Facing the Hard Truth of Climate Change With Optimism

Have you heard the news?  GM and Ford are producing electric versions of their Hummer and F150 trucks!  Hallelujah!  The world will be saved from climate disaster!

What? Not saved?  

 

As hard as it will be for many of us to hear, converting everything to electric is not going to turn climate change around.  And putting in massive solar and wind farms is not going to turn the tide either.  The growing need for energy across the world and the associated construction of new coal, oil and gas power plants will undoubtedly more than compensate for any gains we make with alternative energy sources and electric vehicle conversions.

 

Solar and wind energy can only be supplemental, as they are intermittent sources of energy.  There is no solar energy at night and it is diminished in cloudy weather.  The wind is also not constant.  We won’t even mention the massive environmental effect of the mining of resources necessary to construct all of the electric motors and batteries.

 

Ironically, our best bet for dramatically reducing carbon-based energy is nuclear energy, whether based on current fission technology or hoped-for future fusion reactors.  But sadly, we hastily abandoned much of our nuclear research and construction efforts in our panic over nuclear accidents such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukishima.  Rather than use those calamities (only one of which actually resulted in any deaths at all!) to refine and perfect nuclear energy, we made the short-sighted decision to flee from it.

 

What about reducing our energy usage?  Let’s all promise to drive less, buy smaller vehicles instead of the ever more monstrous SUVs and trucks, and travel less.  Let’s build really good public transportation so people will give up their individual vehicles.  Let’s encourage local tourism and zoom business calls so people won’t have to use carbon-spewing jets.  Let’s buy fewer things and live simply so that others may simply live!

 

Yeah, right.  Aint gonna happen.

 

There will be no climate change epiphany, no sudden realization that we must all work together to solve this problem, no holding hands at the climate change summit and promising to radically change our way of life, no generous gestures by the wealthy nations to subsidize alternative energies in the developing world, no massive unified effort to seek a solution.  

 

All our paltry efforts to nibble around the edges of the problem will have some effect, but not nearly enough.  As the myriad impacts of climate change arise and proliferate, the resources and wealth we have available to attack the root of the problem will be siphoned off in a rearguard effort to stem the literal and figurative tide of disasters.

 

The longer-term future will be a brave new world of mitigating the more catastrophic effects and adapting to the new climate.  How much political and economic instability, how much population displacement, how many military confrontations, how many deaths will occur is anyone’s guess. 

 

After two years of COVID pandemic and now staring down the barrel of a climate change future, it is challenging to be an optimist.  The drumbeat of entropy, that inevitable path towards disorder, seems to be more rapid and piercing than ever.  Are we a doomed people?

But as 2022 dawns, I still have faith in the human race.  We are a resilient species with an uncanny ability to persevere and survive.  Against all odds, we have created a civilization that for all its faults has slowly but surely forged a remarkably peaceful and happy world.  I will bet on us finding a path through this tangled web of climate change.  It will not be easy, and there will be dark days ahead, but we shall overcome.

 

 

Why I am Learning French

I have been studying French for most of the COVID pandemic and the first two years of my retirement.  This may seem odd to some people.  Sometimes it even seems strange to me.  So, I am going to try to investigate why I have undertaken this challenge at this point in my life.

The first time I remember being interested in foreign languages was in 2^nd grade when I lived in Ewa Beach, Hawaii on the island of Oahu.  My father was a navy pilot at Barbers Point Air Station.  We lived in navy housing very close to the beach, which was a wonderful experience for all of us.

 

I went to the base elementary school.  My teachers were of Japanese ancestry.  Perhaps it was this first encounter of a different race and culture that sparked my interest, but I suddenly decided I would learn French and began to look through a basic French lesson book in the school library.  I don’t recall why it was French and not Japanese.  But in any event the thought of being able to comprehend or even speak another language was very exciting to me.  Not surprisingly, the fascination went dormant after a few weeks of minimal progress.

 

In fourth grade, now living in Alexandria, Virginia, our class had French lessons delivered by TV a few hours a week and we put on a French version of Little Red Riding Hood.  I was the wolf.  I imagine I gained minimal competency during this episode, but I did get good practice forming French sounds and acquiring an accent that was not too American.

 

Another break, and then I had some form of French class with a language lab from 7^th to 9^th  grade, in Palos Verdes, California.  Alas, other passions such as sports and girls, had become dominant for me and I put very little effort into my language studies during this period.  I abandoned French after 9^th grade, having completed the minimum foreign language study required for college applications.  My capabilities after these 3 years were still very primitive.

 

The great re-awakening of my foreign language interest occurred in my freshman year of college when I fell in love with a German girl, Elke Meier.  Visiting her and hearing her family speak in German was an epiphany for me.  Suddenly I was determined to master German and do a junior year abroad.   The visit had demonstrated for me the link between language and culture, and I desperately wanted to drink it all in.

 

This time the motivation endured.  I began taking German classes in the winter and even took a summer course in the evening after work at American University.  I signed up for a new Stanford program at the Universitaet Bonn and spent seven months in Germany my junior year. 

 

Upon returning, I attempted to learn Russian, but catching up in electrical engineering, playing varsity soccer and pursuing a German studies degree on top of that were already overwhelming me, so I had to quit.  But the fascination for languages never really left me.

 

I kept up my German and had the opportunity to work both with and for German companies, ending my career with a ten-year stint as the president of a U.S. subsidiary of a German high tech company.  My daughters both attended Atlanta International School and went through the German track, eventually completing bi-lingual IB diplomas in German.  My love of languages eventually infected them and they both did second majors in Spanish.  Rebecca spent all of her junior year in Madrid and Buenos Aires, and Caroline half the year in Santiago, Chile.

 

I retired at the end of 2019.  In the summer of 2020, after several months of the COVID pandemic, my daughters gave me a subscription to Rosetta Stone, knowing my interest in languages.  I began the French course in early July and completed it in mid-November.  I then found podcasts and youtube videos that accelerated my oral comprehension and began private remote lessons on italki with a very nice French woman in Blois, France.

 

I am happy to say that I can now understand clearly spoken French (at a moderate, not breakneck speed!) on most topics.  I can have a fairly detailed conversation with someone if they are patient and willing to accept some errors and some pauses.

 

But the real question is why am I doing this?  Will I ever really spend much time in French-speaking countries?  Probably not.  Will I have extensive opportunities to use my French here in Atlanta?  Probably not.  But it still gives me great pleasure to listen to French and be able to understand it, and to be able to express myself with increasing fluency.

 

Learning a language is a very measurable challenge and the progress is very noticeable.  The podcasts I listen to address all sorts of interesting topics in French history, politics and culture, which tie in nicely with other interests of mine.  French is also a very beautiful language in my estimation.  And at some point it would be nice to be able to read a well-known French novel (other than Le Petit Prince!), though that is not a primary goal.

The connection between language and thought are profound.  There is something magical about hearing an entirely new set of words of phrases and having them evoke thoughts and images in my mind.  It is like entering a new world and traversing entirely new territory.

 

I confess that for whatever reason (perhaps guilt or vanity or ennui?) I find it necessary and indeed much more fulfilling to take on challenges of this sort then to indulge the various pleasurable pastimes that are the typical fare of retirement.  I am somewhat restless, and this pastime focuses my energy and provides very nice positive feedback.  But of course I also take advantage of many simple pleasures in my daily routine.

 

I am not particularly gifted in languages, but I have enough of a facility to enjoy the process and benefit from my efforts.  I believe the project of learning a new language and culture makes me a better world citizen and provides a measure of enlightenment that might otherwise be elusive.  And in the end, it is a lot of fun, as many things that are hard work turn out to be.

Remembering Johnny

 In the winter of 1987 I was living in Americus, Georgia and working for Habitat for Humanity.  Karen and I had left our jobs in Melbourne, Florida in the summer of 1986 to become a part of this incredibly exciting movement to provide opportunities for the poor to work in partnership with Habitat to build a home for themselves.

We had no children at the time and were passionate about promoting social justice issues. Karen had joined Millard Fuller, the founder of Habitat, in his law firm and was working with low income clients.  I was on the staff at Habitat as Development Director, in charge of fundraising, computers, media and PR.

We both wanted to have direct involvement with people in need, so we underwent training as Laubach Literacy Tutors and began working to help people learn to read and write.in our ‘free’ time.  Karen began to tutor a 12 year old girl who was struggling at school and I visited a prisoner in the Sumter County Correctional Institute, a medium security prison nearby.

 

The inmate I tutored was named Johnny Johnson.  He was a black man about the same size as me with the physique and leathered skin of someone who worked outside.  At our first lesson his beaming smile and friendly demeanor disarmed me and we quickly overcame the awkwardness of inmate and visitor.  I visited him twice a week, and our visits soon became a highlight for both of us.

 

Johnny had a warmth and charisma that is hard to describe.  His smile lit up his face and signaled a deep and sincere kindness.  He laughed easily and unaffectedly, and his eyes had that twinkle that seems to always be present in truly good-natured people.  He was a good-looking man, but exuded humility.

 

We worked through the Laubach Literacy workbooks methodically, and Johnny made progress, especially in reading.  But writing was much more difficult.  He had not been completely illiterate before and had acquired writing habits that were very difficult to change.

 

As the weeks went by we began to share our life stories.  Johnny told me about his childhood.  His family was very poor and he did farm work from a very early age.  Most of the inmates at Sumter were there for non-violent crimes – drugs, theft, fraud and other relatively mild offenses.  I discovered that Johnny was unique.

 

Johnny told me that he had been in prison since 1968 (it was 1986 when I started tutoring him) and that he had a life sentence.  I was stunned.  Over the next few visits he revealed the details of his story.

 

On October 25^th, 1968, in the small town of Warwick, Georgia, Johnny killed the local police officer, a white man, with a shotgun.  He was arrested and held in the local jail, but had to be quickly escorted by the state police to Albany because of the danger of lynching.  Johnny was sentenced to death after a very short trial and was put on death row in 1969.   I am not sure how close he came to being executed, but the Supreme Court decision in Furman vs Georgia in 1972 came to his rescue and his sentence was automatically commuted to life imprisonment.

 

After the commutation Johnny stayed at Reidsville, the high security penitentiary, for a couple more years.  His good behavior allowed him to be transferred to a medium-security prison for a few more years and then on to Sumter Correctional, a minimum-security facility.  By the time I met him, he had already been in prison for 18 years and had been at Sumter for over 10 years.

 

My weekly visits to Johnny created a strong relationship between the two of us.  I soon learned that Johnny was the primary farmer at the facility, which produced much of its own food, and highly regarded by all of the guards.  He spent much of each day in the fields unguarded.  He was very physically fit and healthy.

 

I had the opportunity to speak to the warden and he told me that Johnny was one of the best inmates he had ever had in his career and that he sent yearly recommendations for parole to the state parole board.  Johnny was also very close to the prison Chaplain and the AA counselor.

 

As time went on, I discovered that the warden was frustrated by the parole board’s unwillingness to grant parole.  He and his wife were both big fans of Johnny’s and both assured me that he deserved his freedom.  It was clear that whatever problems Johnny had in his youth were no longer present.

 

Therefore, as a kind of quixotic quest, I obtained letters from the warden, Chaplain and other authority figures at the facility and then submitted a request to meet with the parole board, thinking it was unlikely anything would come of it.

 

In the meantime, I used one of my trips to Atlanta to research the case in the state archives.  I was astonished at how short the trial was for a death penalty case and how little testimony was made.  The victim was the only law officer in Warwick, Georgia.  According to Johnny, there was some friction between the two of them.  The actual events of the case were murky and poorly described, but Johnny had clearly killed the man.  What was not clear were the motives and the detailed circumstances.  There was at least some evidence of lack of intention, but the jury, which had only one black member despite a 48% population in the area, was not persuaded.

 

I was shocked and very pleasantly surprised to receive an appointment with the parole board a few weeks after submitting my letter.  I assembled all the details I could about Johnny’s current status and the high regard he was held in by everyone at the correctional facility and then drove up to Atlanta for the meeting.

 

The board listened respectfully to my arguments for parole, but gave no indication of their thoughts.  I met privately with the chairman of the parole board and he indicated to me that there was strong political pressure at play preventing Johnny’s release, so I was not surprised to receive a letter denying my request a week later.  However, he said that he thought there might be a better situation within a few years.  I had the impression that this would be due to the rotation of one of the members off the board.

 

My friendship with Johnny continued to deepen.  He was allowed to visit his mother and some other family members once each quarter. One of the prison guards would drive him over and sit down with the family for the meal.  I joined him for two of those visits and had a great time getting to know his mother and sisters.

 

After Karen and I left Habitat in 1988 and moved to Atlanta for me to pursue my PhD at Georgia Tech, I continue to drive down once every month or two to visit Johnny.  His attitude was always so positive, his smile so infectious.  

 

Finally, in 1991, Johnny was paroled.  He spent a few months working almost as a kind of indentured servant for a farmer – sort of a halfway house arrangement.  I wasn’t happy about that period as I felt he was being exploited.  But soon enough he was on his own, living in Americus in an apartment and performing various tasks in the community to support himself.

 

We moved into a house in Roswell at the beginning of April, 1992, and Johnny came up on the bus to see us.  His bus arrived just in time for the largest snowfall in April in Atlanta history, about 17 inches!  He had only ever seen a dusting of snow before, so it was quite an experience for him. He stayed for several days and loved playing with our 2-year-old daughter Caroline and walking in the snow.

 

Tragically, Johnny’s life of freedom was short-lived.  He developed stomach cancer not long after his visit with us and died a year later.  I drove down for the funeral.  There were a lot of people there to mourn his passing.  He had already made many friends in his short time out of prison.

 

It was always hard for me to imagine Johnny as anything other than a kind and incredibly beautiful human being.  He committed a violent crime in his early twenties, but his was clearly a case where rehabilitation had occurred and transformed him.  His gentle spirit was evident to all.  It was a privilege to have known him and shared a bit of his life. 

Of Self-Fulfilling Prophecies and Unintended Consequences

The world is filled with contradictions, dilemmas, paradoxes and conundrums.  Right and wrong are often elusive concepts in broader social, economic and political realms.  Those of us who find it appealing to consider or even pursue utopian dreams of world peace, social equality and other idyllic conditions are stymied by the frustrating facts of human behavior and the random and uncertain nature of human interactions. 

There are two very interesting phenomena that bedevil many efforts to make progress in the world – the self-fulfilling prophecy and the unintended consequence.  Even when people attempt in good faith to find a remedy to a problem their efforts often follow these paths with rather unpleasant results.

 

A great example of the self-fulfilling prophecy is the ‘prophecy’ by 2^nd amendment rights advocates that crime, civil unrest and violence are escalating in our society.  As a response to this prophecy, they energetically worked to make guns readily available, to minimize obstacles to gun purchases, and allow open carry of weapons in public places.  Gun manufacturers responded to their efforts by ramping up their production.

 

The number of guns on the street, in cars and in homes grew exponentially.  The proliferation of weapons among citizens meant that road rage, domestic violence, alcohol or drug-fueled arguments and random responses to insults or perceived injustices resulted in exchanges of gunfire.  The prophecy has become true because of the actions taken as a response to the prophecy, thus self-fulfilling it.

 

Another self-fulfilling prophecy is our fear of Russia and its expansionist efforts to regain its Soviet-era empire.  By overreacting to this threat and aggressively recruiting former Soviet-bloc countries to NATO, we have exacerbated Russia’s traditional paranoia about its borders and fears of isolation.  This is at least part of the cause of the current crisis in the Ukraine that may actually result in a Russian invasion with all of its frightening potential consequences.

 

The second phenomenon, sometimes called the ‘law of unintended consequences’, has been recognized as a potential pitfall of human endeavor for hundreds of years.  An act intended to accomplish something perceived as good or beneficial backfires at least partially and causes a subsequent and often greater harm.  Some of the most dramatic examples are the following:

 

• The draconian measures of the Versailles Treaty after World War I contributed significantly to economic and socio-political chaos, and subsequently the growth of fascism in Germany and Italy and the outbreak of World War II.  
• The prohibition of alcohol in the 1920’s led to a rapid growth in organized crime and lawlessness that has continued to the present day.
• The encouragement and military support of the Afghanistan mujahideen and their jihad against the Soviet Union in the 1980’s amplified and accelerated the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and extremism with all of its attendant consequences.  This one is a good example of another cautionary tale – the Frankenstein monster turning on its master!
• The at-the-time seemingly clever use of CIA agents posing as polio health workers to identify the location of Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan later led to the murder of numerous health workers in Pakistan and Afghanistan who were suspected of being in league with the CIA.
• When the Royalists took back Paris from the Communards after the short-lived socialist Commune of Paris in 1871, they massacred many in the streets and then later executed a large number to discourage future revolutionaries.  But the unintended consequence was that both Lenin and Mao viewed this as evidence that any potentially reactionary foes must be eliminated without mercy and both launched operations that killed massive numbers of bourgeoisie, intellectuals and the wealthy in a similarly gruesome manner.
• Another interesting one is the crusade against nuclear power waged in the USA and in parts of Europe during the 80’s and 90’s.  The idealistic fervor at that time to save the planet from nuclear meltdowns or radioactive waste had the unintended effect of accelerating an even more catastrophic environmental risk.  The ensuing near-total decline of nuclear power resulted in massive increases in carbon-producing power plants such as coal, oil and gas.  Ironically, there is a trend among some environmentalists today to support the return of nuclear power as a way to augment and provide stability to the less constant forms of renewable energy (wind, solar).
• The philanthropic efforts of NGOs, missionaries and other charitable organizations in Africa and other developing areas often have the unintended consequence of stifling local businesses or increasing corruption.

These are only a small sampling of self-fulfilling prophecies and unintended consequences.  Even when humans attempt to solve problems with relatively good faith, they often only succeed in creating new problems or setting up disasters for the future.

 

We have the historical knowledge and ability to recognize the dangers inherent in many of the political, military or economic decisions we make.  But our political process and the people who have the power to carry out our policies are rarely acting in fully thought-out and rational ways.  It seems we humans are doomed to make the same mistakes over and over again.

Ambition

In the vast universe of ambiguous terms that are earnestly invoked, ambition looms large.  We nod our heads sagely when we hear that someone ‘has a lot of ambition’.  Parents tell their children that they must be ambitious to be successful and happy in life.  Top executives, sports stars and celebrities of all types are praised for their ambition.

But what is ambition?  Dictionaries define it as ‘an ardent desire for rank, fame, wealth or power’, or alternatively, ‘a desire to achieve a particular end’, or even ‘a desire for work or activity’.  These are three very different meanings, and I believe the differences lie at the heart of much of human anguish, heartache and conflict.

If we are ambitious to achieve some kind of recognized worldly success – fame, wealth, power, rank – then our happiness and fulfillment are tied to that goal and we may find it an elusive one. For these aims are closely linked to our ego.  They correspond to a desire to be acknowledged as superior to others.

The addiction to that kind of vanity is a need that can never truly be satisfied.  There is always someone wealthier, more famous, more powerful.   Under the veneer of confidence and self-satisfaction there is always the deep, lurking awareness that those accolades are empty and that one’s life has become a charade of fulfillment.

If, however, our ambition is indeed primarily a ‘desire for work or activity’, then the joy and satisfaction derived from that kind of ambition is incorruptible.  There is no limit to the ways that this ambition may be fulfilled, no end to the activities that may be undertaken. 

Many people start out with their ‘ambition’ truly being an expression of energy and inquiry.  They become fascinated by something or discover that they have a talent or skill in some area.  At first, the sheer joy of performing that activity is what drives them.  The acquisition of knowledge or expertise is the sole object of their ambition.  Their native curiosity and creative instinct move them forward. 

But as they win praise or awards for their efforts, they risk being seduced by that recognition, and the pure joy of doing and discovering is slowly displaced by the insidious need for affirmation and adulation.

Human beings are social creatures, and the need for positive feedback from others has no doubt been deeply embedded in our DNA over millennia of evolution.  We will always want our efforts and achievements to be acknowledged in some manner by others in our circle of acquaintance.  But the acquired addiction to public acclaim and renown, or to massive wealth and power, is more closely related to the darker sides of human nature.

If I write a story, then I have created something, and if it is pleasing to me then I am satisfied in the effort.  If others read the story with pleasure, then that is also a good thing. But if that story becomes famous and I become a celebrated author, then it is more than likely that I will no longer write solely for the love of creation but will be ever more attuned to my ascension in the literary world and derive my pleasure from that fickle abstraction.

Of course there is, alas, much of human ambition that is focused from the start on power, fame and wealth.  As in all things, moderation may be viewed as a watchword in these cases. There is nothing wrong with the goal of achieving financial stability or a position that provides interesting and challenging activities.  Climbing the corporate ladder or starting a company can be a wonderful experience, and part of the allure of these accomplishments is the attainment of a comfortable lifestyle and a position that allows one to have impact or control.

But all too often the seductive nature of power and wealth acts to create an unseemly lust that overwhelms the innocent purposes of self-fulfillment.  The energy and the goals are soon skewed toward the extremes.  The balance is lost.

Ambition is, like many things in life, a continuum that defies easy praise or condemnation.  It seems to me that leaning toward ‘desiring work or activity’ as opposed to cultivating an ‘ardent desire for rank, fame, wealth or power’ is the healthy and positive way to form ambition.  It would seem to offer a much less volatile path to a satisfactory life experience and have much less of a negative impact on the world.

Vigilantism is All the Rage!

The vigilantes are the new cool kids on the block!  Kyle Rittenhouse, a mentally challenged policeman wannabe, self-appointed militiaman and gun nut, is acquitted of all charges after killing two and wounding another at a violent protest that would otherwise have ended in property damage but no fatalities.  His claim of self-defense in an open carry state with a loosely interpreted castle doctrine was too difficult to disprove.

A Texas law deputizes private citizens and promises them financial gain for investigating and suing patients or providers of abortions performed after 6 weeks, which is close to the time that most women even know they are pregnant.

Three armed men pursue an unarmed black jogger in trucks and confront him in South Georgia, ultimately killing him.  The case is being tried now.

People armed with semi-automatic and automatic weapons assemble outside of state houses and at meetings throughout the COVID pandemic, protesting any restrictions on their lives and threatening governors, legislators, school board members and other public officials.

Yes, vigilantism is alive and well in the USA!  If you were wondering what in the world Americans would do with the sea of guns that has inundated our country, here is one answer.  Another answer is that they would turn ordinary disagreements or domestic disputes or road rage into shooting fatalities.  And yet another is that suicides by gun would climb ever higher.  But I digress.  Back to our proud vigilantes.

There is nothing American men love more than to strut around with a cool gun in their hands.  And they often add a camo outfit as a great accessory, along with sunglasses and an ammo belt or two.  After all, the more you can pretend to be a Navy SEAL, the manlier it makes you feel.

The nation is going to hell in a handbasket, so we need all the good guys with guns we can get, right?  Even though we have endowed the police with SWAT teams galore and wet dream-worthy piles of military equipment, they clearly need the help of testosterone-addled, social-media-brainwashed wingnuts with AR-15s and Glocks. 

God Bless our brave patriots!   With all those lefty judges, socialist legislators, election-stealers, Marxist professors and looters (i.e. people of color), the only hope we have is to let loose a big wave of armed vigilantes to keep America safe (and white and virginal and heterosexual and segregated).

Our favorite American myth is the Wild West, so it is only fitting that we are regressing back to the days of vigilante justice and gun-toting machismo.  But the eager vigilantes fearing the decline of the American Empire might be surprised to discover that they are actually at the very core of that decline and accelerating it with each act of armed protest or insurrection.

Supreme Court Mythology

With the Supreme Court about to rule on several abortion lawsuits that could reshape Roe v. Wade, it seems like a good time to try to understand what the hell the Supreme Court is actually supposed to do.

A warning:  my take on this is a bit glib and very contrarian.  Lawyers will scoff and deride my analysis as simplistic and totally off base.  And to be honest, what follows is a bit tongue and cheek and takes some liberties with the complexity of Supreme Court decisions.  The Supreme Court has been instrumental in making some very important progress in our society.  However, I don’t think it has a damn thing to do with the constitution or legal precedent.

 

Here is an excerpt from the government site on the history of the Supreme Court:

 

“The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution. It is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).”

 

The Supreme Court is the court of last appeal.  Its purpose is to interpret and enforce laws in ways that support the constitution, since that document is the primary source for how we want the nation to function.

 

But let’s face it, the constitution is a pretty terse document.  The bill of rights is a paltry 462 words.  Nuance is not its strong point.  Like most things in life, the constitution is rife with ambiguity and can only really serve as a general guidebook.

 

Yet somehow everyone wants to pretend that this document is some sort of holy grail that we can use to precisely define the way we live, even though it was written when slavery was legal (and many of the authors were slaveholders), when native Americans were being exterminated, when women had absolutely no rights, when the majority of Americans were citizen-farmers, before any significant industrialization had occurred and when science was only beginning to inform our understanding of the world.

 

But putting the question of how sacrosanct this document really is aside, the absurdity of grown men and women with prestigious pedigrees pretending to be able to adjudicate issues based on interpreting this document is rich.  It is pure farce! 

 

The reality is that the justices may convince themselves that they have some rationale for their opinions based on previous case law and the constitution itself, but it all really comes down to how they personally view what are basically social, economic and political issues, and how they interpret and either embrace or object to the Zeitgeist of the times.  And then they justify these highly personal views or interpretations with long diatribes that pretend to be academic and technical.

Now admittedly, the Supreme Court is not quite as partisan and venal as congress.  They do seem generally to take their jobs very seriously and earnestly investigate the issues at hand.  However, in the end, they are human beings with their own biases and given the lack of detailed guidance in either the constitution or the other laws of the land, they will ultimately find ways to argue on behalf of their own political, social, economic or moral philosophies.

 

The examples of the court flip-flopping on issues are numerous:  slavery, rights to vote, civil rights, affirmative action, abortion, gun control, unionization.  The constitution has absolutely nothing to do with all of this!  It is just partisan, contemporary politics, plain and simple.  The court tries to rise above partisanship, but there is simply no way to avoid it.

 

Take abortion.  Does the constitution really have any bearing on this issue?  Where to draw the line between the rights of the fetus and the rights of the mother is purportedly the key question.  But the arguments quickly go into biological and religious territory that the constitution does not address at all. 

 

I guess if you put robes on people and allow them to keep their office forever it lends a certain aura of respectability and seriousness, as though they are above the fray.  But it doesn’t really fool anyone.  I believe we all know deep down that the Supreme Court is simply a group of people that politicians have chosen to represent their strongly held beliefs and put up a good façade of intellectual credibility, and that this whole constitution ruse is one big smokescreen!

 

 

A Reasonable Approach to COVID in 2022

A pandemic is a confusing event, as we have discovered.  It is science in real time.  Much has been said about the sometimes puzzling and occasionally even contradictory messages coming from governments and scientists.  But our understanding of COVID-19 and its ramifications is constantly evolving, and it is extremely difficult to chart a perfect course of action and recommendations.  We should all be extremely grateful to the scientists and medical professionals who have worked tirelessly to confront this crisis.

Europe now appears to be entering its fourth wave of infection.  If the past two years are any guide, the USA will follow in a month or two.  Vaccinations have reduced the relative number of hospitalizations and deaths, but there are still large numbers of unvaccinated people and there is almost zero probability of achieving true ‘herd immunity’.

Should we view COVID-19 as an endemic disease now?  Should life go on as normal with a few basic restrictions?  These are difficult questions, but I believe there are a few basic guidelines that make sense.

First, vaccinations should be strongly encouraged for everyone and even mandated in certain areas (healthcare and retirement communities for example).  There is enough data available now to prove that the risks of any vaccine side effects are vastly lower than the risk of COVID in an unvaccinated adult.  Any responsible leader should emphatically endorse vaccination.

It is reasonable to raise the question as to whether instituting or continuing draconian shutdown measures may have more negative impact than the virus itself at this stage in the pandemic.  It was, however, unreasonable and highly unethical to argue against those measures at the outset of the pandemic.  The ultimate metric for those decisions is clearly the burden on the healthcare system.

When hospitals and healthcare workers are overwhelmed by serious COVID cases, as they were at the onset of the pandemic and several other times in the past two years, society must do everything in its power to reduce that burden.  A full breakdown of the healthcare system - doctors and nurses dying or abandoning their practices from fatigue or discouragement – is a catastrophic event with very long-term consequences.  Moreover, such an event will precipitate higher death counts because of the saturation of available ICU’s and ventilators. 

The UK data from before and after the vaccine gives us some encouragement for hoping that we can treat the pandemic with more moderate measures.  It is a good test case because the country is highly vaccinated (over 90% in adults over 40 - see the chart below) and has essentially eliminated all protective measures in the general population.

The UK CFR (case fatality rate) for the period from late November2020 to late February 2021 was about 2.5%.  For the post-vaccine period from late June to today, the CFR was about 0.3%, or about one eighth as much.  That is a dramatic decrease in the death rate.  This is especially interesting because the average daily number of new cases in the latter period was significantly higher (35k/day) than during the earlier period (29k/day). 

The USA will have a more difficult time unless vaccination rates improve dramatically.  During the same time that the UK had a CFR of 0.2, the USA had a CFR of 1.1, more than five times that of the UK.  This can only really be interpreted as an emphatic endorsement of the vaccine.  Sadly, our political polarization has made the vaccine a tribal litmus test for many in this country.

Whether the UK healthcare system is still under tremendous pressure is difficult for me to discern in a quick look online.  My guess is that there are pockets of distress and that the future will be a whack-a-mole game of employing vaccines, surgical shutdowns or protective measures and new treatment regimens to minimize the hospitalizations and deaths while allowing life to go on as close to normal as possible.

In my opinion, the reasonable way to proceed is to recognize that our healthcare systems must be protected at all costs.  Life can go back to semi-normal, but the minute we see a region where the healthcare system is in grave danger we must act decisively and initiate whatever measures are necessary.

The Evolution of the Nerd – from Zero to Hero to Megalomaniacal Villain

I don’t perceive myself as a classic nerd, though I have some nerdy characteristics – highly analytical, a tendency to be very precise with numbers, a strong interest in nerd topics such as science, technology and math. 

The truth is that I blundered into the technology field without really having an intense desire to become a techie or an engineer.  And I very nearly abandoned the technology path in the middle of my freshman year of college after a quarter focused on Chinese politics and French existentialism.  However, an intriguing physics course and a romance with a physics major provided enough inertia to keep me headed down the science path and then into engineering and computers.

All this is to say that I once understandably celebrated the transformation of the lowly Nerd from a caricature cog in the technology business to the hero of the computer and information revolution.  But sadly, the evolution of the Nerd has exceeded all expectations and become yet another cautionary tale of human temptation.

The space race and the subsequent computer revolution signaled the first subtle ascendancy of the Nerd engineer and programmer in society.  Cultural catalysts like Star Trek and Star Wars accelerated the pace. 

At first, the Nerd was a curious oddity – the necessary but somewhat comical sidekick of the heroic adventurers.  The caricature image of an unattractive guy with thick glasses, a pocket protector, a belt several inches too long and high-water pants was the stereotype.  He was a whiz at all things technical, but hardly an object of veneration, and often one of ridicule.  His technology skills were impressive, but no one really wanted to be him!

Solid evidence that the Nerd was gaining new respect came in the form of a movie franchise called ‘The Revenge of the Nerds’, which first appeared in 1984.  By this time Apple computers had been out for several years and the iconic Macintosh was launched in January 1984.

In Revenge of the Nerds, not only do the Nerd heroes exact revenge on their frat boy tormentors, but the lead Nerd even gets the pretty girl!  This transition from a valuable but slightly peculiar supporting role to star status heralded the creation of the new tech mythology.

The rapid assimilation of computer technology into our everyday lives and the recognition that computer entrepreneurs were becoming fabulously rich burnished the legend considerably.  Suddenly computer geeks were cool, especially if they had prospects of cashing in on their expertise.

Several movies followed that developed the trope of the former high school class dweeb showing up at a reunion as a millionaire tech entrepreneur with new confidence and flair.  The Nerd became a figure of respect and even envy, maybe a little dorky around the edges but with enough money and prestige to compensate.

As the 90’s came and went, bringing us the Internet, and the 2000’s accelerated the pace of technology with ipods, smartphones, Teslas, google and social media (ugh!), the billionaire tech wizards (perhaps questionable how much true wizardry there was behind much of what made billions – but that is another story) became our cultural icons with a position not far beneath movie stars, rock stars and British royalty – Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg and a host of lesser heroic Nerds.

Then suddenly, the hero myth began to turn Greek.  The tragic flaws of the tech titans and their technologies became all-too-apparent:  the monopolies, the uber-wealth, the ironically fratboy-like workplaces, the incestuous manipulation of the marketplace, the appalling menace of social media, the arrogance and narcissistic expressions of massive egos.

The Nerd had become Frankensteinian.  With more money and power than anyone should ever have at their disposal, today the tech masters of the world are no longer the sought-after destroyers of the old empire as pictured in the renowned Apple super bowl ad, but rather the new plutocrats of an increasingly polarized and authoritarian society.

I am reminded of the last scene of Orwell’s Animal Farm, when the pigs and the humans are sitting together at a banquet and the once revolutionary pigs have taken on all the characteristics of their former persecutors.  But instead of pigs and humans, it is Nerds and the industrial robber barons.  And we are the creatures gazing with incredulity at the scene.  “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

Numbers, Statistics and Misconceptions

Numbers are confusing to most people.  Few of us are comfortable with statistics and really understand how to interpret them.  Any lingering numerical skills from the painful years of high school math are gleefully jettisoned, and we are easily led astray when confronted with any sort of statistical analysis.

Numbers can also be cynically manipulated or naively misused.  Numbers and statistics are ultimately representations of events, and the meaning behind the numbers must be clear in order to ensure the correct interpretation.

A powerful example of this occurred about six months into the pandemic, when the CDC reported that 94% of COVID deaths had other morbidities associated with the death.  Very quickly large numbers of social media posts and talking heads interpreted that to mean that only 6% of the reported COVID deaths were actually caused by COVID.  This misinterpretation persists even today and there are many Americans who believe the number of COVID deaths is radically overcounted.

But here is the highly probable truth:

First of all, no one really dies solely from COVID.  The virus manifests itself in other pathologies such as pneumonia, respiratory distress or cardiac arrest.  The attending physician will add those pathologies to the death certificate, along with any known factors that may have made them more susceptible – diabetes, obesity, cancer, weakened immunity, etc. – to provide as much information as possible for later analysis.

But how can one know for sure that these people didn’t die from those other problems?  Perhaps the COVID virus was just present, not a contributing factor.  Here is where additional statistical (not anecdotal!) data plays a decisive role – the number of EXCESS DEATHS.

The total number of deaths in the USA is tracked and is predictable to within a small margin of error each year based on historical data.  Thus, the number of excess deaths in 2020 over what would have been expected is a very good estimate for the true number of COVID deaths and is probably more accurate than the confirmed number.  There were 3.38 million deaths in 2020 versus 2.85 million in 2019 (see the graph below and the dramatic step between 2019 and 2020). This would mean that the 2020 COVID deaths are closer to 500k!  The death rate (number of deaths per one thousand people) had an 18% increase in one year, from 8.7 to 10.3.

 Over eight hundred thousand people will have officially died from COVID in the USA by the end of 2021. There were about 380k confirmed COVID deaths in 2020 and there will be at least 450k in 2021.  But when one analyzes the excess death data it is extremely likely that the total number of COVID deaths for the two years will exceed one million!

 

 

 

They Were Expendable

In an earlier blog post I wrote about the unconscionable use of anti-vaccine policies to bolster the Trumpian credentials of Republican governors such as Abbott and DeSantis, and how their incredibly selfish and narcissistic acts were resulting in increased sickness and death in their states. 

It is now mid-October 2021, and what should have been a summer of relief from COVID and a resumption of somewhat normal life has been torpedoed by an anti-vax movement that has been promoted and led by Trump’s sycophants and the craven politicians who see their future in his wake.

I have examined the deaths that have occurred in ten states that represent a cross-section of blue and red states – states that strongly encouraged or even mandated vaccinations for their citizens and those that squandered their opportunity to protect their citizens by attacking vaccine mandates and making idiotic speeches about freedom.

I have calculated the number of deaths per million people (thus normalizing the numbers so that there is an apple to apple comparison) that have occurred from April 1 to Oct 13.  I chose April 1 because vaccines were really starting to have an impact at that point in states that embraced them.  It was also the time when the delta variant began to play a significant role.

It is also important to note that less than 2% of COVID deaths in this time period were vaccinated people.

These statistics dramatically illustrate the difference in deaths between states that embraced the vaccine and those who made it a political issue.  

There have been over 165,000 deaths since April 1.  The excess deaths in red states where governors and republican legislators have fought the vaccine, as well as the collateral damage in all states of conservatives who died embracing the so-called ‘freedom’ that the death cult has espoused, easily exceed 1/3 of those deaths, or about 55,000. 

I guess if you have Trumpian presidential aspirations or are a brainwashed right-winger who somehow cannot acknowledge any societal obligations, then those 55,000 deaths don’t mean much to you.  Either your own grotesque ambition or some toxic mixture of demented myths and lies has hijacked your humanity.  The dead won’t haunt you, because you have no conscience.  The people who died were just a necessary sacrifice. They were expendable.

To Die, To Sleep, No More

I have always loved the famous Hamlet soliloquy ‘To Be or Not to Be’. At some point I memorized it, though I must refresh it periodically or it slips away.  I have even written a song that addresses the same question.

The question ‘To Be or Not To Be’ postulates the possibility of suicide in the face of the myriad ‘slings and arrows of outrageous fortune’.  The same theme and question come up in the Goethe classic The Sufferings of Young Werther (Die Leiden des Jungen Werther).  The question of whether suicide is justified when a person is tortured by mental anguish, physical infirmities or sickness of the soul is one many poets and scholars have wrestled with over the centuries.

But in this essay, I am not posing the question of whether suicide is an acceptable escape from misery. Fortunately, I am not facing that dilemma.  I am more interested in the corollary questions that Shakespeare introduces in those famous stanzas.  What will one find in that ‘undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveler returns’?  Indeed, ‘what dreams may come when we have shuffled off this mortal coil’?  I am intrigued by death itself and what it will mean for us, if anything.

Most of our religions and spiritual allegiances assure us that we have an immortal soul that continues to exist after physical death.  This is one of the main consolations of being a person of faith.  It is very disconcerting for most people to imagine that they will cease to exist after death.  And I would dare to hypothesize that even the most cavalier atheist is displaying a bit of false bravado when he or she claims to have no fear of the finality of death.

Attempting to visualize or conceptualize an existence of any form after death leads one to a series of questions that border on the absurd.  What form of being will we be?  Will there be a physical form?  If so, what age would we be?  Would we have the same personality and the same history or memory?  Would we meet family and friends?  Will our pets accompany us?  What would we do on a daily basis once the harp playing and singing gets old?  Would we tire of milk and honey? 

The ‘opiate of the masses’ school of thought on death portrays heaven as an idyllic place that will compensate for the pain and suffering that occurred on planet earth.  This is understandably a powerful and compelling story for the heartbroken and miserable. This is the idea that heaven will replace the brutal world with a loving, compassionate place and an eternal life of good things.

Every mother who has lost a child, every husband whose wife has died young of breast cancer, every person whose loved ones have been brutally taken from them by crime, disease or war; every slave, every victim of abuse, every hapless, luckless denizen of this cruelly arbitrary world, deserves such a recompense. 

But the imagery doesn’t hang together well and breaks down under any real scrutiny.  Would the mother who lost an infant child meet that child as an infant or an adult?  Would she have the opportunity to see that child grow up?  What if her own mother had died when she was a teenager? Would she be a teenager again in the eyes of her mother?  What about the billions of children who died in childbirth and never experienced life at all?  How will they be compensated?  Will they meet their parents for the first time and somehow go through a full life with them?  It seems like it would be better to give them another go at life, which brings up the new complication of reincarnation!

Another big question is how the whole eternity thing works. If heaven is an eternal dwelling, would we perceive time?  What purpose would time have?  How does the space-time continuum fit into this? All of these details quickly become self-contradictory and the whole enterprise becomes acutely unimaginable.

Moreover, the idea of a ‘perfect’ place with everything one needs to be happy also has its challenges.  A brief look at the ultra-rich who should be living the ideal life on earth is strong evidence that too much of a good thing is ultimately kind of bad!

Still, there are some indications that a post-death experience awaits us.  Countless near-death episodes have been recounted with tales of passageways leading to luminous, wonderful places, of powerful feelings of peace and contentment, of seeing deceased loved ones and so on.  There are even scientific studies and institutions that have catalogued these experiences and are attempting to understand them more fully.

I want to believe that I will continue to exist after death.  It would make it easier to die, and that certainly appears to be one of the main benefits of a belief in the afterlife.  Dying is a solo gig for the most part.  No one is sharing the experience.  One is all by oneself.  And very few people seem all that eager to let go of life and embark on that journey.  Most of us would ‘rather bear those ills we have than fly to others we know not of’, or perhaps even worse, to nothing at all.

There is enough mystery in the world to make one hesitant to hold fast to either skepticism or unquestioning belief.  I know enough of quantum physics and cosmology to see that all is not what it appears to be.  I may write whimsically about death but in the end, I respect and echo the earnestness with which most human beings approach the end of their days.  My own speculation and hope are that my spirit does somehow continue to exist, and that in some ethereal way we attain new levels of consciousness, love and compassion.  There is no logical or rational way to imagine it, so I will simply hope for the best.

 

 

Texas Heralds America's Own 'Cultural Revolution'

Neighbor spying on neighbor.  Indoctrinated children betraying their own parents.  A cadre of the ideologically unhinged and would-be bounty hunters searching for women, doctors, nurses, social workers and even drivers who they suspect of violating their version of religious law.

Yes, Texas has codified its own version of the Chinese Cultural Revolution.  Bravo! 

The shocking nature of this new move by the anti-abortion zealots is a sign of the extremes to which these people will go to implement their self-righteous crusade.  The fact that five of the supreme court justices refused to immediately reject this radical vigilante-encouraging law is extremely sobering.

There is something about deputized citizens, bounties and vigilante justice that is supremely distasteful.  It is antithetical to a sense of fair play and due process.  It conjures up images of Nazi Germany, the KGB and many other totalitarian regimes where neighbors are encouraged and even paid to turn in their neighbors for perceived infractions or disloyalty.

The religious right may have gone a step too far with this attempt to circumvent our judicial system.  The incredulity, outrage and anger that it has engendered could cause a wave of reaction in independents and middle America and find expression at the polls.

I am not sure what these extremists ultimately hope to accomplish.  The availability of pharmaceutical abortions and the willingness of people to help women find and fund alternative places for ending pregnancies will probably reduce the impact dramatically.  Moreover, there has been a continuous decline in the rate of abortions in the USA since a peak was reached in the 1981.

Here is an extract from the Wikipedia article on abortion in the USA:

In 1973, the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision legalized abortion in all 50 states. Thoughout the 1970s, the abortion rate rose almost 80%, peaking at 29.3 abortions per 1,000 women of childbearing age according to the Guttmacher Institute and at 25 abortions per 1,000 women of childbearing age according to the CDC.

From 1981 through 2017, the abortion rate fell approximately in half. It did not fall every single year, but it has not risen two years in a row since 1979 and 1980. The abortion rate fell below the 1973 rate in 2012 and continued to fall through 2017. 

Abortion foes would be so much wiser to encourage these downward trends of abortions by promoting sex education and birth control, especially the newer IUDs that provide highly reliable birth control without the risk of non-compliance that pills, condoms or other means entail.

That presumes that the goal of abortion opponents is truly to reduce abortions and not simply to wage a culture war that projects their own insecurities about a changing and uncertain world.  If they really want to save lives, I would recommend they put their energy towards reversing climate change.  The number of future victims of that onrushing calamity, all of whom will be cognitive, self-aware human beings, will dwarf the number of aborted fetuses.

 

Living in the Moment

I have often heard people say that they are trying harder to ‘live in the moment’.  It seems that we have all become acutely aware that most of the time we are focused on either the past or the future rather than the present.  We suspect that it would be better for us to more fully experience the current moment of our lives rather than be distracted by thoughts of the past or future, or other daydreams.

But what does it really mean to ‘live in the moment’?  Does it imply that we must actually be thinking about or analyzing what we are doing and examining our state of mind and feelings?  Can one be ‘in the moment’ without telling oneself to be ‘in the moment’?  Can we experience something fully without our thoughts conducting a monologue about that experience?

When one is involved in a vigorous activity, such as playing a sport or practicing a musical instrument, background thoughts seem to disappear.  The more the activity requires effort and concentration, the less one is able to conduct the usual soliloquy of conscious thought.  But when one performs less demanding activities, such as listening to music or going on a hike, one often finds that significant periods of time go by without one being at all aware of the activity.  We daydream, fret about a coming event, or analyze something that happened in the past.  Instead of fully experiencing the thoughts, sensations and emotions of that activity, we are distracted and lose whatever benefit those moments might otherwise have brought.

One example is the act of eating.  I have often noticed that I will look forward to eating something but discover after I have finished that I was distracted by other thoughts or social interactions and didn’t fully savor the food.  When I focus my full attention on the act of eating, I get much more enjoyment, especially if the food is something special.  But unfortunately, this is difficult to do when one is in a social setting or watching TV.  Even eating alone, the typical thought distractions that one has may get in the way of that enjoyment.

Distractions - whether daydreams, anticipation, memories or worries - are always waiting impatiently at the doorway of our consciousness.  We have all developed a bad habit of letting them in because much of our time is spent in mundane activity that does not offer any great joy ‘in the moment’.  It requires a certain discipline and training to refocus our mind when we are doing something that merits our full attention.  But life will probably be much more satisfying if we manage to do so.

When Presidential Aspirations Become a Deadly Flaw

The political world is filled with enormous egos.  Politicians on the left and right are generally possessed of ten parts ego-fed ambition for every one part of public spirit.  No, I don’t have a source for that.  Let’s just say that is an aphorism born of many years of observing politics and human beings.  My cynicism in this regard may be a bit exaggerated, but I doubt I am far from the mark.

Shooting for the presidency is perhaps the biggest ego trip of all.  To imagine oneself as the supreme ruler of the most powerful nation on earth is heady stuff.  Becoming the Master of the Universe is such an incredibly seductive accomplishment that politicians will do almost anything to achieve it.

First and foremost, they will give up any normal life of family, friends, work and leisure.  They will abandon whatever firmly held convictions they had in their earlier years and bend their opinions and platforms to conform to a best fit for winning.  They will court powerful people and corporations with so many promises and assurances that they won’t even be able to keep track of them.  They will spend most of their lives fundraising.

But the link between these compromises and truly dangerous or deadly consequences is generally not visible or easily discerned.  The candidates can rest easily, assured that their dalliances with the powerful, the rich and whatever policy issues they have endorsed are just the normal political game.

However, in the time of COVID and Trump, this link is crystal clear.  There is no doubt that Presidential aspirations are directly causing death and misery.  Governors Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbott, both eyeing a possible run for the presidency in 2024 should Trump decide not to, have burnished their Trumpian reputations at the expense of their constituents’ lives.

By refusing to promote and mandate mask wearing and vaccination, in direct opposition to the best medical advice in their states and in the nation, these two governors have essentially committed wholesale manslaughter in the name of their presidential aspirations.  They have sacrificed thousands of lives on the altar of their egos. Their names should go down in infamy.  The names of the dead should be chanted to them wherever they go.

Politics is often referred to as a dirty game.  But this type of pandering for the votes of the Trump world is despicable in the extreme.  It deserves condemnation from all quarters and it is a sad reflection on the state of our political life.

The Tragedy of Afghanistan

War is always a tragedy.  Our ‘forever’ wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are tragic for so many reasons and have had almost an endless series of heartbreaking events.  The latest one, the death of 13 service members and over a hundred hopeful Afghani civilians by an ISIS suicide bomber, is one more sad reminder that we must only commit human lives to military operations when it is absolutely necessary and there is no other choice.

The tragedy of 9/11 produced understandable horror and outrage.  Unfortunately, that triggered a crusade for vengeance that precluded a more sober and sensible approach to seeking justice for those killed in the attacks.  The subsequent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have reaped a harvest of death and destruction that dwarfs the 9/11 attacks and has diminished the USA in the eyes of much of the world.

Over 7,000 U.S. service members and over 8,000 contractors have died in the post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Over thirty thousand post 9/11 U.S. service members have died of suicide.  Were these deaths necessary to quench our thirst for revenge? 

It would no doubt have been difficult to root out Al Qaida in Afghanistan without invading, but when one looks at the cost in human lives and suffering to kill Osama Bin Laden and other Al Qaida meambers (who by the way have been replaced by innumerable new extremist volunteers and new terrorist organizations such as ISIS) then only a very contorted rationalization can justify it.

These wars have done nothing to improve the situation in the Middle East.  Indeed, they have arguably worsened it considerably.  They have also been unsuccessful in stemming the growth of extremism and terrorist acts.  Violence begets violence.

The current debacle of our withdrawal from Afghanistan may have been exacerbated by inadequate planning or haste, but I would argue that there was no way to leave the country without chaos and death ensuing.  No matter when or how we left there were going to be tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Afghanis desperate to leave with us.  The Saigonesque scenes were bound to occur in some form. 

An earlier mass exodus would not have been a logical plan, as it would have undermined the Afghani government and caused panic in the country.  But the exact nature of the planning, the decisions, and the mistakes made should be studied for the future, in the likely event that we still have not learned from the horrible mistakes of Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Veterans of these cruel wars have spoken of their understandable despair in the realization that nothing was gained by their sacrifice.  I commiserate with their frustration, but a sacrifice should never be assigned value based on the success it achieves.  It is the nobility of the sacrifice itself, not its result, that deserves our recognition and praise.  A fireman who gives his or her life by racing into a building to save a child is no less noble if the child is not saved or if the child had been rescued earlier.

The time has come for the USA to make a sober appraisal of the utility of military exploits and the extent to which our employment of the empire-style manipulation of other nations and people has caused more harm than good.  The world is inter-connected now by global trade, tourism and cultural exchange in a way that should allow us to solve problems in a less catastrophic manner than warfare.  The calculus of war has always been problematic – more people die, and more lives are ruined in warfare than in the situations that warfare is attempting to solve. 

Diplomacy and international cooperation on terrorism and other ills of the modern world are often painfully slow and frustrating and require patience that has historically been in short supply in US foreign policy.  But the alternative of endless warfare is clearly a solution that is a tragic and unnecessary mistake.

The Demise of the Buffalo – A Not-so-simple Allegory

Everyone knows the story.  Once upon a time herds of buffalo roamed the great plains in uncountable numbers.  It is estimated that there were more than 30 million at any given time.  Indigenous people hunted them and relied on the success of those hunts to provide most of the essentials for their survival. 

They used every part of the bison.  They ate the meat and every other edible part of the animal – organs, tongues, fat, brain. They tanned the hides, or simply kept them as rawhide, and employed them for clothing and shelter.  They even used many of the skeletal components for tools.

Then along came the Europeans with their long rifles, and eventually their wagons and trains.  The market price of a bull buffalo skin was $3.50 and a man could make a good living killing buffalo, so they came by the thousands, especially after the economic depression of 1873. Buffalo Bill Cody earned his nickname by claiming to have killed 4,280 buffalo in an 18 month period. 

And as the market experienced a glut of hides, the hunters killed even more energetically to make up their losses.  They cut off the hump, the skin and the tongue.  They left the rest to rot on the plains. 

They were encouraged and aided in their work by the U.S. Army.  The battle against the plains Indians was being waged mercilessly, and Gen. Phillip Sheridan, the civil war hero, saw the extermination of the buffalo as a strategic ploy to force the Indians into reservations and agricultural work.  One army colonel wrote, “Kill every buffalo you can.  Every buffalo dead is an Indian gone!”

By 1875 the plains had become a vast graveyard, a veritable charnel house for buffalo.  Congress passed legislation to protect the buffalo, but President Grant refused to sign it. By the end of the 19^th century there were only a few hundred buffalo left in the wild. There are now twenty to thirty thousand after more than a hundred years of protection and conservation.

I started out to write this essay to condemn the European slaughter of the bison and extoll the virtues of the way the buffalo was treated by Native Americans – to portray the contrasting methods as an allegory for the excesses of our modern industrial society.

But as I read more about the topic, I learned that the plains Indians had also begun to overhunt the bison, and that the competition among Indian tribes was already paving the path to extinction for the buffalo before the Europeans built a super highway.  The acquisition of horses in the 1700’s and the subsequent dramatic increase in nomadic populations spelled disaster for the animals even before it was accelerated by the white buffalo hunters.

Make no mistake, our treatment of the plains Indians is a horrible blight on our nation’s record.  But the plains were not an idyllic place before the Europeans arrived.  The brutality and the merciless nature of intertribal warfare was a fact of life, and each group was relentless in its hunting of the poor bison.

The near extinction of the buffalo is indeed an allegory, but it is an allegory for the entirety of human impact on nature, not any particular group’s.  Human beings are clever enough to find the means to exploit nature for their benefit and increase their population exponentially.  Each step of progress, each invention, each new technique, improves their lifestyle and longevity, and consequently heightens the environmental impact of humanity. 

We have little capacity for a united approach to conserve or protect our natural world, as we have spent hundreds of years glorifying private property, personal freedom and consumption.  The ‘tragedy of the commons’ (a model used by economists to refute Adam Smith’s ‘Invisible Hand of the Market’ concept in Wealth of Nations) is in full view everywhere these days - the use of carbon-based energy, the proliferation of plastics and other non-recyclables, the overuse of water resources and the ever-increasing materialism that infects every society on earth.

Ultimately, nature has feedback mechanisms that defeat extreme aberrations.  Our excesses are already provoking dangerous weather phenomena, wildfires, arctic and Antarctic glacier melting, and the proliferation of more deadly viruses.  The future will no doubt bring further shocking repercussions.

In the end, after painful disruption and cataclysmic events, perhaps humanity will be forced to confront and surmount its greatest challenge, the creation of a global social compact that allows it to live in harmony with the natural world.