Review of article by reformed futurist


The article is in January 2012 Smithsonian Magazine online

The digital pioneer and visionary behind virtual reality has turned against the very culture he helped create

You may want to read the article linked above first.  Excerpts follow in the voice of the Smithsonian writer who quoted Lanier, with my comments in italics.
------------
The article begins:

The digital pioneer and visionary behind virtual reality has turned against the very culture he helped create

Lanier is still in the game in part because virtual reality has become, virtually, reality these days. “If you look out the window,” he says pointing to the traffic flowing around Union Square, “there’s no vehicle that wasn’t designed in a virtual-reality system first. And every vehicle of every kind built—plane, train—is first put in a virtual-reality machine and people experience driving it [as if it were real] first.”

Yes, he's right about the ubiquity.  Virtual reality models for homes, factories and even aircraft carriers save billions of dollars by allowing corrections to be made in designs before they are realized the hard way.  If we had this technology a hundred years ago the word "Titanic" would still mean gigantic and nothing more. 

For instance, he said, “I’d been an early advocate of making information free,” the mantra of the movement that said it was OK to steal, pirate and download the creative works of musicians, writers and other artists. It’s all just “information,” just 1’s and 0’s.

O.K. He became famous in his explosive but narrow specialty without a rudimentary appreciation of intellectual property, and now that he has discovered it, because of his notoriety, he is able to present it as a profound innovative discovery. Now to the subject that got me to read this article

His explanation of the way Google translator works, for instance, is a graphic example of how a giant just takes (or “appropriates without compensation”) and monetizes the work of the crowd. “One of the magic services that’s available in our age is that you can upload a passage in English to your computer from Google and you get back the Spanish translation. And there’s two ways to think about that. The most common way is that there’s some magic artificial intelligence in the sky or in the cloud or something that knows how to translate, and what a wonderful thing that this is available for free.

“But there’s another way to look at it, which is the technically true way: You gather a ton of information from real live translators who have translated phrases, just an enormous body, and then when your example comes in, you search through that to find similar passages and you create a collage of previous translations.”

“So it’s a huge, brute-force operation?” “It’s huge but very much like Facebook, it’s selling people [their advertiser-targetable personal identities, buying habits, etc.] back to themselves. [With translation] you’re producing this result that looks magical but in the meantime, the original translators aren’t paid for their work—their work was just appropriated. So by taking value off the books, you’re actually shrinking the economy.”

With his new realization of the legitimacy of intellectual property, and the trade offs between its protection and its use for wider cultural advancement, he sees the Google translation method as an example of the stealing that he had advocated before he saw the light.  The translation procedure that he describes is making use of previous translations, and to the degree that they are identifiable, and are in copyright, he could have case that such use should be compensated. 

Yet, from the article linked above there are many translations in the public domain that do not cause the "theft" he describes, " In 2005, Google improved its internal translation capabilities by using approximately 200 billion words from United Nations materials to train their system; translation accuracy improved.[4]"

The way superfast computing has led to the nanosecond hedge-fund-trading stock markets? The “Flash Crash,” the “London Whale” and even the Great Recession of 2008?

This statement by Lanier shows that there is still a cultish tone to his views, as his early vision of computer connectivity being the new utopia has been transformed to their now being the root cause of all the evils that they facilitate.  This is too simplistic for an acclaimed thinker, as every advance in communication, from the printing press to the telegraph, has been put to the most pernicious uses.  

The excesses of gaming the stock market with superfast computers is not a technological problem but a political-cultural one.  This could be outlawed easily by enforceable legislation. Lanier's blaming this on technology, is not only incorrect it gets political leaders off the hook for allowing real social harm because of campaign contributions by those who subvert market principles. 

As for his larger issue of the evil of this technology, it is a universal phenomenon. The invention of mass printing, while spreading enlightenment insights, also allowed the most vitriolic propaganda that fomented revolutions-for better or for worse-a phrase not used here to be dismissive.  

Lanier because he was enchanted by this new technology, is now disenchanted with the same over broad strokes.  The advantages of accessible rapid, even realtime translation, unlike the utopian dreams of his early associates, is truly achievable.  It reverses the barriers of disparate languages that God Almighty himself inflicted on those who dared to build a tower to reach the heights where only he resided.  Such human arrogance, such achievements unthinkable in my own childhood, such breaking-- not only of barriers but of the comfort of isolated cultures-- understandably elicits extreme responses. 

Jaron Lanier, in spite of my criticisms,  has extended an important conversation that should engage us all for the next few centuries 





Secularism and Religion

The comment below was posted on this New York Times Article by Stanley Fish,  Religious Exemptions and the Liberal State

Let me offer an analytic framing that may be useful to this important subject. "Religious exceptional from in liberal state is a way for it to outsource oppressive enforcement of common social mores.." It is a domestic sanctified protected version of extraordinary rendition, where a sanctioned group is given a name, "religion" and under this may indoctrinate children into their belief system that must include a certain reverence for the national ideal.

Once under this banner, the outsourced oppressors are free to first instill a fear in children of eternal suffering, and then inculcate an elaborate set of rules to avoid this. This threat of eternal suffering that will follow apostasy, is why the outsourcing is required. The principles of the given religion, which always includes obedience to the leadership of the sacred group to protect its very existence, will always be supportive enough of the principles of the secular authority to not to breach the tacit mutual aid pact.

In the last election, the Republican candidate was more blatant in demonstrating this, as in a major speech he attempted to make the secular sacred, in deconstructing the Pledge of Allegiance into a personal and national prayer.

I explored this in an article on Dailykos. com during the presidential campaign, that I revise here.  While this election is over, what this speech by a man who came close to selecting those who will interpret our Constitution  makes this speech illustrative of what our country could face in the future.

-------------------------
9/20/2012

I started to write this article before before the video defaming the Prophet of Allah unleashed homicidal fury among some Muslims, yet I saw clearly the danger of what was being sowed by Candidate Romney. I envisioned his promoting a mindset that would justify similar hatred in this country against those who do not espouse the dominant religious views.

Romney has a law degree from Harvard, and must be aware of the Jurisprudence of the Pledge of Allegiance that he so blatantly ignores in detail and in spirit. His latest action is described in this N.Y. Times article, In Romney’s Hands, Pledge of Allegiance Is Framework for Criticism.

While we fear that the revolution of the Arab Spring could be the opening for Muslim Fundamentalists, we ignore the overt perversion of our own country's tradition of secularism that is unabashedly a strategy of the Romney-Ryan ticket. From the Times article:

But at a Saturday afternoon rally here, Mr. Romney did not just recite the Pledge of Allegiance; he metaphorically wrapped his stump speech in it, using each line of the pledge to attack President Obama.
“The promises that were made in that pledge are promises I plan on keeping if I am president, and I’ve kept them so far in my life,” Mr. Romney said, standing among old airplanes in a hangar at the Military Aviation Museum here. “That pledge says ‘under God.’ I will not take ‘God’ out of the name of our platform. ”

He speaks of the "promises that were made in that pledge" as if it were a solemn personal obligation that binds each American who says the words, emphasizing "Under God." Thus the elementary school children who are cajoled under fear of social ostracism to recite words, the meaning of which they could not comprehend, are bound to their oath of fealty to God.

Make no mistake, this is not a theological issue, as I do not believe that Mitt Romney is a Christian Fundamentalist who actually believes we are God's chosen country, that we alone were "endowed by our Creator" and other extensions of this biblical based American Exceptionalism. No, I believe that this is the most crass example of Realpolitik as played by a man with great ambition that knows no moral limits.

I happened to have studied quite a bit of this narrow area of constitutional law, having had extensive correspondence with Michael Newdow, who argued his case against the the Pledge in front of the Supreme Court, having prevailed at the appeals court level. Far from it being a meaningful personal pledge that Romney so passionately argued at that outing and on other occasions, such use of the word God is only given a constitutional pass by being relegated to "ceremonial deism" as described in this essay from the Pew Foundation:
Justice William Brennan wrote that while he thought this particular Christmas display was unconstitutional, less controversial expressions of religion might be permissible under the Establishment Clause. Citing Dean Rostow, Brennan argued that certain official references to a deity - such as the inclusion of God in the Pledge of Allegiance - might be constitutional "as a form [of] 'ceremonial deism.' " According to Brennan, these expressions might not violate the Establishment Clause "because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content."

 In other words, far from being a personal oath, they have through repeated usage become simply meaningless words. Romney goes on to expand on a national theocratic ethos that approaches that of the Muslim Brotherhood, or worse. He continued:
“ I will not take ‘God’ off our coins, and I will not take God out of my heart. We’re a nation bestowed by God.”

 Interesting concept "Nation Bestowed by God" that deserves some serious exegeses, a word usually reserved for biblical analysis. This goes beyond the Christian Dominionist's argument that the Declaration of Independence words "We are endowed by our creator...." mean we alone have this endowment. ignoring the clear context that these are qualities that are universals to all people. "Bestow" is a transitive verb meaning that this country was the object bestowed..... on humanity or the world. Romney doesn't say. This is Mitt Romney's own coinage, as the phrase does not show up on a search of the Internet and has no provenance in any historical or academic source.

There are those who think that atheists have a perverse compulsion to deny individuals of their faith, their religious beliefs that sustain and comfort them. It is often said to me, why do I make a big deal out of children being compelled to recite the pledge of allegiance or whether there is a Christian cross on public land....why not just let things be for the sake of comity. The answer is demonstrated in the campaign we are now seeing, where religion and patriotism are being merged with the goal of making non believers or those who worship a different god, into outcasts.

Under a President Romney, it is probable that we would lose the single vote that defeated both the Supreme Court decision and the Constitutional amendment that would have made the desecration of a tri-colored cloth of a certain design a criminal offense in America, similar to what is now the law for the destruction of a page of the Koran among Muslims.

Mitt Romney fully understands the unifying value of fostering hatred of outsiders mediated by religious fervor; and by all evidence, he is unconcerned with the disastrous consequences that this could bring, to our country and the world.

Addendum 12/25/2012:

While Romney is receding rapidly into a footnote of history, what he espoused described here was never condemned by the American public or the opposition.  We came close in 2012 to a move a bit towards theocracy, or more accurately, our peculiar privatized outsourced version.  And because of the special place of religion in our culture, it was generally off limits to call it what it was, a danger to the very enlightenment roots of our nation.

Link to video of speech


Thanksgiving Day 2012

This was sent to a group of men, ages 50s to 90s, some who have played doubles tennis together for three decades.  A few of us, from two to ten out of the twenty plus who play, get together at the local McDonalds to talk afterwards, which is what I refer to in this missive.  

Poinsettia Tennis Group

For the moment there is a suspension of the ongoing conflict that surrounds the Gaza Strip that could have been the fuse for a clash of civilizations between the Arabic world and Israel and its western allies. From such sparks -- the assassination in Sarajevo in 1914 comes to mind -- have come unimaginable global carnage. That murder lead to WWI, which sowed the seeds of revolutionary Communism which bred the fascist response that included the murderous antisemitism that resulted in the Jewish homeland-- with displacement of the indigenous population to a place called Gaza.

And then there's the occasional conflict that we experience while playing tennis in the courts of Carlsbad California. Voices are raised, tempers are lost, and there is a place deep in our brain that lights up in the same way as those who last week felt the explosions in that contentious land on the Mediterranean coast, including the family of a member of our group.

While this part of our primitive humanity can emerge even in our public playground, so does another side, the ability to transcend differences to form something that enriches us all. Among this informal group are those whose childhoods were blighted by political movements that defined the twentieth century; ironically by both arch enemies, Communism and Fascism. One man spent a good part of his youth in a Japanese displacement camp in Indonesia, others under the most oppressive phase of Soviet Communism, and some of us on different sides of the Jim Crow line that was an echo of this country's original sin.

We are Christians, Hindus, Agnostics, Jews and Atheists; staunch conservatives and dedicated liberals. Married, single, widowed--some who have known the joys and the sadness of parenthood and others with no family at all. Some of us with careers that have provided personal and financial rewards and others who for an array of reasons have not, and some who can really play this game of tennis like a pro, and others like myself who don't come close.

Some have experienced our country's wars, from the "good one" that united the country after that day of infamy to those that followed that divided us then, and have perpetuated the political animosities that are still so searing to this day. Scars of war, whether shrapnel embedded in flesh or images embedded in memory, last a lifetime, as are the emotional scars that accrue just in the process of being alive.

It is the pain of such injuries that can be alleviated, dispelled if just for a moment, as we concentrate on sprinting to that lob that may land in bounds and returning it for a winner. So, I give thanks for this game, and the people whom I play with who make it possible, and this brief moment of, if not world peace, at least the glimmer of hope that such a thing is achievable.

Al R.

Film review: "A Late Quartet"

There is a scene of Christopher Walken, playing the older declining cellist Peter Mitchell recounting an audition with the great Pablo Casals, where he said his rendition of a known classic was "just awful, nothing but mistakes" but the Maestro praised it with evident sincerity. Mitchell had remained disturbed by the seeming lack of candor, until many decades later, when both were at the top of the pack, over a glass of wine he asked him about it. His response is a lesson for reviewing this film and beyond.

"I heard those mistakes, but I also felt your passion, your conveying it in strong sensitive lyrical phrases that others rarely achieve. Those critics who keep track of every wrong note are missing out on what music and life has to offer."

And so I will leave the defects of this film to others, and there are many elements that deviated from what I write about, a rare sensitive exploration of life, using a string quartet as exemplar and metaphor. I only went to the art house showing this expecting it to be, based on the reviews, a bad movie that happened to be shot in my old neighborhood of Lincoln Center area of New York. My wife is an amateur violinist, and always came home from her week long SummerTrios camp with the glow from playing in groups such as this film depicted.

After seeing this film I understand why. This depicted consummate musicians, who rather than the solo careers available to them chose to become a single instrument, one that required that most human ability of merging of individuality into something that can only be achieved by--the word for it is "symbiosis" different organisms uniting in a common goal. While the conflicts of ego, sexual attraction, fame and glory may seem hackneyed, it is because this is the universal challenge of making any such group-from a marriage to a nation-long endure.

In my old neighborhood, a young world famous violinist bought into our coop building. We lost touch when I moved to California a decade ago, and wondered why with unlimited solo bookings he had joined a chamber group. This film explained why, not only from a musicological level, but from the human desire to be part of something beyond our individuality. That is the element of this film that transcends music.

You see, I also play in quartets, but they are doubles tennis with two people on each side ostensibly playing against each other. Yet, for it to work, for it to give the same type of pleasure that my wife and soloist friend got out of chamber music all four have to work together, enjoying the virtuoso movement of any of the foursome, no matter which side of the net they are on. And like in this magnificent film, the ego that makes for the excitement, when taken too far, to the point of questionable line calls, leading to animosity, can destroy the entire experience.

And like a quartet playing off each other in an "allegro" passage, in tennis a flurry of volleys, with a running get that is returned for a winner, can bring joy to the performers and the audience. This perfect miniature of a film, like all great productions, is only achieved by such seamless excellence that no one can tell where one individual's contribution ends and the other's begins.

This is about the the most sublime entertaining lousy flick I've ever seen.







Hurricane Sandy, God's Message to America

I suspect that Superstorm Sandy is an Act of God, not in a legalistic sense of an unanticipated natural catastrophe, but something much more. Along with those who believe the words of our Pledge of Allegiance that we are a nation "under God,"  even though I am an atheist I have to conclude that this unprecedented event could not have been a meteorological accident.  No, just as God sent the flood that destroyed the world to send his warning to Noah, this too was a message to fulfill the promise he made to our founders.

His message is not to ignore the "one nation" part of the Pledge given under his name.  His saturating the cold winds over the north Atlantic, energizing the swirling  cyclone being brewed in the tropics, and sending them both on a twisted course to merge at the same hour off the coast of his "bestowed" country to submerge it's greatest city could never have been an accident  It was a biblical-level warning not to elect someone who would begin to destroy the great compromise of 1789, The Constitution of the United States of America, that E Pluribus Unum moment, when from many states was forged a single country.

The election to be held in a few days will be more than between two men, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, but a referendum on two principles of governance.  Romney's being a reversion to the period when the United States of America was a loose alliance of sovereign states under the Articles of Confederation; the second is our country now, a nation indivisible.

As a people we have forgotten why we abandoned these Articles of Confederation.  This charter was based on the Republican political philosophy that will be achieved by devolution as defined by their standard bearer, who in every area, from health care to emergency response has stated that, "authority is always preferable at the most local level, states rather than the federal government".

Only through the distorted lens of this ideology is it possible that a universal heath care system could be admirable when it implemented by a state, but oppressive when extended to the larger polity, namely the United States of America.   Romney has also stated that emergency response to catastrophes, now under FEMA, should be replaced by state agencies.  This means that a tragedy, whether like what we are experiencing now in the Northeast, or the anticipated major earthquake in California, will not bring a national response, but be limited by state resources, all of which are now struggling to maintain existing services. This would become a source of dissension, very similar to what now exists in that other loose confederation of states, the European Union, that is on the brink of economic collapse as the richer nations are reluctant to come to the aid of those in the most economic stress.

Governing a small homogeneous polity is a simple task in itself.  What such entities, whether called states, countries or principalities, lack is the ability to survive natural calamities or invasion by more powerful empires.  This is why entities such as the United States, Great Britain and the Roman Empire are more stable over longer periods, continuously devising cultural, legal and technical innovations to sustain the challenges of diversity.  Living as we do in such a mature society, it is easy to see its problems and contradictions, while losing sight of why they came to be, and how,  in spite of these profound defects, it is still a system worth defending.

We see the artifacts of this grand compromise in our electoral college system of selection of president, which still reflects that era when states were sovereign and would only join this central government if they were ensured certain residual protections. We see it in our Senate, where contrary to democratic principles , each member retains a veto over most legislation.

Given the challenges, the conflicts including a great civil war, that flowed from creating a strong central government under the Constitution we must ask, as we have throughout our history, whether it was the right decision.  The answer has been provided in stark relief,  first by the current experience of the financial crisis of the European Union. But nothing could make it more clear than this "act of God" of Sandy.

The answer will be dramatized over the next few days, as the current president will face the limits of his power to assuage the pain of millions who are victims of this natural disaster. The danger is that the very party that fosters devolution, a virtual return to the Articles of Confederation that would vastly limit the resources to help the victims of this natural disaster, could successfully spin this as a personal failure of the President. What must be articulated clearly to voters, is how achievement of the Republican goal of devolution would make consequences of this tragedy so much worse; beyond more suffering of its victims, it would become a crisis that endangers the very cohesion of our nation.

Devolution is dissolution.  Mitt Romney, by advocating his party's principle of  transfer of power from the United States government to the states, is breaching what he has stated is sacred to him,  a pledge to maintain "one nation indivisible."  While he has stated that he takes the Pledge of Allegiance to be his own personal oath,  his expressed intention to weaken the federal government, to deny it the authority and funding that makes us a nation, is an inherent denial of that Pledge's central affirmation of intrinsic unity.

Whether or not there is a God -- one who is all powerful and all wise who sent this storm, or whether it was caused by natural forces -- how we are able to respond, either as a country unified in spirit and in law or as individual states, will be shaped by the choice we make on Tuesday.  In this respect it is either a repudiation or affirmation of the central thrust of that decision made in Philadelphia in 1789.  The signers knew that their document, this Constitution, was fraught with challenges.  We are now being asked whether it is still worth defending in view of the complex diverse country that we have become.

At the very least, it is worthy of our serious evaluation.




 




Tea Party Democrat in tight Congressional Win

This is a first draft of an exploration of the consequences of a single ad in a congressional election.   Since I have used this for a link, I'm keeping it live  even though it has been reworked.  The latest version is here. 


November 8, 2012

The academic version of this is,  "Memes or Ratiocination"

Using two words for a title that are unknown to a target audience is contrary to all recommendations for writers.  The words represent contrasting ways of knowing, of comprehending the world.  They describe not only the quality of the message, but also the originator and the target, be it the speaker and the audience, the teacher and the student or the candidate and the voters.

The dictionary explanations don't quite get to the crux of the distinctions. They go into the differences in process such that for for meme,  "an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture," or the same dictionary source for ratiocination , "the process of exact thinking : reasoning , a reasoned train of thought."

This misses the essence, that Meme is the use of common expressions that are felt more than understood, that provide cohesion within groups without the need for the exploration and understanding that is an integral part of ratiocination. As an example, in mass media reports on medical research, the results are described as "significant" which is both a meme and a datum of ratiocination.  The reporter often does not know the difference, and the reader has to guess which one it is.  I wrote this essay for those who want more details.

Ratiocination is "book learning" rather than what we get from the "school of hard knocks."  It is also a cause for suspicion of candidates for public office that must be avoided, as Mitt Romney's fluency in French was mostly hidden from the public.  In America such intellectual skill is something that will lessen a central quality for winning elected office, being a person you would want to share a beer with. This is so important that Romney's ability to communicate in a major language of diplomacy had to be downplayed, rather than promoted as something that would have been a benefit in his navigating foreign affairs.

The immediate occasion for this essay is a congressional campaign that has just ended where the use of the two esoteric concepts of my title is the best way to explore the message of one candidate, the Democrat Scott Peters.    This is in a new district, California's 52, where the entrenched incumbent Brian Bilbray was redistricted into a competitive demographic that resulted in a photo finish, the votes still being recounted as I write this.

Now, to make this essay clear, I have to bring in some "book learning" or what is the modern equivalent, evidence of researching concepts beyond the immediate emotional meaning.  And so, before I begin, I have to clarify some terms, that I expect most readers will know, yet as I will demonstrate, I can no longer be sure of.

Lets start with something that is in the headlines now that has been discussed for over a year.  It is called The Fiscal Cliff,  an unusual piece of legislation passed in August of 2011 that was meant to be so onerous that it would never actually be implemented,  but to get us past the stalemate between the two parties that was about to close down the federal government.  It provided that if Congress did not produce a bipartisan budget, the draconian across-the-board spending cuts would take effect on January 2, 2013.

I have copied below the full press release on Candidate Peter's advertisement  with the link to the video here.   There are several key points:  Peters is running as a Democrat, and as such the major ideological opposition is the Tea Party, whose ideology has become the unanimous position of the Republican House of Representatives, including that of Peter's opponent.  The essential long term goal of this opposition is known as broadly as "austerity," the primary goal being reduction of the a country's deficit through "balancing the budget.;" and given they have signed commitments against any increase in taxes, this must be achieved through decreasing government services   While it is universally agreed that in the long term the deficit must be reduced, no one in political life is suggesting that it be done immediately at this time of worldwide economic recession.  The reason that the term "cliff" has been adopted for the aforementioned Budget Control Act of 2011 is that it is seen as an immediate ending of the inherent stimulus of federal expenditures that would precipitate an economic disaster.

This brings us to the content of Scott Peters' advertisement. It is important to note that this is meant to influence voters in one of the more educated and wealthy districts of our country.  90% of adults have at least a high school degree and forty percent a bachelors or advanced degree.  These are people that would be expected to know the adverse consequences of a precipitous balanced budget.

The text of the ad, certainly tested carefully on focus groups, was a seriously considered decision, being the final thrust of one of the country's most expensive House campaigns.  I will show that this demonstrates the ascendancy of memes, over ratiocination, of appeals to emotion over cognition, a growing trend that has debased the essential principle of democratic governance.

The last part of the 30 second video begins with Peters strolling along the beach, and with the words , "....I say no budget no pay."  With this he hopes to bond with the voters who have disdain for all legislators, implying that their salary, their main incentive,  should be withheld for lack of performance .   "If congress doesn't do their job to balance the budget," with a shrug indicating how simple the solution is, he concludes with, "They don't get a pay check."  The ad continues with the pro forma, "I'm Scott Petters and I approve this message," closing with a firm, "Enough is Enough."

I'm sure this tested well, that it will be taken by the viewers as differentiating him from those grubby legislators, especially the one he wants to unseat, who just builds up his pension while not taking the difficult stands that could ameliorate the nations structural problems.  The profound irony is that he makes his argument by using, and thus perpetuating, the most egregious defects in our political mass communication.

While he blames his opponent for not finding a way to avoid The Fiscal Cliff, his solution is to propose that congress pass a law that would, if ever adopted, not only speed the country to this economic precipice, but would lead to even a greater economic catastrophe.  What he is proposing, in a friendly casual way while enjoying his stroll on the beach, is not the Fiscal Cliffs activation, which would require an immediate withdrawal from the national economy of a half a trillion dollars, but one that would be twice as severe.

This casual proposal by a man who is running for the national legislature is not supported by any mainstream academic or political school of thought, as even the Paul Ryan budget, passed unanimously by the Republicans in the house, does not project a balanced budget until many decades in the future.  This campaign ad, one addressed to a literate audience, sheds a harsh bright light on two aspects of American culture in the second decade of the 21st century that are deeply troubling,  The first is the decline of ratiocination among even educated Americans; the second is the increase in political tribalism that makes it acceptable to those who understand its harmful consequences.

I have to believe that Scott Peters and his team were well aware of the contradictions I describe in this essay, yet they chose to toss the dice by running this ad.  I assume that if I were to pose the question off the record, "Do you really advocate a balanced federal budget in your first term." that Peters would admit that he was being cynical and he knew it."

It is not only the advertisement that made his point, In an interview on this local news program, San Diego 6 in the Morning on November 1,  he dispelled an ambiguity of his proposal.  He ignored its political impossibility and, since the interviewer was clueless about such things as government finance and took him seriously, he affirmed his position with,   "Look, if you can't balance the budget every year, which is your job, then you shouldn't get a paycheck"

There are other questions that flow from this.  Did he believe that those in his "tribe" who are committed Democrats will condone his using this reverse jujitsu  to make voters feel that he is just like them, someone they could "share a beer with."  Or would he argue that this is now the nature of politics, that  the currency of mass marketing of candidates is memes rather than ratiocination, and to abandon this irrational emotional language would be unilateral disarmament.

This is the first major election after the Citizen's United decision unleashed unlimited cash to swamp the media with political ads, mostly negative. What this election has shown is that the worst fear of the effect of this decision on campaigns didn't come to pass.  This decision was based on, among other less noble reasons, the belief that the American voters will not be swayed by a deluge of advertisements, but can understand enough of the central issues to make an informed decision.  Peters' ad described here is counter to this premise. He was not providing any information on either the fiscal choices to be made, or his position on them.  By distorting the reality of what a balanced budget means, he is not providing any counterbalance to the effect of unlimited emotional messages allowed by this decision. 

While in the prepared ad he carefully avoided stating he would propose  "No budget no pay" as a law, keeping open the defense that he only expressed his  opinion,  In his television interview, by defending this position, he confirmed that this is exactly what he intended to do.

There is one defense, a justification of Peters action described here.  What if because of this dishonest proposal, Peters does get the extra votes to win the seat in the House?  And because of this, he is instrumental, along with a few members from the other side of the aisle, in forming a coalition to pass a reasonable budget. Will this be vindication for his distortion, his adopting a Tea Party meme to win the election.

If Democrats want to validate their claim of being the "reality party" those members who flout its principles must be called to account.  Whether such pandering described here results in victory or defeat, this is secondary to the damage done to the integrity of our political system.

In the election campaign just completed, with hundreds of thousands of advertisements, almost all that make spurious personal attacks on the opponent that avoid actual issues, why would this one be notable?  First, it shows how universal this is, extending to this district that is among the most educated, including the prestigious U.C.S.D campus.  It demonstrates how far we have deviated from the essential element of democratic governance, that universal suffrage requires informed involved voters.  Second, this overt counter-factual claim  provides a natural epidemiological event that can be mined by surveys of the reaction by party affiliation. Is this type of distortion now so commonplace that it is simply dismissed as meaningless.   Does this win elections, and if so at what cost.

Will Scott Petter's victory, by use of memes, advance this irrational modality as the universal language of elections.  And if so, what is this thing we call a democracy, where the sovereigns, the people, have no clue as to the nature of the most pressing issues of the day, yet choose those who will shape the country's policies that address them.

At the very least, this documented example of cynical political speech should be examined, not to castigate the individual Scott Peters, but as an object lesson for those who revere this noble, but fragile,  experiment in Constitutional democracy.

--------
Full copy of Scott Peter's campaign page. 

“If Congress can’t balance the budget, they don’t get a paycheck.”

San Diego – In a new 30-second television advertisement launched today, congressional candidate Scott Peters says he supports the concept of ‘No Budget, No Pay’ as a way to hold representatives accountable for doing their jobs, which includes working together to pass a federal budget.

“Congress’s inability to reach agreement on a federal budget caused America’s credit rating to be downgraded for the first time in our history. It led us to this fiscal cliff that threatens jobs, our economy and even national security,” said Peters.

“Yet Congressman Bilbray counts the draconian cuts forced by sequestration as a hallmark example of bipartisan work,” he added. “I think it’s a disaster; I say members of Congress shouldn’t get paid if they don’t do their jobs.”

In the ad, Peters says, “It’s time Congress worked for us. I say – no budget, no pay. If Congress doesn’t do their job and balance the budget – they don’t get a paycheck.”

The process known as sequestration resulted from the inability of Congress to compromise and reach agreement on a federal spending plan. The draconian across-the-board cuts, supported by Brian Bilbray, could mean the loss of 30,000 defense-related jobs in San Diego County alone, as well as the loss of billions of dollars of investment in science and research. These together could cripple San Diego’s economy.

“Congress is broken. To change it, we need to change the people we send there, and we need to hold our representatives accountable,” he said.
------------
Link to post election N.Y. Times article  that describes Internet data mining, such as part of the decision making resulting in what is described here,  in making manipulations such memes more effective





 

"Arbeit Macht Frei" Thinking about Capital Punishment

November 4, 2012

I wrote the essay below based on the dark side of Proposal 34 to abolish capital punishment.  They are legitimate concerns, a reaction to the illusion that it will be an unalloyed advance for society.  Yet, the proposal is a referendum on reality, the dysfunctional operation of California's penal system's treatment of condemned prisoners.  It could be that their death penalty gives them a more full existence during the interminable delays compared to those who were spared, and only received life without parole.

I'll include in the addendum, the words of  L.A. Times Columnist, George Skelton, who in spite of being in favor of the death penalty in principle, nevertheless is voting for this bill to abolish it.

October 1, 2012

"Arbeit Macht Frei",  meaning "Work makes Free", the sign that greeted those condemned people entering Auschwitz during WWII, was brought to my mind by the California proposition 34 in this 2012 election.  This bill is a political document, as such its elements can be thought of as "memes," which are the values encompassed in the slogans that we all internalize in thinking about public issues.

Capital punishment is one of those issues central to the cultural divide that separate Americans, largely, defined by the two parties.  Liberals consider themselves more thoughtful, and as such less willing to take strong action, something ridiculed by the other party as weakness or political correctness.  So, ending the death penalty is generally supported by Democrats over Republicans by two to one.

Because this bill (an alternate term for the proposed law) must get bipartisan support, it is crafted with some unusual elements that make it more palatable to the compassionate liberals as well as hard nosed conservatives.  As such, in my view, the outcome is both a moral and pragmatic abomination.

There is a central assumption that must be questioned before proceeding, which is that the alternative to execution, life without parole, is the more benign punishment.  There are several ways of getting at the subjective experience of the two sentences, one being the number of suicides among those with no possibility of ever leaving prison.  Each attempted suicide is a vote for the premise that death under these circumstances is their wish, being less onerous than life in prison.  This puts a different slant on this bill, not that it is more humane but actually more cruel to those who must endure it.   This article in The Economist illustrates this:

The chance that a given prisoner will end his or her life in prison is not unusually high.  It is for lifers. At 8% of the prison population, and less than 1% of receptions, they account for 21% of suicides. Murderers and men who expect to die in jail are particularly likely to perish at their own hand.

California executes only the "worst of the worst," as determined by a mandated second punishment trial by the jury, and publicly funded automatic appeals.  Only these determined to have more aggravating than mitigating circumstances are sentenced to death, with very few actually executed  These few represent that wrath of society as expressed by jurors; and then receive the  most expansive protection of the judicial system to ensure that there are no errors of evidence, prosecution or process.

Let me stop to make one thing clear, that I happen to believe that miscarriages of justice including in murder trials do happen, and worse, that they fall disproportionately to the impoverished and to racial minorities.  What I am suggesting, is the attempt to deal with this by the current proposition is based on unfounded, even if widely held, beliefs that have unexamined adverse consequences.

Our highest courts have determined that execution is the single punishment that requires a review of every aspect of the trial, allowing the convicted individual a taxpayer funded appeal to a higher court.  Since this is not mandated for a prison term, it is the cost of this that makes capital punishment more expensive than life in prison.

The most frequently relied upon forensic evidence is now being demonstrated to be far from the valid science that the public, and jurors, have been led to believe. The savings of money that this bill describes will be from eliminating the valuable effect of scrutiny by appeals courts, and the public focus on such cases, that have shown the limits of forensic science that have convicted uncountable innocent defendants.  If the death penalty is to be abolished, it must not mean the end of focusing, by the court and the public, on the many deep injustices that define our criminal justice system.  Appeals courts must continue to monitor convictions of what had been capital crimes,  treating life without parole as they now treat executions,  not based on ability to pay but randomly selected.  If we remove the universality of appeals oversight, we are left with such review only being for those with wealth, missing the demographic most likely to suffer from systemic lack of fair representation due to limits of funding for public defenders.

This proposition should raise some profound issues that should be part of the public conversation.   The first is on the concept of punishment itself, something that has only been accepted in recent decades in this country and not an overriding purpose in others.  In Mexico, not only is there no capital punishment, but there is no life without parole. In fact,  Mexico will not extradite to the U.S. anyone who faces, not only the death penalty, but even life in prison.  While the conditions of their prisons make a mockery of this formal legal proscription, nevertheless it exists in principle.

While the penological principle of redemption in practice in Scandinavian countries such as Norway is rooted in theological and enlightenment era values, current neuroscience (article here, my comment 8th down) has provided some increasing new insights into causation that question the very concept of free will, the absence of which makes punishment itself a non sequitur.

But, most of civilization is stuck with a model of punishment for that which society condemns, that which we label "crimes." This is reinforced by the illusion enshrined in the final affirmation of our national pledge of our being a nation of, "....justice for all."   The only requirement is that such imposed suffering of the perpetrator is proportionate to the suffering he or she inflicted on the victim and the broader community.

Now we get to another central element of proposition 34 from the official summary:

"This measure specifies that every person found guilty of murder must work while in state prison and have their pay deducted for any debts they owe to victims of crime, subject to state regulations."

This is what brought to mind the sign over Auschwitz as well as the chain gangs that could be seen along the side of southern roads decades ago.  Or is it to be something completely different;  actually providing the satisfaction that work is meant to bring to people.  Will the workers eventually be allowed to unionize to ensure decent conditions-as the product of their labor will be in competition with that of other citizens; or will it go the other way, and become the worst expression of slave labor, with productivity being enforced by the threat of.....what is the threat to one who has already been sentenced to life without parole?  Is it  to be put in solitary, which would mean he wouldn't have to work at all, or is in the "hole,"  a dark cramped place with nothing to occupy his mind except recurring visions of a nightmare life.  Perhaps during this period, when the full extent of his miserable existence becomes inescapable, perhaps with memories of his childhood, probably surrounded by the most brutal violence by those who were to care for him, perhaps he will long for release, for ending the suffering.

But it will not be possible.  He will be allowed no implements of self destruction, which means that the pain shall have no relief, that he will endure the suffering until a natural death, fed, housed and perpetuated under the edicts of the law that citizens of this state shall decide on within the next few weeks.

This bill is carefully crafted to have something for everyone.  If you want to see those killers suffer even more, this is the ticket, as they will rot in jail for the rest of their lives.  "So what if a few may not have actually committed the actual crime they are convicted of, they probably have done worse, so no big deal;  and this will make it easier to send a lot of "them" away, with no intrusive appeals courts second guessing the juries."

And those who think this as humane, the elimination of a civilized society taking the life of a human being, so ending the possibility of killing an innocent person, you have the same bill to get this done.  All it takes is ignoring the adverse consequences described here:

This bill would impose what for many is a harsher punishment than execution.

The details of the work requirement are not defined, so they will either soften or exacerbate the punishment.

It eliminates the universal appeals process that results in fairer trials.

It removes the public abhorrence of false guilty decision when the result is execution, thus possibly increasing such errors.

We should not imbue the act of execution, of taking a life by due process of law, with all of life's injustices, whether forensic, juridical or existential.  Many of the  protections against failures of our legal system only apply to capital punishment, so the elimination of the punishment will also eliminate these protections, such as automatic appeals for the indigent.  The abolitionist impulse must be directed to the deeper causes that are much more entrenched, to grave injustices that will only become more routine, less disturbing with the abolition of the most shocking manifestation of these harsh realities.
--------------------
--------------------
On October 23, the L.A. Times printed my letter: Death row vs. solitary, that made several points in this essay.  The letter expanded on this article in Mother Jones Magazine describing Solitary Confinement in California Prisons.

The politically motivated massacre of 90 campers in Norway, threw in sharp relief the contrast between that country's redemption oriented penology, where the killer will serve a maximum of 21 years in a comfortable setting to our own system, with a meaningful commentary in this N.Y. Times OpEd,  Justice? Vengeance? You Need Both  The contrast between the two countries is explored in this article, In Sentencing Criminals, Is Norway Too Soft...
------------------
George Skelton's views from the LA Times of Nov. 4

•Prop. 34 would abolish the death penalty and replace it with life in prison without the possibility of parole. But, in essence, California's death penalty was eliminated long ago. We're paying for it, just not getting it.

There have been only 13 executions in the last 34 years and none since 2006. There are 729 killers housed on San Quentin's death row, living in single-bunk cells with TVs and extensive yard privileges.

The question is not whether we should have capital punishment. We should. But we're apparently incapable. So give up the costly charade. Double-bunk the murderers with other inmates, make them work and save $130 million a year. Stop dumping tax money down a rat hole.





Abortion, Execution and California Prop 34

Sometimes diving into a heated issue, in this case opposing the California Proposition 34 to end the death penalty, can be a surprising source of insight.  It was not to come in response to my arguments, addressed specifically to those who are referred to as being "socially liberal" as there was a willful avoidance of addressing them.  That is until it was picked up in a letter printed in the L.A. Times, that rather than a point by point rebuttal, the response was outrage that I supported this "barbaric" punishment.

Realizing that appeals to reason to the defense appellate lawyer who excoriated me was useless,  I started thinking more about the intensity of her reaction.  In an instant, the appearance of my letter had turned me into the enemy, one who deserved the full hatred directed to those apostates of all stripes who abandon the fold.  While civilized people, like us --perhaps, do not really stone to death those who abandon our deeply held beliefs,  we do maintain the precursors to such violence.  They are nurtured, not in the mosque or midnight torch-lit rallies, but in a visceral contempt for those "unfaithfuls."

Taking of another human life elicits powerful conflicting emotions.  The first is inhibitory, a constraint against acting on impulses that could destroy the cohesion of the group.  The paradox is that this inherent inhibition to kill is poised against the equally essential imperative to commit the same violence to defend the group. This killing of enemy outsiders or internal traitors is mandated at every scale, from street gang to nation.  The unleashed anger over the death penalty issue, solves a puzzle for me, connecting the individual with the political, organism to super-organism.

It becomes clear there is common element of the two most divisive issues of our cultural divide, capital punishment and abortion-one that may not be evident, or even comprehensible to those who are most passionate about them.  In both cases a human life is being ended, either it being one in utero-- or an adult convicted of a breach of the most central tenet of the group, which we define as murder.

Human cognition is not a linear algorithm, rather it evolved from our phylogenic ancestors who had to deal with lethal competitors with a brain of far less processing capacity than has eventually evolved.  It does not work by first assessing all the variables, and then calculating the most viable course of action, as by the time we had done that our pre-human precursors would have been dead.  Rather they formed an instant picture, what is now called a "gestalt" that identified, categorized and triggered an energizing reaction that played itself out, either by escape, or by vanquishing the threatening individual.

As tribes evolved into larger groups, human culture was largely the process of defining individuals into friends or foes, those who we may kill and those whom we must protect from death.  Such labeling, whether by the tattoos of street gangs or the epithets cast at political opponents are only thinly disguised representations of such primal instincts.

And so the social-liberal recognizes no contradiction in dehumanization of the organism who has yet to emerge from the womb, while identifying with the humanity of one who has violated the central core value of his society.  The semantic trick of objectifying such fetuses works because it seems to obviate the contradiction.   So liberals always use the sterile word "fetus" and conservatives depict those to be killed as "monsters."

This paradox certainly extends to the generic social conservative, who has conceptually banished such murderers from the fold,  his execution being the natural culmination of his inhumanity.  Yet, for this conservative in spite of the fetus having none of the cultural cognitive attributes of personhood, he is viewed as a member of society to be protected from harm.

There is one more aspect of this analysis, which is that culture, its use of language to evoke primal emotions,  has the capacity to become a force unto itself even in the absence of the dangers that formed the primitive responses.  In the United States, to be a conservative or a liberal is to espouse its core values, which define perceptions that override the weak effect of reason on human affairs.

As such, today's conservative incorporates an identifying article of faith that opposes killing a fetus, even though it was universally accepted in the English speaking world before the first trimester until the mid 19th century.  And certainly capital punishment was equally accepted at that time, as among our founders there was no opposition to referencing it specifically in the Constitution.  These were a group of men who internalized the enlightenment values of their era who never entertained the conceit that a world without those who deserved to die for their crimes would ever exist.

What these writers of our Constitution did understand to a person, was the dangers of what they called factions and what we now refer to as political parties.  These men, some from slave holding states and others who abhored the institution, some from agricultural areas and others commercial, some Christians and others agnostics, still were able to forge a uniting document.

They so feared factions that they tried to make their formation structurally impossible, assuming or hoping, that the person who came in second in the election for president would would share enough values to become the vice president.  They must have understood that factions not only reflect differences, but that they thrive on them and must create them when they do not exist.  Their fears have been shown to be correct.

My carefully crafted essay pointing out un-noted adverse consequences of the proposed law that would end the death penalty was never to be evaluated on its merits, but like all things in the ever increasing domain of partisan politics became an identifier of my substance, whether I was a friend or a foe, with the emotional reaction that has little to do with the actual points that I made.

I will try not be affected by the antipathy of those who feel that I am no longer a member of their club, any more than I welcome the affiliation of those who see the sharing of rejection of this particular proposal as making me one of them.  I embrace anyone who addresses my observations, who then refines them by either support or refutation.   If I identify with anyone, it is with those who are attempting to find a way out of our descent into an ever more hateful politics of personal destruction..

Benjamin Franklin, when asked about the nature of the constitution he had just helped craft, famously described it as, "A Republic, if you can keep it."  It was a cryptic comment that many have thought and written about.  For the first time, I think I know what he may have meant.













Lee Boyd Malvo Interview

This is for only for those who have listened to the entire seventy five minute interview on the Washington Post of Lee Boyd Malvo,

A synopsis of his life can be found in this Wikipedia article.  He is serving a life term for multiple murders in the D.C. area when he was 17 years old a decade ago.  I'll start with this comment that I wrote after the article in the Post.

Lee Boyd Malvo was a lost child whose mother ignored him when not expressing complete hatred. He found what he needed the most, someone who would acknowledge his existence. His suffering was so great at one point that he attempted suicide, and his mother responded by "beating him to a bloody pulp"
What Lee needed was simple human contact, and he found it. It could have been someone else, maybe someone who is reading this. We channel our emotion over his murders into hatred of Lee, as that is relatively easy. Will any of us seek out those like him, those children who are desperate and give them our time. Will I have the courage to call school districts with the most dysfunctional families and try to relate to a child.
Lee is not making excuses, as there is no reason to. His fate is sealed and he knows it. He is describing his existence, how his need was an opening for the disturbed man John Muhammad who was the puppeteer whom he followed when he first met him when he was only fourteen years old.  It could have been Rev. Jim Jones, or any cult figure, or an abusive spouse, or a pimp......any one who would provide attention, and what passes for affection.  
Lee is describing a common social psychological phenomenon, that is only differentiated by cultural norms from what he described as "child soldiers" throughout the third world, but also our own military, where we desensitize young adults to the inborn resistance to killing another human. If he had been an American Marine, or a SEAL, his singular focus on killing the enemy, as it would have been validated by our patriotic values, would have made him a hero. 
One of the messages of this interview is the insight that it provides to those who have been in the midst of military combat, who suffer some of the same regret, but are prevented from full release by it being considered not something that is shameful, but heroic.   
I plan to listen to this again, and write more extensively on what we as a society can learn from Lee's experience. Those who feel only contempt for this murderer, that this interview is giving a platform for someone who deserves only the worse punishment, will not be able to accept  my approach. Yet, out of this tragedy the only good that could come form it would be increased understanding of the human condition.  

Malvo's erudition, even his mispronunciation of certain words, shows that he learned the hard way, not in a classroom, but by reading books where the pronunciation can be ambiguous.   His fate was not preordained, as he is highly intelligent with a profound thirst for knowledge.  Those whom he killed, and the penumbra of these deaths, the extensive "exponential  harm" that he himself describes to neighbors and communities need not have happened. Personally, I will not be satisfied to simply punish this man, nor do I reject his being punished.  The tragedy, one that we do control, would be not to learn anything from his life.
-----------------------
This is a link to the report by the Psychologist Steve Eichel who was part of the defense team that prevented him from being executed.

Aunt Lena, as she is leaving us

9/6/2012

-From Dailykos, a political website-

She was there when I came home with my mother in 1940 to the house where we were all living on North Avenue and Smallwood St. in Baltimore. She and Uncle Sam had no kids of their own, so when her sister Minnie had a second, I'm sure there were some mixed feelings, perhaps a tinge of regret, but also joy in another child to love. She was 37 at the time, born in Poland on March 1 1903. The exact date is uncertain as no birth records survived emigration. She once showed me the letter from her elementary school that the date of birth was reconstructed from existing records.

Now she is probably dying as I start to write this and could well be gone when I post it, or when you read it. Four days ago she didn't stir when the aids in the assisted living facility tried to wake her for breakfast, and has kept on sleeping now into the fourth day. I just spoke to the head nurse, a caring woman named Reba, who had just been in her room. She told me she is peaceful, and does not respond to attempts to wake her.

I'm writing this to capture my own memories, and to share with those who may be interested, some who may know me from when I used to write frequently on this site. No politics here, just sharing my feelings with unseen friends, and some lost real flesh and blood friends. I've only visited Aunt Lena four times from our home in Southern California since she moved from her apartment to the assisted living facility six years ago. She never wanted anyone to know her age so I crossed it out in the label on the walker they all are required to use. Alert when she moved in, time has taken its toll and she no longer recognized me or Sheila in April when we visited, but we all pretended that she did.

If Anyone may disagrees with the decision not to seek emergency care to forestall this course of ending, let me assure you that this was discussed with Aunt Lena a few years ago when she was still able to talk about these things, and I even videoed the conversation. For those with very elderly family members, this can be useful, and it can be in the form of a conversation without being morbid, just reaching an understanding. It also provides certainty at times like this when the loved one can't participate in the decision of preserving their own life.

At the time of this discussion she was in her own apartment, still walking a couple miles round trip for grocery shopping at 103 years old, and fixing blintzes for Sheila and me in the morning after our camping out on the blowup bed in the living room. Those were delightful visits, walks in the neighborhood, sitting all together on the sofa watching TV, even playing a special three handed game of Bridge with the fourth person played by a box that we called Mr. Matzos. At 102, she could do all this. She was somewhat amused at her still being alive then, and had no desire to go for a record. She said, "I never thought I would turn out like this" meaning not being able to take care of the house, or be active in things. She berated herself for not being a "mensh" a Yiddish concept of a responsible capable human being. I challenged her on that, saying that she is every bit the mensh, but she was clear, "When you can't go out, enjoy life, it's over" No regrets, no sadness, no remorse...."its over." She could have added in Yiddish, "Fatig" It's done.

My Mother, Lena's sister Minnie, two years older and gone now for two decades, was quite different from her.  Minnie was the difficult child, probably born a half century too early, having the drive and smarts that could in no way, not in that orthodox Jewish working class home, be fulfilled as a female of that era.  She had to fight her father to finish high school, and reached the highest level of the very low glass ceiling, being a bookkeeper, which was also what Lena did when she worked.  Lena was the younger, sweeter girl who was loved by her parents, while my mother was a thorn in their side, an unfortunate tradition that was continued with her own children.

109 years and 191 days of life as of this writing . I don't think Aunt Lena went to a doctor more than a few dozen times in her entire life, which says something about lucky genes, and maybe of the benefits of staying clear of these guys and the medications that just may have a cumulative effect . Even now, she is not on any medication. But age takes its toll. When we visited her last April she hardly ate any solid food, so the serving staff put extra sugar in her decaf, which sustained her these last months.

Only a few people out of a hundred thousand survive to this age, and I can't help wondering what proportion, like Lena, have avoided long term medication for chronic conditions.  She never smoked, hardly drank alcohol and only was sexually intimate with one man, her husband.  She never gave any thought to her diet, eating what she wanted to, ice cream, waffles, vegetable soup, whatever was convenient. And her long walks to the grocery store until the last few years provided exercise, without making it a conscious goal.  I don't think she felt much stress, or nurtured any anger at anyone, and didn't worry about her own health , or had any time for regrets.

Random Memories:

When I was very young she would read to me and my sister in bed from a book of bible stories. She had just read the story of Sampson, and at the end she asked what was the moral of the story. I was excited because I knew the answer, "He shouldn't have pulled down the pillars that held up the roof because when he did he killed himself." It wasn't exactly the answer that Aunt Lena had in mind, even though it seems so obvious to me. But, she didn't laugh at me, and even though I realized I didn't get it, something about his selling out his principles (maybe I still don't get it) there was no ridicule, just affection, and the comfort of the three of us in bed together.

After the war, that's WWII, getting a letter from a relative from "overseas." and looking at the strange script. We waited until Uncle Irving could come over as he was one of the few who could read Yiddish handwriting. I don't remember much, just the intensity of the moment, the first connection with a cousin whom they didn't know had survived as so few who remained in Poland had.

My Uncle Irving, a few years younger than Lena was drafted late, but I had no memory of him as the war came to a close. He served his time in England and never saw combat, but to Arlene and me it was always as we raised our glass of milk, "Drink to Uncle Irving, the man who won the war" And then there was that day, when my mother who had spent my short life telling me not to make noise, handed me a pot and a big spoon and told me to march around the block with all the neighbors and make all the noise I could. It was VJ day, and the war was over.

Uncle Sam died when Lena was in her seventies, and she was on her own, maintaining the little house in Colonial Village, even painting the kitchen a bright blue by herself while in her nineties, and doing a really good job.  She learned how to drive made the trip to see my mother in Washington frequently  They would join with one of their buddies, Irene,  to watch my Sister's three girls when they took a vacation enjoying their venture like an extended sleepover.  Once, when Lena bumped a car in front of her, Oh, when she was in her early 80s, she knew driving was no longer a good idea, and sold the car.

Aunt Lena was born in a shtetl where the only people she saw were Jews, and those outside, where Goyem. My Mother described her memories, including not being allowed to walk in the park in the nearby city, as signs said Jews and Dogs were specifically excluded.  Lena, being a a year and a half younger, leaving at around five, may not have had these memories.  Her earliest one was getting lost at the Baltimore port of entrance, and her big sister finding her.

Jews, especially those of that era, had a fragile sense of security in this country. My own childhood did not include discussions of politics beyond a brief comment on the daily headlines. The earliest explanation of political parties was when my father said, "Republicans are for the rich and Democrats are for the poor, so we are Democrats." Made sense in in 1948, and still seems to apply pretty much to this day.

And finally there is this story. She was packing up to move from her house to an apartment and giving away many of her belongings that wouldn't fit. As we were ending a visit to return to our Manhattan apartment on a Sunday evening, I asked about one item, a depression era colored glass vase. She said that this she wanted to keep as it belonged to her mother and had a special meaning. But then, she thought again and said, "No, No, you an Sheila should have it, take it with you" I protested, but now she insisted that she wanted us to have it. It was a long drive home, and I was exhausted when we got to our garage. We got our dog on the leash, opened the trunk and got the luggage and I noticed a blanket in the corner. Thinking what could that be doing there, I pulled on it, and.....out came the vase crashing to the pavement.

Heart sick, I thought I would not have to tell Lena, as I usually called once a month in those days and she probably wouldn't bring it up. The time came, and we chatted a bit on the phone, and then she asked, "how are you enjoying the vase?" I told her exactly what happened, and then her response that will always be the essence of who she was to me, "Oh, don't worry about it, If I had kept it I probably would have broken it myself."

It helps me to write this, to document memories that will soon no longer be accessible to me, as at this moment I can't be in the room with Aunt Lena making sure she is comfortable. Ironically there was a type of reversal just recently that sustains the irrational hope that she will wake up, and soldier on for a few more months, or even years. She had suddenly lost her hearing about two years ago, and the consensus that I never fully bought into, was that it was nerve deafness and to try to even investigate whether it was something as simple as impacted wax, would not be wise given her fragile condition. So, just as I had given up on ever hearing her voice on the phone, one day when my sister was visiting she called and said, "Lena can hear." and we had a few words together. So, maybe it will happen again. Maybe I'll get a call from Reba telling me that Lena woke up, and asked for a drink of water and some food, and they gave it to her, and she felt better, and went down for dinner. So, as I type these words there is no finality, there is still hope, something that does not even come from this adult at all.

Even Reba won't preclude this possibility, as she told me that anyone else would have died within a day or two of not taking any liquids. Reba has seen hundreds, thousands perhaps of these transitions and without sounding callous, it become a routine. But Lena is different she told me, so she can't say anything for sure, about when, or even if, the end will come.

Aunt Lena was born into a a village in Poland surrounded by unfettered hatred against her people. Pogroms that killed thousands of Jews, with no punishment to the perpetrators, occurred close by in The Pale of the Settlement in the year of her birth. Her father made the decision to come to America in 1908, while those of the family who stayed, including many of my generation, were mostly killed in wars or the holocaust.

When Aunt Lena first moved to the assisted living facility in 2006 she loved to look at the old pictures of her family, and her little book she had kept for decades with the dates of births and deaths. We would go over them and she would get pleasure thinking about them, and looking at the pictures. And then remarking on my own biographical details, and my also being a relative she said something that has great meaning to the effect. "Yes, but you are more than that, you are also my friend."

When I once asked her about her father, my grandfather whom I never knew, she hesitated, and then said simply, "All I remember is that he loved me." And I think that she also knew at the same deep level that her nieces, nephews, and certainly this nephew, this friend, also loved her dearly.
------------------
Saturday Sept 8, noon,  six days since Lena has taken any nourishment.  I wait to get the call that she is gone.  




















Pornography and Rape- A difficult subject

August 2, 2012

I caught the last ten minutes of this segment, How A Photo Cracked Open A Child Porn Ring, on Public Radio this morning and was profoundly disturbed on many levels.  As I embark on writing about this I take courage in the words of William James, one of the founders of modern psychology in the late 19th century, who when trying to counter the national mania for going to war with Spain, wrote, "reason has always been a feeble force in human affairs."   

While the trigger for what has become known as The Spanish American War was the false attribution of the  accidental explosion of the USS Maine in Cuba  to  Spanish sabotage,  this is about an actual event, one that brings a sense of outrage, an impulse to go to war with those who perpetrate it so to punish and erase such scourges from the face of the earth.

This story, Photo e-mailed from Mass. man led to vast global child pornography network,  was first broken in the Boston Globe by reporter Jenifer B. McKim.  In her radio interview she expressed her discomfort in describing the details of those in this ring, of their binding and then raping children who were selected because they would never tell what happened, as they were too young to talk.  Among these perpetrators were not only men who ingratiated themselves to the parents, but long time friends and in one case a father of the child.

In the 1980s there was a rash of accusations of Satanic sexual abuses at day care facilities by teachers. This was fomented by psychologists who used a procedure of cajoling children to tell stories that they described as recovered memories.  Hundreds of lives were ruined as now it is universally concluded that the teachers were absolutely innocent and that no children had been sexually abused.

I have no reason to doubt that what is described here, including the actual rape of infants, did occur. Unfortunately such abhorrent actions by a minuscule number of men, because of the horror of the crime and vividness of the descriptions, will have an effect disproportionate to the aggregate harm done to children. While the number of children maimed and killed by drunk drivers is thousands fold greater than this crime; as details of this Internet ring are promulgated every man who smiles at a child will arouse a shiver of suspicion in a mother.  The remoteness of the chance that such  natural affection is a calculated ploy to open the door to sexual assault is overshadowed by the horror of what could happen.  The message will be conveyed to children, subtly or otherwise, not to trust anyone, especially those that they feel a natural affinity to.

This report will also lead a conflation of the rare crime of violent child sexual rape with possession of child pornography.  Even now, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, possession of such images of children, can be punished as severely as murder. The argument is made that possessing such images ultimately does have a victim, the child who was filmed.  In thinking about this relationship of possession to victim, it must be noted that most states punish illustrations created without a model as severely as images of actual children.

While this story describes a closed ring of perverted individuals who do participate in procuring or encouraging outrages against children, this is not the case with most who are prosecuted for possession of child pornography.  It is reasonable for society to attempt to prevent moral outrages by criminalizing any depiction of it.  This was the justification for making all aspects of any pornography a serious criminal offense as recently as a half century ago.  We have moved so far away from this norm that we now find ourselves in the absurd position of considering pornographic images of 18 year olds an accepted part of our free market activities, while the very same production with someone a year younger is still a criminal offense having the most draconian punishments.

We do not look at what kind of pressures may be imposed on the porno actress, or prostitute or the dangers of this life.  With this acceptance of such activities we have channeled our outrage, our guilt for enjoying what can be the suffering of others into a distorted righteous indignation towards a single group, those who get off on viewing pictures of underage people having sex.  In the vast majority of cases this is innocuous, or the harm is indirect, somewhat like our buying low price goods made by those in unhealthy dismal conditions.  McKim's Boston Globe article included the statement that 85% of those who watch child pornography have assaulted children.  This is based on a single study widely refuted by other research that shows such real abuse at less than five percent.  Viewers of child pornography are guilty of just that, not child sexual assault.

A child is vulnerable to every kind of harm from kidnapping to bullying.....the list is endless. While this story had to be told, the inherent inflammatory element should have required that the caveats against over-reaction be part of the story. This followup article goes further in fanning the flames of such reactions, paving the way for pandering politicians and elected judges to further distort our laws in this area.

Certainly parents must go with their instincts on whom to trust, but this very crime changes their own sensitivity to the possibility of such bizarre perversions. For every person who would sexually assault an infant, there are untold thousands who would risk his life to save a child from harm.

This is a reality that must not be lost in telling this tragic story.

Right wing media control in San Diego

February 9, 2012

San Diego is having a major event this weekend, that's February 11 and 12, 2012, as described here, Successful Aging Expo. It's sponsored by the San Diego Union Tribune, a paper that's just been purchased by a real estate developer, Doug Manchester. I describe my initial concern over this takeover in this OpEd that appeared on an online journal, as the UT is the only print media in town.

These senior extravaganzas are designed to provide direct marketing to the largest growing demographic, those of us of Medicare age or getting close. This is the sales pitch for renting space at this event. It also shows the reach, the political clout of this organization, now controlled by a single man.

If you want to reach active adults over 40, you need to be here.

Reach up to 70% of San Diego's affluent 40+ market by participating in the Union-Tribune's Successful Aging Expo. This all-inclusive expo combines the power of the region's most widely read newspaper and the region's most-visited local Web site with face-to-face interaction. ............

In person. In print. Online.

In addition to booth opportunities at the event, a special preview section allows you reach more than 670,000 readers leading up to the expo. The section will also be available on utsandiego.com, which receives an estimated 29 million page views a month.

The draw to get seniors to attend this free event is information, preferably from people with some credentials who can assist us in navigating a complex world. They prefer legitimate experts, even if they have an agenda, a product, a service, or something else to market to this older crowd. One important speaker (Sunday at 11) is a highly regarded neuroscientist whom I happened to have had extensive correspondence with over the last few months. Jame Brewer heads a group at UCSD that needs a steady stream of volunteers for his program to refine his personal interest in diagnostic MRIs for dementia.

As I was reading one of the full page promotions of this event something struck me. Among the many speakers, Gerontologists, Psychologists, Pharmacy researchers, and Estate planners was this one. I'll include his bio, which was only inserted in the web site today, which could be because of my letter to the management pointing out its absence:

Mike Slater

Mike Slater is the host of the morning show on 760KFMB. His show is dedicated to preserving freedom, liberty and the principles that made America the greatest country in the world. Slater graduated from Yale University and studied history.

Topic: Liberty, ObamaCare and the Future of Healthcare

Overview: "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," commonly known as ObamaCare, was one of the most controversial pieces of legislation passed in recent memory. Now that some of the fog of politics has lifted, what does ObamaCare mean for you? Should the government have a greater role in healthcare? What would a free market in healthcare look like? We'll separate truth from fiction to make sure that you, as well as your kids and grandkids, age successfully.

"Separating truth from fiction" is based on the premise that those such as Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh, mentioned prominently on his website provide such unbiased information to their audiences. You can watch a SlaterCrusader Video of his speech to his usual audience, Tea Party meetings, to form your own conclusion. (see my comments at the end of this essay after listening to his program and talking to him)

I wrote to my contact at the paper, asking him to forward an email to the owner, excerpted here:
The immediate reaction to the new owners statements caused concern throughout the community that this would become a right wing partisan vehicle, and lose the balance that had existed previously. I'm writing this about the Successful Aging Expo this weekend, where with little notice you have included one speaker, Mike Slater, who will reinforce the worst concerns about bias of your organization.

Slater is an avowed "Extremist for Liberty" who's blog and radio show echoes other extremists such as Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh. Far from having any known expertise on issues of aging or of health care, the title of his presentation, "Liberty, Obamacare and the future of Healthcare" promises to be a one sided vilification of his partisan enemies.

This would be appropriate for the Tea Party gathering where he often speaks, but not for this setting.

If this is really what you want to do, obviously it is your choice. But, if you want to keep to the goal of this exposition, his time slot should be replaced with a one on "How evolving Healthcare laws will affect affect seniors" or "Senior political activism" Any description that will encompass more than one man's singular ultra conservative view will be an improvement.




When I received no response, I wrote to Slater, pointing out the inappropriateness of having one side of the political spectrum represented at this event. He responded courteously with this:

Hey Al,

I appreciate your E-mail and your concern about my talk on Sunday. I assure you that I do not plan on it being a political rally. I plan on presenting some arguments related to liberty and healthcare that I think we all should consider when discussing government involvement in healthcare.

I do not pretend for a moment to present an exhaustive analysis of the pros and cons of a 2,000 page piece of legislation. My goal is to talk about some of the bigger principles of healthcare. I hope people leave with a different perspective on this topic than they've ever heard.

I will talk to the people involved about a potential panel discussion.

Thanks for the note, Al, and thanks for your passion on this important topic,

-Mike

A day has passed, I must assume that the "people involved" to whom he suggested a panel discussion, that I volunteered to participate in, have vetoed the idea. What the U.T. wants, what Doug Manchester wants, is for this informational event to be shifted to become a vehicle for liberal bashing. In this world, "liberty" become the antithesis of liberal, and with a steady drumbeat of this, several beliefs are implanted. One is the firm conviction, that President Obama, who has continued the militaristic and economic policies of his predecessor, whose top fiscal appointment is wall street favorite, Timothy Geithner, is a socialist, who if re-elected will impose this on America.

I suppose that anyone who chooses to attend his talk knows what they will be getting from the title. Mike's "truth" about the politics of health care will most certainly not describe the effects of Paul Ryan's budget proposal approved by almost every Republican, that would have eviscerated Medicare. It was so outrageous, that it was watered down a few month's latter as it was too much for even this group.

I would have loved to have been part of presenting a balanced picture of how the healthcare law fits into the scheme of fiscal and political realities. I could show up at his talk and ask a question, make a pointed comment, but it's his venue, even though from his email he seemed open to having a real conversation. His elite educational background indicates that he knows that an argument without rebuttal is inherently a distortion. Right wing talk show hosts do get addicted to that squelch button, and I have no intention of being a foil for such a setting. As a Yale man he must understand the concept of dialectic, truth not as a single view, but as a resultant that emerges from open conversation. Another Yale conservative, William F. Buckley, who welcomed genuine dialogue with those of opposite views, should be his model-rather than Beck or Limbaugh.

I sent Slater the link to this, and he mentioned briefly a "dailykos article" on his talk show, that I describe below. I don't really know much about him, but it could be that he aspires to be more than another right wing media figure who gets rich by stoking the passions of an angry, often clueless audience. Maybe he realizes a drumbeat of accusations, even if unintended, beyond a point becomes dangerous, not only for one's partisan enemies but for our very society. Perhaps a part of him wants to do more than preach to his own choir, as I did when I went against the majority here in my blogs such as this summary that focused on the defect of the healthcare bill that was passed.

-------------
I just got off the phone with Mike in the middle of his Thursday morning radio show. From listening this brief sample he seems respectful of those who call in, kept the show lively and probably has some interesting conversations. If I had a long morning commute, I just might tune him in.

It turns out he had the same idea as I for a panel discussion a few weeks ago, but was unsuccessful in getting it changed to this format. He is planing to describe the problems inherent in government funding of health care,which is something that I described in my own essay linked above. Unfortunately, he won't get into the excesses inherent when the profit motive controls such a vital resource. What is needed is a balanced approach that only comes from thoughtful analysis, which is not what we usually get out of our political system.

He said that he would mention my name which can be searched for this Dailykos essay on his Friday program, something that would go a long way toward demonstrating his own integrity.

Al Rodbell
Encinitas CA