Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Clarity from Roach
Christopher Roach doesn't write every day, and doesn't always hit a bulls-eye, but when he does it's better and sharper than anyone else. In today's column on the economic collapse, he says:
¶ 12:08 PM
Unfortunately, central banking and deficit spending have made our government to some extent hostage to a handful of private investment banks that trade in government debt. The “liquidity crisis” is also a crisis of the government’s ability to deficit spend. Conservatives should not necessarily renounce some repudiation of that debt, if such a repudiation punished the enablers of mass government spending. Bad credit for the government would be a good thing for the public, making expensive endeavors like the Iraq War, farm subsidies, and prescription drug benefits a thing of the past. Regulation should aim above all at stability, transparency, and buffering of the economy as a whole from the actions of a small circle of risk-preferring speculators.
¶ 12:08 PM
Who's the socialist?
The brand-R talking point heads continually define FDR as a socialist who tried to nationalize everything and blew up the Constitution. The same brand-R talking point heads also describe Sultan Bush as a "conservative".
How did FDR handle the banking crisis in 1933? He closed all banks to stop the run, sent out inspectors to check solvency, and immediately re-opened the good banks with a federal guarantee behind them. The guarantee turned into FDIC.
Was this constitutional? Yes. The Federal gov't is given power "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof..." Since the banking crisis was destroying the Value of Money, the gov't clearly had the authority to intervene.
How does Sultan Bush handle this banking crisis? He nationalizes the insolvent companies.
Now tell me again, who's the socialist?
= = = = =
A side thought: We can't really have a "run on the banks" in the same way now. In 1932 and 1933 people quite rationally distrusted banks, and took out their money in physical form, preferring to keep it at home. But the available greenbacks weren't enough to sustain the amount of value in circulation, so various companies, banks, cities and states issued private currencies.
Nowadays very little money is in physical form, and very few people expect to carry around lots of green rectangles. If you withdraw your account from your bank, you get a check which isn't any good until you deposit it in another bank. So we may have a run on certain banks, but the result will be more money in other banks.
If large numbers of people demand physical money, the whole system would be in a different kind of trouble..... not just individual banks but the entire Treasury would run out. Nobody would have the imagination or the authority to issue private currencies; you can be sure the Secret Service would bring in the Delta Force if anyone tried it. ¶ 6:25 AM
How did FDR handle the banking crisis in 1933? He closed all banks to stop the run, sent out inspectors to check solvency, and immediately re-opened the good banks with a federal guarantee behind them. The guarantee turned into FDIC.
Was this constitutional? Yes. The Federal gov't is given power "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof..." Since the banking crisis was destroying the Value of Money, the gov't clearly had the authority to intervene.
How does Sultan Bush handle this banking crisis? He nationalizes the insolvent companies.
Now tell me again, who's the socialist?
= = = = =
A side thought: We can't really have a "run on the banks" in the same way now. In 1932 and 1933 people quite rationally distrusted banks, and took out their money in physical form, preferring to keep it at home. But the available greenbacks weren't enough to sustain the amount of value in circulation, so various companies, banks, cities and states issued private currencies.
Nowadays very little money is in physical form, and very few people expect to carry around lots of green rectangles. If you withdraw your account from your bank, you get a check which isn't any good until you deposit it in another bank. So we may have a run on certain banks, but the result will be more money in other banks.
If large numbers of people demand physical money, the whole system would be in a different kind of trouble..... not just individual banks but the entire Treasury would run out. Nobody would have the imagination or the authority to issue private currencies; you can be sure the Secret Service would bring in the Delta Force if anyone tried it. ¶ 6:25 AM
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Yes, MC McCain, that's just what we need.
The Manchurian Candidate says this morning that we need a Blue Ribbon Commission to investigate the Wall Street mess, much like the Commission that "investigated" the intelligence failures around 9/11.
Yes indeed, MC my friend, that's exactly what we need. A Commission to insure that all genuine problems are forever hidden from sight, all genuine criminals are protected and promoted, a Commission to find a few suitable innocent dummies to fall on their swords. Another commission to insure that criminals and incompetents shall reign forever and ever and ever, driving us off the cliff even faster. I didn't think that was possible, but you're the expert in subversion, the master of collapse. I bow before your superior knowledge, Comrade McCain. Amen.
= = = = =
Dropping the snide and turning deadly serious, here's what we really need. We need to abolish the stock exchanges, abolish the entire system of shareholding, prohibit fancy derivatives, and let companies be bought and sold only in one piece. It has been blazingly obvious since 1929 that the stock exchange serves only as an "occasion of sin", a place where fraud and con games are entirely too easy to perform, a place where primitive mob emotions can destroy a nation.
In the last few years, many big investors like state pension funds have already made this change. They have abandoned shares and brokers, instead buying companies outright and running them for a profit. This works better, as I noted here. When the motive of a company is directed solely toward making a profit, the company behaves well. When the goal is raising share prices, dishonesty abounds.
= = = = =
In simple terms: Pleasing the customer is healthy. Pleasing the shareholder is unhealthy. ¶ 7:54 AM
Yes indeed, MC my friend, that's exactly what we need. A Commission to insure that all genuine problems are forever hidden from sight, all genuine criminals are protected and promoted, a Commission to find a few suitable innocent dummies to fall on their swords. Another commission to insure that criminals and incompetents shall reign forever and ever and ever, driving us off the cliff even faster. I didn't think that was possible, but you're the expert in subversion, the master of collapse. I bow before your superior knowledge, Comrade McCain. Amen.
= = = = =
Dropping the snide and turning deadly serious, here's what we really need. We need to abolish the stock exchanges, abolish the entire system of shareholding, prohibit fancy derivatives, and let companies be bought and sold only in one piece. It has been blazingly obvious since 1929 that the stock exchange serves only as an "occasion of sin", a place where fraud and con games are entirely too easy to perform, a place where primitive mob emotions can destroy a nation.
In the last few years, many big investors like state pension funds have already made this change. They have abandoned shares and brokers, instead buying companies outright and running them for a profit. This works better, as I noted here. When the motive of a company is directed solely toward making a profit, the company behaves well. When the goal is raising share prices, dishonesty abounds.
= = = = =
In simple terms: Pleasing the customer is healthy. Pleasing the shareholder is unhealthy. ¶ 7:54 AM
Monday, September 15, 2008
Multi-front collapse
Following on Orlov, I've been thinking about how the Soviets might have orchestrated our collapse on many fronts.
The social and cultural fronts are obvious, and their Soviet connection is well-documented. Feminists like the delightfully departed Betty Fried[m]an, may she roast for an eternity of eternities in the seventh circle of the seventh circle of Hell, and racialists like Comrade ML King and Comrade Jesse Jackson, are known to have taken orders directly from Moscow. They were clearly implementing good old Joe Stalin's checkerboard plan, the same plan that has given us civil war in the Balkan and Caucasus regions. (Uncle Joe's recipe: Define a victim group and an oppressor group. Fold them together in a hot pan, in such a way that the defined oppressor group will look and act like oppressors. Stand back and watch with glee as the mixture boils over.)
But what about the economic front? It's true that greed and stupidity are the driving factors in today's collapse of the financial system, but was there a separate catalyst? I've been puzzling over this since reading Sailer's closeup view of Obama's ancestry. Barack's Soviet-agent grandmother worked in an investment bank, and her life and behavior sound remarkably similar to my old leftist colleague Tom (longer story here) who also worked in an investment bank.
If you were a KGB planner, you'd want to use the "pillars" of capitalism against itself. You'd want to plant agents in the investment system to help guide it toward stupid and self-defeating behavior. You'd also want to have people in government who refuse to slow down the collapse by regulating, and who then pour trillions of dollars of tax money into bailing out (i.e. nationalizing) the failed banks, thus simultaneously weakening the country and reinforcing the bad behavior. In other words, you'd want people like Bush Senior in 1989 and Bush Junior in 2008. ¶ 8:35 AM
The social and cultural fronts are obvious, and their Soviet connection is well-documented. Feminists like the delightfully departed Betty Fried[m]an, may she roast for an eternity of eternities in the seventh circle of the seventh circle of Hell, and racialists like Comrade ML King and Comrade Jesse Jackson, are known to have taken orders directly from Moscow. They were clearly implementing good old Joe Stalin's checkerboard plan, the same plan that has given us civil war in the Balkan and Caucasus regions. (Uncle Joe's recipe: Define a victim group and an oppressor group. Fold them together in a hot pan, in such a way that the defined oppressor group will look and act like oppressors. Stand back and watch with glee as the mixture boils over.)
But what about the economic front? It's true that greed and stupidity are the driving factors in today's collapse of the financial system, but was there a separate catalyst? I've been puzzling over this since reading Sailer's closeup view of Obama's ancestry. Barack's Soviet-agent grandmother worked in an investment bank, and her life and behavior sound remarkably similar to my old leftist colleague Tom (longer story here) who also worked in an investment bank.
If you were a KGB planner, you'd want to use the "pillars" of capitalism against itself. You'd want to plant agents in the investment system to help guide it toward stupid and self-defeating behavior. You'd also want to have people in government who refuse to slow down the collapse by regulating, and who then pour trillions of dollars of tax money into bailing out (i.e. nationalizing) the failed banks, thus simultaneously weakening the country and reinforcing the bad behavior. In other words, you'd want people like Bush Senior in 1989 and Bush Junior in 2008. ¶ 8:35 AM
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Ridiculous strategy
I don't know why I'm bothering with this, because I don't care if MC McCain wins, and nobody will read this anyway.
McCain's campaign manager (Bounds?) was interviewed on Fox just now. Bounds was making a heavy heavy charge against Obama. Accusing Obama of a monstrous crime against Nature. What was this terrible offense? Bounds said that Obama had started out using federal campaign funds and then opted out, or began without using the funds and then opted in.
I don't remember, I wouldn't know the difference if it bit me on the ass, and I don't care. And I'm sure the ordinary voter doesn't care either.
Bounds said that Obama "violated the integrity of the campaign finance process" by his in/out or out/in change, whichever the hell it was, and whatever the hell that phrase might mean in some alien language.
This phrase is utterly meaningless and purposeless to anyone except a Senator.
I can understand why McCain would be professionally angry, because he played a large part in designing this unconstitutional and unamerican Process. If Obama is using this unconstitutional and unamerican Process in a way that its author didn't intend, the author is entitled to be upset.
When someone uses one of my graphics tools for a purpose I dislike, I'm professionally angry in the same way. But I wouldn't dare to presume that anyone else in the world would give the tiniest micro-gnat-shit about the whole matter. ¶ 9:28 AM
McCain's campaign manager (Bounds?) was interviewed on Fox just now. Bounds was making a heavy heavy charge against Obama. Accusing Obama of a monstrous crime against Nature. What was this terrible offense? Bounds said that Obama had started out using federal campaign funds and then opted out, or began without using the funds and then opted in.
I don't remember, I wouldn't know the difference if it bit me on the ass, and I don't care. And I'm sure the ordinary voter doesn't care either.
Bounds said that Obama "violated the integrity of the campaign finance process" by his in/out or out/in change, whichever the hell it was, and whatever the hell that phrase might mean in some alien language.
This phrase is utterly meaningless and purposeless to anyone except a Senator.
I can understand why McCain would be professionally angry, because he played a large part in designing this unconstitutional and unamerican Process. If Obama is using this unconstitutional and unamerican Process in a way that its author didn't intend, the author is entitled to be upset.
When someone uses one of my graphics tools for a purpose I dislike, I'm professionally angry in the same way. But I wouldn't dare to presume that anyone else in the world would give the tiniest micro-gnat-shit about the whole matter. ¶ 9:28 AM
Technology and gas
The Shell gas stations here in the Northwest couldn't pump any gas because of Hurricane Ike. They still had plenty of gas in their underground tanks. The problem was that Shell uses a centrally controlled net-based system for all of its stations. The Houston office of Shell is without power, so the entire system went down, and none of the Shell stations could override the system.
This is fantastically stupid design. No, beyond stupid. Truly Bush-level incompetence, leading to rational suspicions of sabotage. Did Shell outsource the system design to China?
Story here. ¶ 6:08 AM
This is fantastically stupid design. No, beyond stupid. Truly Bush-level incompetence, leading to rational suspicions of sabotage. Did Shell outsource the system design to China?
Story here. ¶ 6:08 AM
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Technology and trains
Apparently the horrible Los Angeles train crash happened because the driver was occupied with texting, and missed a red signal beside the track.
Some people are going to reach the conclusion that trains don't get along with 21st century technology.
Yes, the driver was distracted by 21st-century technology, but his distraction SHOULDN'T HAVE MATTERED.
Stopping a train automatically when the signal is red? That's TELEGRAPH-ERA TECHNOLOGY.
The problem isn't that the driver was using a Steve Jobs invention. The problem is that the system designers failed to use a Samuel Morse invention. ¶ 8:53 PM
Some people are going to reach the conclusion that trains don't get along with 21st century technology.
Yes, the driver was distracted by 21st-century technology, but his distraction SHOULDN'T HAVE MATTERED.
Stopping a train automatically when the signal is red? That's TELEGRAPH-ERA TECHNOLOGY.
The problem isn't that the driver was using a Steve Jobs invention. The problem is that the system designers failed to use a Samuel Morse invention. ¶ 8:53 PM
She's a pit bull, not a parrot
Watching the Gibson interview of Palin, I realized something.... Clearly the R party chose Palin at least partly because she's an independent thinker. Along with the obvious female demographic stuff, she's pleasing to folks who like to reach their own conclusions. This is another part of the West vs East divide that I mentioned earlier. Westerners have more of a Protestant mindset, Easterners more Catholic. Westerners prefer to start from experience and observation, Easterners prefer to start from Received Authority.
Trouble is, after picking her for this quality, the RNC has put her in a position where she's required to repeat the standard credos and encyclicals of the Bush Dynasty. As the Gibson interview showed, she's not very good at defending things she doesn't really believe.
Hiring a candidate for one quality and then using her for another makes as much sense as hiring a ballerina from the Plumbers section of the phone book.
On the other side, Joe Biden has similar independent qualities. He's famous for saying true and commonsensical things which disagree with the party credo (i.e. he's famous for "gaffes"). But the DNC is not forcing him to be a pure parrot. It's clear that Biden has more room to speak his own mind, more room to attract non-formulaic thinkers.
RNC, as usual, manages to turn a smart move into a dumb one. ¶ 8:05 AM
Trouble is, after picking her for this quality, the RNC has put her in a position where she's required to repeat the standard credos and encyclicals of the Bush Dynasty. As the Gibson interview showed, she's not very good at defending things she doesn't really believe.
Hiring a candidate for one quality and then using her for another makes as much sense as hiring a ballerina from the Plumbers section of the phone book.
On the other side, Joe Biden has similar independent qualities. He's famous for saying true and commonsensical things which disagree with the party credo (i.e. he's famous for "gaffes"). But the DNC is not forcing him to be a pure parrot. It's clear that Biden has more room to speak his own mind, more room to attract non-formulaic thinkers.
RNC, as usual, manages to turn a smart move into a dumb one. ¶ 8:05 AM
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Personal note: constructivity
Well, I used the grumpy energy evident in the previous post for a good purpose.
In a tiny house, everything has to be organized fairly well if you want to get around without tripping over books and such. One missing point in my organization was the bathroom: the medicine chest is too small to hold much, and I like to have daily-use items out in the open. The top of the toilet is completely occupied by hairbrush, shaver and mouthwash, so I've always lacked a place to put a few other things. In other words, I needed a shelf. Finally this morning I gathered the necessary parts and tools, sawed out a proper piece of wood and mounted it in the only place where a shelf is practical. Now I finally have a place to put a spare roll of TP, a few washcloths and a book.
Seems odd that I've owned this place 17 years and never added anything until now. During the long years of renting, I was a rather active fixer and remodeler; I had always looked forward to ownership, but for a variety of reasons I lost the spirit of fixing shortly after moving in.
The gumption was renewed by writing about Jimmy and Lodine in the last episode of the Dream. Lodine's insistence on order and dignity reminded me, or perhaps shamed me, into rediscovering my own organizing spirit.
Footnote: the real shelf doesn't look quite as good as this digital representation. It's more in line with Jimmy's carpentry skills, but at least it holds things!
¶ 12:27 PM
In a tiny house, everything has to be organized fairly well if you want to get around without tripping over books and such. One missing point in my organization was the bathroom: the medicine chest is too small to hold much, and I like to have daily-use items out in the open. The top of the toilet is completely occupied by hairbrush, shaver and mouthwash, so I've always lacked a place to put a few other things. In other words, I needed a shelf. Finally this morning I gathered the necessary parts and tools, sawed out a proper piece of wood and mounted it in the only place where a shelf is practical. Now I finally have a place to put a spare roll of TP, a few washcloths and a book.
Seems odd that I've owned this place 17 years and never added anything until now. During the long years of renting, I was a rather active fixer and remodeler; I had always looked forward to ownership, but for a variety of reasons I lost the spirit of fixing shortly after moving in.
The gumption was renewed by writing about Jimmy and Lodine in the last episode of the Dream. Lodine's insistence on order and dignity reminded me, or perhaps shamed me, into rediscovering my own organizing spirit.
Footnote: the real shelf doesn't look quite as good as this digital representation. It's more in line with Jimmy's carpentry skills, but at least it holds things!
¶ 12:27 PM
Shocked! Shocked! Shocked!
Woke up early for some stupid elderly reason this morning, couldn't get back to sleep. Made the mistake of tuning to Bill Bennett's talk show, which was the only live distraction available at 3:30 AM. Bennett's substitute host was discussing a poll taken in many countries, in which about 30% of the people blamed the US Govt for the 9/11 attack. Bennett's sub host was shocked! shocked! shocked! at this, and I don't think he was being disingenuous. He truly couldn't believe it.
I can believe it easily.
First, European countries are about 20-30% Mohammedan. Thus it's not surprising but normal that 20-30% of Europe gives the official Mohammedan answer to the question.
Second, our own actions have at least encouraged this assumption. A sane nation responds to such a monstrous attack by pursuing the ATTACKERS with all available force. We have not done that; instead we have made a complete military mess in two countries that were only marginally involved with the attack. We haven't touched Saudi Arabia, Germany or Pakistan. We made one obviously half-hearted attempt to get Sheikh Osama, but we either muffed it or intentionally self-sabotaged it. Given this peculiar response, you don't have to be Mohammedan to wonder just what the hell is going on.
= = = = =
I've been distracted lately and haven't kept up with Michael Scheuer. A few months ago he wrote an article detailing, with his usual hard facts and uncomfortably perfect logic, why Osama hasn't made a major attack since 9/11. Basically, we've given him everything he wanted.
Sultan Bush has accomplished all three of those components, so Sheikh Osama doesn't need to add anything. There have been a number of minor attacks by independent operators, but Osama doesn't really want or need those, because attaching the al-Qaeda brand to petit terrorism would be an admission of weakness.
= = = = =
Fox News is running anniversary footage of the attack, with the headline "9/11: The Day America Changed." Nope, exactly wrong. Perfectly diametrically tragically suicidally wrong. We didn't change. We didn't fire the entire FBI and CIA to rebuild our intelligence service from scratch; we continued to value Diversity over survival; we didn't even allow citizens to speak badly about the enemy, let alone help catch enemy subversives; we continued to allow free flow of terrorists through borders and ports; we continued to allow Communist judges to sabotage our military and intelligence efforts; we continued Rumsfeld's idiotic "transformation" of the military to fit his 1978 model of business efficiency, even while we were fighting two useless wars.
In short, we didn't make any of the changes that a NORMAL nation at war would make. We only made the changes that Osama hoped we would make.
= = = = =
Cheerful this morning, aren't we? ¶ 4:09 AM
I can believe it easily.
First, European countries are about 20-30% Mohammedan. Thus it's not surprising but normal that 20-30% of Europe gives the official Mohammedan answer to the question.
Second, our own actions have at least encouraged this assumption. A sane nation responds to such a monstrous attack by pursuing the ATTACKERS with all available force. We have not done that; instead we have made a complete military mess in two countries that were only marginally involved with the attack. We haven't touched Saudi Arabia, Germany or Pakistan. We made one obviously half-hearted attempt to get Sheikh Osama, but we either muffed it or intentionally self-sabotaged it. Given this peculiar response, you don't have to be Mohammedan to wonder just what the hell is going on.
= = = = =
I've been distracted lately and haven't kept up with Michael Scheuer. A few months ago he wrote an article detailing, with his usual hard facts and uncomfortably perfect logic, why Osama hasn't made a major attack since 9/11. Basically, we've given him everything he wanted.
[Osama wants] three components: (a) bleed America to bankruptcy; (b) spread out U.S. forces to the greatest extent possible; and (c) promote Vietnam-era-like domestic disunity.
Sultan Bush has accomplished all three of those components, so Sheikh Osama doesn't need to add anything. There have been a number of minor attacks by independent operators, but Osama doesn't really want or need those, because attaching the al-Qaeda brand to petit terrorism would be an admission of weakness.
= = = = =
Fox News is running anniversary footage of the attack, with the headline "9/11: The Day America Changed." Nope, exactly wrong. Perfectly diametrically tragically suicidally wrong. We didn't change. We didn't fire the entire FBI and CIA to rebuild our intelligence service from scratch; we continued to value Diversity over survival; we didn't even allow citizens to speak badly about the enemy, let alone help catch enemy subversives; we continued to allow free flow of terrorists through borders and ports; we continued to allow Communist judges to sabotage our military and intelligence efforts; we continued Rumsfeld's idiotic "transformation" of the military to fit his 1978 model of business efficiency, even while we were fighting two useless wars.
In short, we didn't make any of the changes that a NORMAL nation at war would make. We only made the changes that Osama hoped we would make.
= = = = =
Cheerful this morning, aren't we? ¶ 4:09 AM
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
China smell = Walmart smell?
I've been puzzled in the last few months by an odor that seemed to be centered about 10 blocks south of my house. Generally pleasant but not familiar; might be described as a mix of sandalwood and green peppers. Occasionally the wind brings it toward my house, but I always detect it at the bottom of the big hill on Wellesley. At the top of that hill stands Walmart. Today I bought some stuff at Walmart, including pillowcases from China. After returning home, I picked up the plastic package containing the pillowcases. There was the strange sandalwood-pepper smell in intense form.
Is this a new Chinese packaging smell? Is it concentrated at Walmart, and spread downhill from Walmart's exhaust fans? ¶ 8:41 PM
Is this a new Chinese packaging smell? Is it concentrated at Walmart, and spread downhill from Walmart's exhaust fans? ¶ 8:41 PM
Size of the fight
Nice local story about a crime-fighting chihuahua. The cops were chasing a fugitive when he disappeared somewhere in a trailer park. They looked around but couldn't detect where he might have gone. A nearby resident saw the action and brought out his chihuahua (rather unimaginatively named "Taco"). The dog immediately sensed the presence of a hostile stranger in one of the vacant trailers and pointed to a window. Sure enough, the fugitive was behind that window. Hearing the commotion, he bolted out of the trailer and the cops caught him.
Bravo, Taco! ¶ 7:57 PM
Nice local story about a crime-fighting chihuahua. The cops were chasing a fugitive when he disappeared somewhere in a trailer park. They looked around but couldn't detect where he might have gone. A nearby resident saw the action and brought out his chihuahua (rather unimaginatively named "Taco"). The dog immediately sensed the presence of a hostile stranger in one of the vacant trailers and pointed to a window. Sure enough, the fugitive was behind that window. Hearing the commotion, he bolted out of the trailer and the cops caught him.
Bravo, Taco! ¶ 7:57 PM
Orlov on surviving the collapse...
Dmitri Orlov, in this article, compares the collapse of the Soviet Empire to the already-visible collapse of the American Empire. Orlov lived through the first one, and offers us a clear view of the second one.
He lists the parallels:
1. Unwinnable wars
2. Declining oil production
3. Out of control military budgets
4. Unsustainable deficits
5. Balky, unresponsive, corrupt political system
6. Delusions of grandeur prevent honest discussion of reform
Orlov says that many aspects of the Soviet system made collapse easier on the people. He concentrates on the Soviet infrastructure and material goods. Because Soviet technology remained in the 1940's, it was sturdy. Soviet cities were built around mass transit, and the machinery was designed to be "infinitely maintainable". By contrast, American cities since 1960 have been built around automobiles, and modern autos are specifically designed to be non-maintainable.
We had "infinitely maintainable" systems in 1940. Our cars, radios, streetcars, trains and powerplants were heavy, understressed, inefficient, tolerant of wear, and repairable with minimal skills. We have lost all of those qualities. Our material universe is now designed for maximal efficiency when new, and disposal when slightly worn. This requires us to depend on cheap manufacturing, which has to be outsourced. There is no room for casual repair. (This is a point Polistra has made repeatedly, but without thinking in apocalyptic terms!)
Orlov:
Orlov's psychological advice is especially interesting:
Reminds me of something I read 40 years ago in an essay by the hippie philosopher Alan Watts. Most of Watts's writing was forgettable psychedelic ramblings, but one point stuck with me. Watts said that Euros often accuse Americans of being materialistic, but in fact Americans are the least materialistic people of all. A Frenchman will buy one Renault and treasure it; he will spend time maintaining it, and the car will enjoy his attention and reward his efforts. An American will buy a car and use it up, because he's confident that he will be able to afford a better one two years later. A French woman will buy groceries every day, spend time examining the vegetables and meat, spend time and art on cooking and preparing the food. Americans will eat at McDonalds. In short, we use a lot of stuff, but we really don't like our stuff very much. What do we like? Good question. ¶ 2:37 PM
He lists the parallels:
1. Unwinnable wars
2. Declining oil production
3. Out of control military budgets
4. Unsustainable deficits
5. Balky, unresponsive, corrupt political system
6. Delusions of grandeur prevent honest discussion of reform
Orlov says that many aspects of the Soviet system made collapse easier on the people. He concentrates on the Soviet infrastructure and material goods. Because Soviet technology remained in the 1940's, it was sturdy. Soviet cities were built around mass transit, and the machinery was designed to be "infinitely maintainable". By contrast, American cities since 1960 have been built around automobiles, and modern autos are specifically designed to be non-maintainable.
We had "infinitely maintainable" systems in 1940. Our cars, radios, streetcars, trains and powerplants were heavy, understressed, inefficient, tolerant of wear, and repairable with minimal skills. We have lost all of those qualities. Our material universe is now designed for maximal efficiency when new, and disposal when slightly worn. This requires us to depend on cheap manufacturing, which has to be outsourced. There is no room for casual repair. (This is a point Polistra has made repeatedly, but without thinking in apocalyptic terms!)
Orlov:
Economic collapse tends to shut down both local production and imports, so it is vitally important that anything you own wears out slowly, and that you can fix it yourself if it breaks. Soviet-made stuff generally wore incredibly hard. The Chinese-made stuff you can get around here – much less so.His most original observation:
To keep evil at bay, Americans require money. In an economic collapse, there is usually hyperinflation, which wipes out savings. There is also rampant unemployment, which wipes out incomes. The result is a population that is largely penniless.In other words, the Russians were accustomed to dealing with each other in a more local and personal way, accustomed to working for barter. They didn't depend on the continued goodwill of other countries.
In the Soviet Union, very little could be obtained for money. It was treated as tokens rather than as wealth, and was shared among friends. Many things – housing and transportation among them – were either free or almost free.
Orlov's psychological advice is especially interesting:
If the economy, and your place within it, is really important to you, you will be really hurt when it goes away. You can cultivate an attitude of studied indifference, but it has to be more than just a conceit. You have to develop the lifestyle and the habits and the physical stamina to back it up. It takes a lot of creativity and effort to put together a fulfilling existence on the margins of society. After the collapse, these margins may turn out to be some of the best places to live.
Reminds me of something I read 40 years ago in an essay by the hippie philosopher Alan Watts. Most of Watts's writing was forgettable psychedelic ramblings, but one point stuck with me. Watts said that Euros often accuse Americans of being materialistic, but in fact Americans are the least materialistic people of all. A Frenchman will buy one Renault and treasure it; he will spend time maintaining it, and the car will enjoy his attention and reward his efforts. An American will buy a car and use it up, because he's confident that he will be able to afford a better one two years later. A French woman will buy groceries every day, spend time examining the vegetables and meat, spend time and art on cooking and preparing the food. Americans will eat at McDonalds. In short, we use a lot of stuff, but we really don't like our stuff very much. What do we like? Good question. ¶ 2:37 PM
Saturday, September 06, 2008
"The Chilling Stars"
Finished reading The Chilling Stars. Authors are listed as Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder, but really it's Calder writing about the scientific work of Svensmark and his colleagues. Calder is an old hand at popular science writing, knows how to weave the facts into a narrative with enough drama and adventure to keep you reading.
The basic argument is somewhat complex, but it's decisive.
1. Cloud tops are whiter than land. Where land is covered by clouds, the sun's warmth is mainly reflected outward, so cloudy areas are cooler. This is obvious, but needs to be stated as part of the argument.
2. Clouds form when the right kind of tiny particles are present in enough quantity to gather water drops. This has been known in general forever, but understood in detail only recently. Svensmark's experiments have demonstrated exactly how it happens, and it's mainly triggered by cosmic rays. (Also triggered by other kinds of particles, such as volcanic dust or pollution, but these factors are non-periodic and restricted to small areas.)
3. Cosmic rays are constantly impinging on the earth from various sources. Cosmic rays are not really rays; they are atoms of various elements, stripped of their electrons, shooting through space close to the speed of light. Einstein's formulas work properly here, giving these particles an effective mass that's much larger than you'd expect at normal speeds.
4. On million-year time scales, the density of cosmic rays varies as our solar system gradually moves through different parts of the galaxy. Some areas have more exploding stars, thus more of the fast-moving atoms.
5. On shorter time scales, the cosmic rays are largely modulated by the behavior of the sun. "Any idea that the Sun is just a distant ball of light is completely obsolete. We live deep within its extended atmosphere, which is laced with its magnetic field."
6. When the sun is more active, as shown by more sunspots, it throws out more magnetic pulses. These magnetic pulses deflect more of the cosmic rays. When the sun is less active, it doesn't send as many 'bouncers' out into its system, so more of the party-crashing cosmic waves get into the room.
7. Pulling it together: Quiet sun lets more cosmic rays reach the earth, triggering more water vapor to form clouds, cooling the earth. Active sun repels more of the cosmic rays, so we have fewer clouds, letting the earth get warmer.
It's always been obvious to all but the Gaia fanatics that our warming and cooling follows the sunspot cycle, but the sunspots don't change the sun's direct heat emission enough to explain our changes. (Similarity of patterns doesn't prove causation until you can show a direct mechanism connecting the two patterns, and show that the mechanism accounts for all of the similarity.)
Calder shows conclusively that the sun's valving of cosmic rays is sufficient all by itself to explain our warming and cooling at the scale of decades and centuries, and that the slower changes of cosmic rays due to our motion through the galaxy are sufficient to explain at least some of the longer shifts from ice age to warm age.
In other words, the carbon-hating Gaia worshippers must either show that their sacramental CO2 effects add onto the cosmic-ray effects to create twice the observed warming, or they must shut the hell up.
They won't shut up, of course, because they are no longer operating in the realm of science and logic. They are lunatic religious zealots who have gained control of all important institutions. They're on a roll. Blood-fetish fanatics who own the levers of power are not going to be stopped by mere argument.
= = = = =
I should add a positive note: It appears that the scientific funding authorities on the Euro continent are not quite as Gaia-infested as Americans. After several years of struggle, using personal money and small grants, Svensmark finally got into the big time with a lab all his own at CERN. This gives him the equipment, technicians, and predictable funding to carry out a long series of detailed experiments. With such backing, it will be harder for real scientists to ignore him. American "scientists", of course, will continue to follow Gaia, dragging this country down into the seventh circle of Hell. ¶ 9:00 AM
The basic argument is somewhat complex, but it's decisive.
1. Cloud tops are whiter than land. Where land is covered by clouds, the sun's warmth is mainly reflected outward, so cloudy areas are cooler. This is obvious, but needs to be stated as part of the argument.
2. Clouds form when the right kind of tiny particles are present in enough quantity to gather water drops. This has been known in general forever, but understood in detail only recently. Svensmark's experiments have demonstrated exactly how it happens, and it's mainly triggered by cosmic rays. (Also triggered by other kinds of particles, such as volcanic dust or pollution, but these factors are non-periodic and restricted to small areas.)
3. Cosmic rays are constantly impinging on the earth from various sources. Cosmic rays are not really rays; they are atoms of various elements, stripped of their electrons, shooting through space close to the speed of light. Einstein's formulas work properly here, giving these particles an effective mass that's much larger than you'd expect at normal speeds.
4. On million-year time scales, the density of cosmic rays varies as our solar system gradually moves through different parts of the galaxy. Some areas have more exploding stars, thus more of the fast-moving atoms.
5. On shorter time scales, the cosmic rays are largely modulated by the behavior of the sun. "Any idea that the Sun is just a distant ball of light is completely obsolete. We live deep within its extended atmosphere, which is laced with its magnetic field."
6. When the sun is more active, as shown by more sunspots, it throws out more magnetic pulses. These magnetic pulses deflect more of the cosmic rays. When the sun is less active, it doesn't send as many 'bouncers' out into its system, so more of the party-crashing cosmic waves get into the room.
7. Pulling it together: Quiet sun lets more cosmic rays reach the earth, triggering more water vapor to form clouds, cooling the earth. Active sun repels more of the cosmic rays, so we have fewer clouds, letting the earth get warmer.
It's always been obvious to all but the Gaia fanatics that our warming and cooling follows the sunspot cycle, but the sunspots don't change the sun's direct heat emission enough to explain our changes. (Similarity of patterns doesn't prove causation until you can show a direct mechanism connecting the two patterns, and show that the mechanism accounts for all of the similarity.)
Calder shows conclusively that the sun's valving of cosmic rays is sufficient all by itself to explain our warming and cooling at the scale of decades and centuries, and that the slower changes of cosmic rays due to our motion through the galaxy are sufficient to explain at least some of the longer shifts from ice age to warm age.
In other words, the carbon-hating Gaia worshippers must either show that their sacramental CO2 effects add onto the cosmic-ray effects to create twice the observed warming, or they must shut the hell up.
They won't shut up, of course, because they are no longer operating in the realm of science and logic. They are lunatic religious zealots who have gained control of all important institutions. They're on a roll. Blood-fetish fanatics who own the levers of power are not going to be stopped by mere argument.
= = = = =
I should add a positive note: It appears that the scientific funding authorities on the Euro continent are not quite as Gaia-infested as Americans. After several years of struggle, using personal money and small grants, Svensmark finally got into the big time with a lab all his own at CERN. This gives him the equipment, technicians, and predictable funding to carry out a long series of detailed experiments. With such backing, it will be harder for real scientists to ignore him. American "scientists", of course, will continue to follow Gaia, dragging this country down into the seventh circle of Hell. ¶ 9:00 AM
Wonder why?
Suddenly it's Spring, a 1954 cartoon by the same studio that made Betty Boop, has just now appeared on Youtube. I'm puzzled. Clearly the company was busy making a variety of toons in that long interval since Boop's demise in 1939, but I'm dead sure I never saw a single one when I was young. Guarantee I'd remember every second of every cartoon if I had seen any; they ring the deepest and dreamiest structures of my mind.
Which cartoons were on TV in 1954? Heckle & Jeckle were new then, I think, along with Woody Woodpecker and the usual Disney and Warner Brothers productions. But no Boop, nor any other products of the UM&M company. How did they survive so long without national distribution? Maybe they were seen in big-city markets?
In any case, thank Heaven, and thank a few Youtubers, that I have the opportunity to see these timeless works of art now in my second childhood!
= = = = =
Sidenote: Nearly everything in this cartoon would be forbidden under today's totalitarian censorship. Even the basic plot (such as it is!) would be impossible: the girl is dying because the long winter has deprived her of sunlight. She needs more sun, and Raggedy Ann literally and figuratively moves heaven and earth to get some sunlight.
Today the studio would be sued by the AMA for promoting melanoma, even though we are actually learning more about the benefits of Vitamin D and the real causes of melanoma. For instance, we've known for a long time that multiple sclerosis is most common in northern latitudes. This was assumed, without much proof, to be correlated with Swedish genes, but now it appears that MS is strengthened if not caused by a lack of sunlight. ¶ 8:26 AM
Which cartoons were on TV in 1954? Heckle & Jeckle were new then, I think, along with Woody Woodpecker and the usual Disney and Warner Brothers productions. But no Boop, nor any other products of the UM&M company. How did they survive so long without national distribution? Maybe they were seen in big-city markets?
In any case, thank Heaven, and thank a few Youtubers, that I have the opportunity to see these timeless works of art now in my second childhood!
= = = = =
Sidenote: Nearly everything in this cartoon would be forbidden under today's totalitarian censorship. Even the basic plot (such as it is!) would be impossible: the girl is dying because the long winter has deprived her of sunlight. She needs more sun, and Raggedy Ann literally and figuratively moves heaven and earth to get some sunlight.
Today the studio would be sued by the AMA for promoting melanoma, even though we are actually learning more about the benefits of Vitamin D and the real causes of melanoma. For instance, we've known for a long time that multiple sclerosis is most common in northern latitudes. This was assumed, without much proof, to be correlated with Swedish genes, but now it appears that MS is strengthened if not caused by a lack of sunlight. ¶ 8:26 AM
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Both sides no
I'm a great fan of what might be called two-way negations. The classic example is the line, supposedly said by some grand Imam, defining the attitude of Mohammedans toward art and literature: "If it disagrees with the Koran, it's heresy. Burn it. If it agrees with the Koran, it's superfluous. Burn it."
Here is a three-minute segment of a CBS news program in 1951. Ed Murrow took bits and pieces from Robert Taft and Harry Truman, the probable candidates in '52, and created a "debate" on our role in the world. Taft was the last major candidate who believed in supporting America's direct interests. Of course he didn't get the nomination in '52, and we haven't had a real nationalist since then.
Today the parties have more or less reversed, though both sides have become blurry and squishy. In general the Bush-McCain side wants us to intervene everywhere all the time, while the Obama side wants us to intervene almost everywhere for a slightly different, and perhaps slightly smaller, set of reasons.
Taft and Truman were more crisply opposed, and at the end of this 3-minute segment, Taft gets off a great two-way negation. It's a type of argument we don't hear from any modern politician, because it makes sense.
Roughly transcribed for non-listeners:
"Either we have to assume that the Russians are not going to attack Western Europe, or we have to assume that they are. If they are not going to attack, then our buildup is unnecessary. If they are planning an attack, why should they bother to wait three years while we build up a great army to oppose them? They would attack now."
Thinking in terms of modern Russia or Persia, we have to remember that these countries know how to play chess. If we are doing something that makes emotional sense but doesn't make strict military sense, perhaps we should ask whether the opponent has led us into this move. If we are spending our military into bankruptcy for a purpose that looks good but is strictly unachievable (eg a Young Democracy In The Broader Middle East) perhaps this is exactly what Russia wants us to do. ¶ 3:38 PM
Here is a three-minute segment of a CBS news program in 1951. Ed Murrow took bits and pieces from Robert Taft and Harry Truman, the probable candidates in '52, and created a "debate" on our role in the world. Taft was the last major candidate who believed in supporting America's direct interests. Of course he didn't get the nomination in '52, and we haven't had a real nationalist since then.
Today the parties have more or less reversed, though both sides have become blurry and squishy. In general the Bush-McCain side wants us to intervene everywhere all the time, while the Obama side wants us to intervene almost everywhere for a slightly different, and perhaps slightly smaller, set of reasons.
Taft and Truman were more crisply opposed, and at the end of this 3-minute segment, Taft gets off a great two-way negation. It's a type of argument we don't hear from any modern politician, because it makes sense.
Roughly transcribed for non-listeners:
"Either we have to assume that the Russians are not going to attack Western Europe, or we have to assume that they are. If they are not going to attack, then our buildup is unnecessary. If they are planning an attack, why should they bother to wait three years while we build up a great army to oppose them? They would attack now."
Thinking in terms of modern Russia or Persia, we have to remember that these countries know how to play chess. If we are doing something that makes emotional sense but doesn't make strict military sense, perhaps we should ask whether the opponent has led us into this move. If we are spending our military into bankruptcy for a purpose that looks good but is strictly unachievable (eg a Young Democracy In The Broader Middle East) perhaps this is exactly what Russia wants us to do. ¶ 3:38 PM
Community organizing
Rush spent time this morning on Obama's experience as a Community Organizer, dismissing it as mere talk. I don't think Rush understands the job. It's more important and more dangerous than he makes it sound.
What is a Community Organizer? A Marxist missionary.
The CO performs the same tasks as a Christian missionary: brings food, shelter and clothing to the materially poor and brings companionship to the emotionally poor. He then uses the positive results to lead people to Communism, just as the Christian missionary uses the results to convert people to Christianity.
In recent decades the Marxist missionaries have been winning the battle, especially on the emotional front. ¶ 12:11 PM
What is a Community Organizer? A Marxist missionary.
The CO performs the same tasks as a Christian missionary: brings food, shelter and clothing to the materially poor and brings companionship to the emotionally poor. He then uses the positive results to lead people to Communism, just as the Christian missionary uses the results to convert people to Christianity.
In recent decades the Marxist missionaries have been winning the battle, especially on the emotional front. ¶ 12:11 PM
Yankees
It's fun to watch the Yankee commentators, both R and D, groping around in the dark to find an ideological explanation of Palin. They are nattering about two different sorts of feminists, and trying to slot Palin into one of those types.
Nope, it's not that complicated. She's just a Western woman. That's all. In the states close to the frontier, from Texas to Dakota to Alaska, the idea of a woman running a business or serving as mayor or governor has never been particularly strange.
When I started working in Oklahoma in 1970, my first three bosses were women; one of them had been running the business since 1922. There wasn't any discussion about glass ceilings or ground-breaking or any of that crap. I didn't run into that stuff until I moved to Pennsylvania in 1986. Even in a supposedly 'enlightened' college town, most women stayed at home, didn't work, didn't speak up. It was a strange experience. And the most obvious and open discrimination was within the most 'enlightened' parts of Penn State, such as the English department.
The basic difference: West of the Mississippi, women have always done whatever they needed to do. The frontier left them no choice. East of the river, old European norms are still in place. Women complain a lot, and often channel their complaints into politics, but the verb "do" is a foreign word. Complaining is apparently more fun than doing.
= = = = =
Technical note: Strictly speaking the East/West division is not the Miss but the Dry Line, marking the edge of the plateau that holds the Rockies. Interstate 35 follows this line fairly well. Least Heat Moon in "Blue Highways" was the first to describe the Dry Line in a literary way, but it's always been instinctively familiar to anyone who grew up in the Plains. ¶ 9:23 AM
Nope, it's not that complicated. She's just a Western woman. That's all. In the states close to the frontier, from Texas to Dakota to Alaska, the idea of a woman running a business or serving as mayor or governor has never been particularly strange.
When I started working in Oklahoma in 1970, my first three bosses were women; one of them had been running the business since 1922. There wasn't any discussion about glass ceilings or ground-breaking or any of that crap. I didn't run into that stuff until I moved to Pennsylvania in 1986. Even in a supposedly 'enlightened' college town, most women stayed at home, didn't work, didn't speak up. It was a strange experience. And the most obvious and open discrimination was within the most 'enlightened' parts of Penn State, such as the English department.
The basic difference: West of the Mississippi, women have always done whatever they needed to do. The frontier left them no choice. East of the river, old European norms are still in place. Women complain a lot, and often channel their complaints into politics, but the verb "do" is a foreign word. Complaining is apparently more fun than doing.
= = = = =
Technical note: Strictly speaking the East/West division is not the Miss but the Dry Line, marking the edge of the plateau that holds the Rockies. Interstate 35 follows this line fairly well. Least Heat Moon in "Blue Highways" was the first to describe the Dry Line in a literary way, but it's always been instinctively familiar to anyone who grew up in the Plains. ¶ 9:23 AM
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Quasi-historic
Palin's acceptance speech: near-perfect. Too bad the organizers let China-boy Rudy intrude on her time.
After she got through the formalities and started listing her actions and philosophies as governor, purely perfect.
"End our dependence on dangerous foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart. ... We cannot leave ourselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers."
SELF-SUFFICIENCY!!!!!!
= = = = =
Sidenote: Amid all the superficial talk about this 'historic' election based on race and sex, it strikes me that this year's R ticket is superficially historic in another way.
MC McCain is the first honestly bald candidate since Eisenhower (leaving out Jerry Ford who didn't really mean to be President) and Palin is the first honestly bespectacled candidate since Goldwater.
Most politicians are willing to be seen wearing glasses when reading a document, but take them off or use contacts for public appearances. Palin makes a point of wearing spectacles all the time.
Both of these are healthy signs that the era of absolute control by the TV camera has faded if not ended. ¶ 8:09 PM
After she got through the formalities and started listing her actions and philosophies as governor, purely perfect.
"End our dependence on dangerous foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart. ... We cannot leave ourselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers."
SELF-SUFFICIENCY!!!!!!
= = = = =
Sidenote: Amid all the superficial talk about this 'historic' election based on race and sex, it strikes me that this year's R ticket is superficially historic in another way.
MC McCain is the first honestly bald candidate since Eisenhower (leaving out Jerry Ford who didn't really mean to be President) and Palin is the first honestly bespectacled candidate since Goldwater.
Most politicians are willing to be seen wearing glasses when reading a document, but take them off or use contacts for public appearances. Palin makes a point of wearing spectacles all the time.
Both of these are healthy signs that the era of absolute control by the TV camera has faded if not ended. ¶ 8:09 PM
Monday, September 01, 2008
Star-spangled Bungle
The RNC Telethon began with the worst rendition of the national anthem I've heard in a long time, and nearly all modern renditions are awful. This singer missed at least 30% of the notes by a mile; the background harmony was vaguely jazzy but out of sync. If MC McCain wanted to emphasize competence, this wasn't the way to do it.
Where's Simon Cowell when we need him?
By contrast, I happened to catch the start of Jerry Lewis's Telethon a couple days ago. He began with the best rendition of the anthem I've heard in a long time. It was a young sister act, the 'Cactus Cuties'. They used old-fashioned barbershop-ish harmonies ... reminiscent of previous sister acts like the DeMarco Sisters ... and perfect rhythm, no jazz at all. Every note was perfect, sweet and true.
Here's an earlier performance by the Cactus Cuties, with slightly less perfect rhythm. ¶ 1:26 PM
Where's Simon Cowell when we need him?
By contrast, I happened to catch the start of Jerry Lewis's Telethon a couple days ago. He began with the best rendition of the anthem I've heard in a long time. It was a young sister act, the 'Cactus Cuties'. They used old-fashioned barbershop-ish harmonies ... reminiscent of previous sister acts like the DeMarco Sisters ... and perfect rhythm, no jazz at all. Every note was perfect, sweet and true.
Here's an earlier performance by the Cactus Cuties, with slightly less perfect rhythm. ¶ 1:26 PM
