time to go get dressed to take my wife out to dinner. 
 

Just Checking In

There is nothing on my mind to cover this evening.  Added to that is the fact that I only have about 15 minutes before Marrianna and I are doing something together.

I was able to apply just over two hours to the quilt this morning.  That isn't sufficient, but it seems that with our calendar full, that is likely to be approximately the most in most days.  At that rate, the quilt will be completed in early fall.  That may be acceptable to the bride and groom.  There are two quilt shows in early October that I could enter the quilt.  If it should win a prize they could have more to appreciate. 

This post is just the result of forcing myself to write more regularly.  Several times this evening I considered not writing at all, but I really feel a need (?) to write something every day.  this has been it for today.

Attack Advertising

How do the vast majority of people make up their mind about whom they're going to give their vote?  The reason I ask is that I listened to the Diane Rehm Show on NPR this morning as I worked on the quilt.  For the eleven o'clock hour, she had Stephen Marks, author of "Confessions of a Political Hitman" (Sourcebooks).  Marks , using his own words, does opposition research for Republican candidates.  He researches opponents to discover any bit of history that can be used against the opponent.  The premise of his book is that we Americans gripe about political attack ads, but they work.

Marks is really a person I would definitely not like on a personal level.  He is abrasive, calling those callers who questioned him names like "wacko".  Diane called him on that several times, asking him politely not to refer to her listeners using such terms.

He claims his work is only used in legitimate ways.  But, whether it is or not is mostly irrelevant to answer the question of the first paragraph. 

I think he is correct.  It does work, and, for me, that means that many, even possibly most, voters don't do their own research, and usually don't know their preferred candidate's positions, much less his history.  They hear attack ads, and complain about them, but when they step into a polling booth cannot forget them.  They have gathered no other information for themselves, and allow the negativism of the attack ads to influence their vote.

If nothing else, attack ads consume valuable time and resources to repudiate.  And if the candidate decides not to justify the ad with a response, he, or she, is almost always assumed guilty, hurting his cause as much as the ad.  It's a lose-lose situation.

And, If I am to be honest, I can understand the value of some form of "opposition research."  I am interested in knowing some of life decisions all candidates have made in their past since it could indicate how they will decide in the future.  That is "some", not all.  The problem, therefore, lies in who decides which "some" I will see.  Which brings me to the place I stand, confused.  I recognize that attack ads will likely have some influence, and I know that I'll not have the time or resources to research everything about my preferred candidate.  That leaves me at the mercy of the scruples of the opposition researcher and the candidate for whom he works.  That's not a comfortable place.

Barack Obama's MLK Day Speech

My allegiance is slowly being pulled toward Barack Obama.  Yesterday I read a copy of the speech he was giving at Ebenezer Baptist Church,  the church Martin Luther King Jr.had been pastor.  It is, as Joe Klein says, a great speech.

Today, I saw the speech on YouTube.  It doesn't follow the printed copy exactly, but where it doesn't gives it even more power.

I continue to believe that John Edwards is the best candidate for President.  But speeches such as this give Obama an additional strength, one that creates a vision.  His vision and that of Edwards are very similar in my opinion, and I currently believe Edwards has the better skills necessary to get the changes both of them are calling for.  But Obama paints the vision for people better than anyone.

I've been trying to pull out of a funk, described so well by Dr. C.  This evening's economic news hasn't helped.  After seeing the Nightly News, I read several blogs.  It seems that the overseas markets resemble an avalanche, with precipitous drops.  There is fear that the entire world is about to enter a severe recession.

We will be alright financially.  We will retrench a bit, but mostly through cutting back on our projected travel this year.  I'm retired, with sufficient income to be able to pay our obligations.  Though there is little I can personally do, I am very concerned about those who are much less financially secure that us.  There is going to be some real pain.

The pain is more than financial though.  For those who lose their jobs, their homes, and their hopes, it isn't merely pain but a deadening devastation of confidence and fear pervading everything.  I'm familiar with that fear, and am grateful that we will most likely not have to endure it this time.  But what about those who will?

From what I read so far, Congress is not moving toward doing anything meaningful.  They are arguing about how to address the problem.  I thought Kevin Drum had a sensible suggestion.

But why not try a compromise? Instead of, say, a one-shot rebate of $1,200, why not a monthly rebate against payroll taxes of $100 for 12 months? Add to that a 12-month boost to unemployment compensation, and you'd get a short term increase for everyone who works as well as for those temporarily idled by the recession.

Sure, a permanent increase might be psychologically superior, but knowing that you were going to get a steady stream of money for 12 months might prompt a little more spending confidence than a one-time windfall. Why not give it a try?

Admittedly, I am not an economist, but however Congress acts, the intent must be to protect people just barely above the poverty level, not to give even more tax breaks to the richest.  Hell, we aren't anywhere near rich, but we could do without a tax rebate.  I would need a level of assurance that by doing so the money would not go to the rich, but instead to the people.

I am in favor of stimulating business.  It's difficult to control any assistance to them, though.  In the large corporations, board members and officers could absorb much of any assistance.  I'm not sure how, but there must be some way the rules could be written to require any assistance to be applied to production.

I've gone on too long, getting myself into areas about which I am completely ignorant.  And that is another area of concern.  Our media will not, in my opinion, give the public the kind of useful information that will be required for them to make informed decisions, either in personal finances or political choices.

As I said, I've gone on too long.

Not Much of Nuthin'

Marrianna and I went to an antiques show in the Barn at Fearrington Village this morning.  This is a reasonably high class show, drawing dealers from all up and down the east coast.  It's not anything like entering a local "Antiques, Collectibles, and Junque" shop found in many towns.  This was really very nice merchandise.

Marrianna later said that if she had gone in there with $10,000 cash to spend, she could have spent it all.  I could easily have spent half that amount.  As is was, I did spend almost $200, buying only a bolo tie and a thimble.  Marrianna bought a small ceramic box.

After the show, I came home and worked in the kitchen.  I made a dessert for us that we really like.  It has a unique name, "Almost As Good As Robert Redford."  It's in the refrigerator waiting for us now.  You can tell the recipe was devised by a woman, but it is absolutely wonderful.  If you're ever at our home, I'll make it for you.  The recipe is available on the web.  I got mine from one of my lady quilting friends.

It is interesting, for me at least, how people can turn almost anything into art.  The thimble I bought today is not useful for its supposed purpose, sewing.  It is ornate, and even has a name, Minerva. It's the face and headdress of Minerva.  I have no historical idea when people began making art objects of common household items.  But in visiting antique shops, especially the good ones, you can see that many things were, even when originally made, intended to be art rather than functional.

It's different when the item is something like a box, or even a pistol handle.  These can be decorated and continue to be functional.  I have several such thimbles, though all are sized for women's fingers.  That's not the kind of art I'm thinking of.  My frame of reference is when the article completely loses its functional properties and, though it's possible to see that it is intended to be a thimble, it's no longer functionally useful.

I believe that is another example of humans exploring, though in a different arena.  The same urge to explore is applied to an everyday item.  It's similar to quilting.  A quilt could be just three layers of fabric sewed together and quilted.  It would provide the warmth a quilt is meant to be.  But people began putting patterns and color into their quilts.  It's amazing how beautiful a quilt made from feed sacks and men's shirts can be.

That's my inelegant philosophy for today.  And now, it's time to go pull the dessert from the refrigerator, fill a dish, and consume some culinary art.