I was able to walk into the library and get a copy of Hillbilly Elegy - meaning it no longer carries the crazy impossible-to-borrow best seller (or borrower?) status it did for so long. Still, I hadn't read it before so it was new to me.
Hillbilly Elegy was a book that was on my want-to-read list, then it was taken off. Then at some point it made it back on. Like many best sellers, I was a bit apprehensive. Some of the criticism in the reviews also steered me away.
But the author lived fairly nearby where I live for much of his life and there was lots of positive about the book. Since I could walk in and get a copy, I did.
I was glad I did as the book was overall quite good. The author being native to the area I now call home and looking at the events and dates in the book - it is very possible our paths may have crossed. Not that I have likely ever met him or talked to him, but he wrote about places and things that are very nearby. While his upwardly mobile path sent him to live in San Francisco, my more lateral path sent me to live in the same rust belt area he called home. Although from the small amount I've read about him since finishing the book, it appears he has since moved back to Ohio to start a nonprofit helping his former community. This is deserving of praise as he now has the background and probably finances to live just about anywhere.
The book doesn't start off that well. The first few chapters are somewhat disjointed and lurchy. He introduces many characters - some of which feature prominently in the book and some of which do not. I had a hard time following many of them and the similar colloquial names did not help.
After those first few chapters, it almost seemed like the author got a different editor as the flow of the writing smoothed out considerably. The narrative started to form as the story began to build.
The story itself is one of J.D. Vance's movement within a transplanted Kentucky hillbilly family - his transformation from a poor and degraded section of Middletown, Ohio to a Yale-educated lawyer.
Some of the complaints I saw about the book took on a racial tone or that he was speaking for only one brand of hillbilly. I think this is unfortunate as he was telling his own story - pointing out what worked for him and what he saw as unsuccessful. One could lob the same accusations at Lac Su for I Love Yous Are for White People as the tale is similar. I never got the impression from the book that he was stating as fact that other people will be able to copy his success directly. But what leads to failure is often much easier to predict and duplicate.
Sadly, many have read and interpreted the book with a political slant. Donald Trump's election to the White House was coincidental to the release of the book, but unless the author has clairvoyance that he doesn't share, the 2016 election was unknown when the book was written. Despite what The Huffington Post or Fox News would like us to believe, not everything is political. His story is an interesting personal narrative - I think it is better to leave it at that.
Outside of the dramatic story, what struck me most was his interaction with some of the more elite of society while at Yale. He describes going to a Cracker Barrel restaurant with some of his classmates who had presumably never been to one before - or any of its ilk of restaurants. To them, it is merely “a greasy public health crisis.” Cracker Barrel is not my favorite places, but on the list of eating establishments I would consider “a greasy public health crisis,” it would not be near the top of the list.
What I found terrifying in this section is the people who consider Cracker Barrel “a greasy public health crisis” are the same people who are, by in large, writing our laws, interpreting our laws and running major corporations in the country. I work with some people who come from privileged background, and I can't think of any of them who don't occasionally go to eat fast food or cheap Chinese take-out. Treating Cracker Barrel as little more than barnyard fodder demonstrates a segment of society that is grossly out of touch with not just the poor and lower-middle class, but even some who would be considered rich.
I can only hope that this is one of a few exaggerations in the book.
Which brings up my main criticism of the text - I think he misses a big point, or doesn't make it forcefully enough.
Everybody makes mistakes and just about everybody makes a few doozies while growing up. What separates the rich from everyone else (or possibly what separates the poor from everyone else) is the ability to recover from those mistakes. The rich have an impossibly large safety net. The poor may have to rely on an overburdened court system which constantly sees similar people continue to make mistakes well into adulthood.
I don't mean that killing a carload of friends while drinking and driving should not have consequences for either the rich or poor. But being able to safely fail is an incredibly important part of learning as anyone grows up.
Peak behind the curtain of the wealthy Yale Law School students and I'm convinced things aren't quite as clean as what the author paints it out to be. Shake those rich family trees hard enough and a few surprises are bound to fall out. But the ability to work through that, to recover from mistakes has a sliding scale from the rich, through the middle-class, to the poor.
Sadly, luck also plays a role. Being fortunate cannot be underestimated.
Because my copy of Hillbilly Elegy came from the library, it had been previously read by an unknown number of other people. One reader had underlined several passages and written a few notes in the margins. This is, of course, not the first time I've seen this in a library book, and I often find this maddening. I probably over-interpreted what was there, but in this instance it added just a bit to he book - knowing another person who lives in the same area of the state as J.D. Vance was highlighting sections he or she thought pertinent. It really is a small world.
"...that those of us lucky enough to live the American Dream, the demons we left behind continue to chase us."
There but for the grace of God go I.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Monday, December 18, 2017
Friday, December 1, 2017
This Year Looks Like It Might End Weirder Than It Started
Last year, Jalopnik published a story titled: Remember that time Terry Gross from NPR’s Fresh Air got banned from drag racing?
The original version as I remember it is gone, replaced with an abbreviated one - as too many people failed to notice it was Filed to:SATIRE.
This was hilarious on so many levels. First, the idea of Terry Gross being a hard-core drag racer. The pictures in the article. The language in the article. That it had to be changed because people read it as fact. That people can't separate fact from fiction anymore (I'm looking at you, John Stewart).
Remember that time Garrison Keillor was accused of sexual misconduct? File to:???
It is now December - a time when much outdoor life goes into a state of dormancy. At least this happens most of the time. It isn't the first year ever when a few trees have kept their leaves into December, but the amount of green left is staggering.
Honeysuckle is often the first thing to green up in the spring, and is late to lose its leaves. I'm quite sure if left on its own, honeysuckle would take over the whole world. But remaining green into December is unusual ... is weird.
As the green honeysuckle continues is fight against the normal order of things, the news airwaves have been filled with accusations and admissions of sexual misconduct, harassment, etc.
Much of this, I'm not surprised about.
A former Saturday Night Live star? -Al Franken. I'm not surprised.
A priveledged face for TV? -Al Franken (wait, I already used him). -Matt Lauer. I'm not surprised.
A power-grabbing politician? -Al Franken (wait, I already used him). -John Conyers. I'm not surprised.
A movie actor? -Al Franken (wait, I already used him). -Kevin Spacey. I'm not surprised.
A stand-up comic? -Al Franken (wait, I already used him). -Louis CK. I'm not surprised.
The list is long, and will get longer. My list above is a bit unfair to Al Franken, but anybody who sees this shocking is too wrapped up in Franken's cult of personality. Ever since moving from Stuart Smalley to a "real" politician, he's grown to be the darling of the media. Everybody (justifiably) throws rotten fruit at Harvey Weinstein, Steven Seagal and Donald Trump. Too many people - especially in the media - point to Al Franken and then say, "but..."
Sadly, most of these recent accusations are true. Sadly, some of these are not.
When I heard Garrison Keillor was accused of improper behavior, I first hoped it was filed to satire. Part of me still hopes it falls in the latter categorization. I've never been a real fan of Garrison Keillor. I would listen to A Prairie Home Companion mostly because it happened to be on when the radio was on and tuned to NPR. The movie A Prairie Home Companion was surprisingly good. Poetry seems a bit pointless, but I was aware of Writers Almanac. Lake Wobegon was sometimes amusing, but often not.
What little I know about Garrison Keillor describes him as a bit of a curmudgeon and a loaner. His personal life does appear to have been rather sticky at times though.
And therein lies the rub. How many of these recent accusations are an awkward situation taken beyond the context? A childish act, gone too far in a moment without thinking? It is impossible in the current atmosphere for anyone to question these situations once they become public. But I have seen a perfectly innocent conversation turn to offense - due solely to a poor choice of words. Do intentions matter?
Outright lies will probably eventually come out. But often too late for the accused. And the grey area of awkwardness, a tumbling of the rhythm of life, words escaping before time to realize they may be interpreted not-as-intended. I defy anybody to not think back and wince.
"Just as ancient insects that led full productive lives disappeared without a trace, and those that bumbled into amber and died are still around in tangible form, so our personal failures remain, sharp and clear, long after the day-to-day routine and minor victories fade into nothingness."
-Neil Steinberg
The court of public opinion is one mean-assed, uncontrolled, bastardly mirror with view that doesn't always match reality.
So the accusers should have their say. Garrison Keillor should be given his due. And while I'm much less surprised by the Al Franken accusations - he is owed the same.
Now is the winter of our discontent.
The honeysuckle will eventually lose all its leaves and go dormant. I'm less sure what will happen to the remainder of the rest of this weird year.
The original version as I remember it is gone, replaced with an abbreviated one - as too many people failed to notice it was Filed to:SATIRE.
This was hilarious on so many levels. First, the idea of Terry Gross being a hard-core drag racer. The pictures in the article. The language in the article. That it had to be changed because people read it as fact. That people can't separate fact from fiction anymore (I'm looking at you, John Stewart).
Remember that time Garrison Keillor was accused of sexual misconduct? File to:???
It is now December - a time when much outdoor life goes into a state of dormancy. At least this happens most of the time. It isn't the first year ever when a few trees have kept their leaves into December, but the amount of green left is staggering.
Honeysuckle is often the first thing to green up in the spring, and is late to lose its leaves. I'm quite sure if left on its own, honeysuckle would take over the whole world. But remaining green into December is unusual ... is weird.
As the green honeysuckle continues is fight against the normal order of things, the news airwaves have been filled with accusations and admissions of sexual misconduct, harassment, etc.
Much of this, I'm not surprised about.
A former Saturday Night Live star? -Al Franken. I'm not surprised.
A priveledged face for TV? -
A power-grabbing politician? -
A movie actor? -
A stand-up comic? -
The list is long, and will get longer. My list above is a bit unfair to Al Franken, but anybody who sees this shocking is too wrapped up in Franken's cult of personality. Ever since moving from Stuart Smalley to a "real" politician, he's grown to be the darling of the media. Everybody (justifiably) throws rotten fruit at Harvey Weinstein, Steven Seagal and Donald Trump. Too many people - especially in the media - point to Al Franken and then say, "but..."
Sadly, most of these recent accusations are true. Sadly, some of these are not.
When I heard Garrison Keillor was accused of improper behavior, I first hoped it was filed to satire. Part of me still hopes it falls in the latter categorization. I've never been a real fan of Garrison Keillor. I would listen to A Prairie Home Companion mostly because it happened to be on when the radio was on and tuned to NPR. The movie A Prairie Home Companion was surprisingly good. Poetry seems a bit pointless, but I was aware of Writers Almanac. Lake Wobegon was sometimes amusing, but often not.
What little I know about Garrison Keillor describes him as a bit of a curmudgeon and a loaner. His personal life does appear to have been rather sticky at times though.
And therein lies the rub. How many of these recent accusations are an awkward situation taken beyond the context? A childish act, gone too far in a moment without thinking? It is impossible in the current atmosphere for anyone to question these situations once they become public. But I have seen a perfectly innocent conversation turn to offense - due solely to a poor choice of words. Do intentions matter?
Outright lies will probably eventually come out. But often too late for the accused. And the grey area of awkwardness, a tumbling of the rhythm of life, words escaping before time to realize they may be interpreted not-as-intended. I defy anybody to not think back and wince.
"Just as ancient insects that led full productive lives disappeared without a trace, and those that bumbled into amber and died are still around in tangible form, so our personal failures remain, sharp and clear, long after the day-to-day routine and minor victories fade into nothingness."
-Neil Steinberg
The court of public opinion is one mean-assed, uncontrolled, bastardly mirror with view that doesn't always match reality.
So the accusers should have their say. Garrison Keillor should be given his due. And while I'm much less surprised by the Al Franken accusations - he is owed the same.
Now is the winter of our discontent.
The honeysuckle will eventually lose all its leaves and go dormant. I'm less sure what will happen to the remainder of the rest of this weird year.
Saturday, March 18, 2017
Donald Trump Should Buy Me a New Shirt
In preparation for the change of the very confused seasons, I bought a few new short sleeved shirts to wear at work and retired a few veterans. One of the things I really like about buying from Walmart online is the ability to return stuff easily at the store. Purchasing from some of their "partner" sellers removes this ability - always read the fine print. The fine print gets worse; if I return something, I will be refunded my purchase price, less the original free shipping cost (and possibly an additional small fee).
One of the shirts I bought is slightly smaller than I prefer. Perhaps it will motivate me to lose the winter blubber more quickly.
One of the shirts is quite a bit uglier than it appeared in the picture online and is prohibitively small.
A partial dump of Donald Trump's 2005 income taxes was shared on the internet. I won't defend President Trump (for anything), but the requisite for any presidential candidates to release taxes has always struck me as somewhat odd. I'd be quite resistant to interview with a company if I had to share my finances first. And while a public official may justifiably be treated differently, it isn't clear where this line would be drawn. The president must release taxes? How about all senators? And members of Congress? Unelected bureaucrat? Chief of police? Police deputy? Civil servant mailman?
Looking at President Trump's taxes, what I'm struck by most is how ordinary they look. I expected a totally different, crazy form or all those lines I always leave blank to have confusing numbers in them. Not only are they ordinary, they'd be boring if the scale of the numbers wasn't so bloated.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't pay any more taxes than I can squeak by with. I'm hoping to avoid last year's tax fiasco, but this year I had to figure out some new-to-me deductions - thanks to the ill-timed maturing of a few Unit Investment Trusts. My first attempt at investments outside of my 401(k) did not go well... I'm not the president so I won't release my numbers, but in contrast, Donald Trump grossed $152.7 million in 2005, with business losses of $103.2 million. There is an astounding amount of criticism over this deduction bringing his Adjusted Gross Income to $48.6 million.
Donald Trump is doing the same thing as 122,000,000 other adults in the US are doing - paying as little income tax as can be done legally. If I could have legally written off $103.2 million, I would have. To be clear, in my life I'll never earn $103.2 million, nor even $48.6 million, nor even the $38.4 million Mr. Trump paid in 2005 income taxes.
Warren Buffett is often the darling rich to those on the left as he complains that he doesn't pay enough taxes.
But even ignoring President Trump's deducted losses, he paid 25.1% of his $152.7 gross income in taxes, contrasted with Mr. Buffett's 17.4% - which is stated as payroll taxes inclusive so actual income tax is presumably less. Yet no criticism for Warren Buffett just because he complains about his low tax rate? It could be pointed out that the Treasury will take any money sent to it, so Mr. Buffett is free to send as much money as he wants to the federal government. His criticism of federal taxes is really not suggesting he should pay more tax, but other people like him should.
Accounting for Donald Trump's assumed justified $103.2 million loss, he paid a shocking 79% of his Adjusted Gross Income in taxes.
There is a lot of tax misinformation in the United States. We have neither a progressive nor regressive tax system - a confusing tax system that can only come from years of compromise. Too often, we compromise ourselves into complexity. An astounding 45% of adults do not pay federal income tax. None. The big Zipola. Somewhere between most and all of these people are at the bottom of the income scale, not the top. And while the rich (President Trump and Warren Buffett inclusive) as a percentage of their actual income might pay less than the average worker, they pay a phenomenal amount in real terms.
The median income in the united states is often reported to be around $50 thousand. That results in a federal income tax of around $5000.
So it will take 7680 average workers to equal Donald Trump's $38.4 million in taxes, or a mere 1400 average workers to equal Warren Buffett's $6.9 million tax bill.
As the platitude speaks, "A fine is a tax for doing poorly. A tax is a fine for doing well."
There will be much more gnashing of teeth over Donald Trump's 2005 taxes. It should really be looked at through the same lens we all see through when filling out form 1040.
I'd love to know what Mr. Trump's $17.9 million in itemized deductions are. I don't want to make this a whole left/right Obama/Trump thing, but President Obama's 2015 $36,587 in mortgage interest deduction is actually more than my first house even cost. Nope, not criticizing, I just find it humorously incomprehensible. Whether Donald Trump or Barack Obama or Warren Buffett, the scale of the numbers can be sometimes hard to put into perspective.
I don't think either President Trump or Warren Buffett are buying their shirts discounted from walmart.com. Actually, maybe Warren Buffett might, since he is reported as so notoriously cheap. I think cheap to a guy who pays $6.9 million in tax means something different than it does to me though.
And me? I'm stuck with two shirts that I have some regrets over. Returning them is not worth it given the pain of return policies and cost of shipping - I'll not buy again from the Walmart partners. One shirt I'll probably wear and grouse about it every time I put it on. The other I will donate to Good Will; at least I'll be able to deduct that from my taxes next year.
One of the shirts I bought is slightly smaller than I prefer. Perhaps it will motivate me to lose the winter blubber more quickly.
One of the shirts is quite a bit uglier than it appeared in the picture online and is prohibitively small.
A partial dump of Donald Trump's 2005 income taxes was shared on the internet. I won't defend President Trump (for anything), but the requisite for any presidential candidates to release taxes has always struck me as somewhat odd. I'd be quite resistant to interview with a company if I had to share my finances first. And while a public official may justifiably be treated differently, it isn't clear where this line would be drawn. The president must release taxes? How about all senators? And members of Congress? Unelected bureaucrat? Chief of police? Police deputy? Civil servant mailman?
Looking at President Trump's taxes, what I'm struck by most is how ordinary they look. I expected a totally different, crazy form or all those lines I always leave blank to have confusing numbers in them. Not only are they ordinary, they'd be boring if the scale of the numbers wasn't so bloated.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't pay any more taxes than I can squeak by with. I'm hoping to avoid last year's tax fiasco, but this year I had to figure out some new-to-me deductions - thanks to the ill-timed maturing of a few Unit Investment Trusts. My first attempt at investments outside of my 401(k) did not go well... I'm not the president so I won't release my numbers, but in contrast, Donald Trump grossed $152.7 million in 2005, with business losses of $103.2 million. There is an astounding amount of criticism over this deduction bringing his Adjusted Gross Income to $48.6 million.
Donald Trump is doing the same thing as 122,000,000 other adults in the US are doing - paying as little income tax as can be done legally. If I could have legally written off $103.2 million, I would have. To be clear, in my life I'll never earn $103.2 million, nor even $48.6 million, nor even the $38.4 million Mr. Trump paid in 2005 income taxes.
Warren Buffett is often the darling rich to those on the left as he complains that he doesn't pay enough taxes.
But even ignoring President Trump's deducted losses, he paid 25.1% of his $152.7 gross income in taxes, contrasted with Mr. Buffett's 17.4% - which is stated as payroll taxes inclusive so actual income tax is presumably less. Yet no criticism for Warren Buffett just because he complains about his low tax rate? It could be pointed out that the Treasury will take any money sent to it, so Mr. Buffett is free to send as much money as he wants to the federal government. His criticism of federal taxes is really not suggesting he should pay more tax, but other people like him should.
Accounting for Donald Trump's assumed justified $103.2 million loss, he paid a shocking 79% of his Adjusted Gross Income in taxes.
There is a lot of tax misinformation in the United States. We have neither a progressive nor regressive tax system - a confusing tax system that can only come from years of compromise. Too often, we compromise ourselves into complexity. An astounding 45% of adults do not pay federal income tax. None. The big Zipola. Somewhere between most and all of these people are at the bottom of the income scale, not the top. And while the rich (President Trump and Warren Buffett inclusive) as a percentage of their actual income might pay less than the average worker, they pay a phenomenal amount in real terms.
The median income in the united states is often reported to be around $50 thousand. That results in a federal income tax of around $5000.
So it will take 7680 average workers to equal Donald Trump's $38.4 million in taxes, or a mere 1400 average workers to equal Warren Buffett's $6.9 million tax bill.
As the platitude speaks, "A fine is a tax for doing poorly. A tax is a fine for doing well."
There will be much more gnashing of teeth over Donald Trump's 2005 taxes. It should really be looked at through the same lens we all see through when filling out form 1040.
I'd love to know what Mr. Trump's $17.9 million in itemized deductions are. I don't want to make this a whole left/right Obama/Trump thing, but President Obama's 2015 $36,587 in mortgage interest deduction is actually more than my first house even cost. Nope, not criticizing, I just find it humorously incomprehensible. Whether Donald Trump or Barack Obama or Warren Buffett, the scale of the numbers can be sometimes hard to put into perspective.
I don't think either President Trump or Warren Buffett are buying their shirts discounted from walmart.com. Actually, maybe Warren Buffett might, since he is reported as so notoriously cheap. I think cheap to a guy who pays $6.9 million in tax means something different than it does to me though.
And me? I'm stuck with two shirts that I have some regrets over. Returning them is not worth it given the pain of return policies and cost of shipping - I'll not buy again from the Walmart partners. One shirt I'll probably wear and grouse about it every time I put it on. The other I will donate to Good Will; at least I'll be able to deduct that from my taxes next year.
Saturday, March 4, 2017
Dan Cooper
Dateline Muskegon, MI:
The identity of Dan Cooper or DB Cooper has finally been revealed! His name really was Dan Cooper and he has been hiding in plain sight for decades. "I've never really kept my life a secret," he said during a recent interview. "I just assumed that the FBI wanted to keep the case unsolved for some reason. Maybe the FBI has a stake in keeping urban legends alive, or maybe they just didn't want to admit that they forgot to look into easily available records for 45 years."
In 1971, a flight from Portland to Seattle was hijacked by a passenger who bought a one-way ticket under the name Dan Cooper. His name was later represented by the press as DB Cooper. After securing a $200,000 ransom and some parachutes, Dan Cooper jumped from the back of the 727 over Washington State and parachuted down to terra firma. While mostly silent on the specifics of the hijacking, he has allowed a few details, "I actually landed in the parking lot for Glen's Market in Onalaska, Washington. The first thing that I used the money for was a package of Little Debbies. That money recovered by the Columbia River ... I guess the FBI must have done that. I think that is where the real mystery has been all these years."
Mr. Cooper's life before and after the hijacking has had some interesting twists. He is actually the cousin of shock rocker Alice Cooper. Dan Cooper and Alice Cooper kept in touch for many years, but now they are more limited to Christmas cards and the occasional birthday greetings. Alice Cooper refused comment at this time, but it is believed that Dan Cooper helped Alice Cooper find a relevant attorney after the on-stage chicken death in Toronto. It may have been that 1969 Toronto incident which led Dan Cooper to realize the need for a nest egg to prepare for the unexpected.
Little is known about Mr. Cooper immediately after the hijacking, but a close look at records show that he eventually moved to Alpena, Michigan and began living in a condominium with a J. Hoffa in 1975. Police records from the time show that the condo, on the shores of Lake Huron, was the site of many noise complaints. Jack Allerton, who still lives in Alpena remembers living next to Mr. Cooper and Mr. Hoffa, "We all knew Jimmy Hoffa just wanted out of organized labor, but didn't know Danny was a hijacker. Ya' know, it was the 70's though. Everybody was runnin’ from something." Mr. Allerton is quiet for a few moments with a telling smirk on his face, "Those were some wild times." The current whereabouts of Jimmy Hoffa are now being investigated with renewed vigor.
With much of his hijacking cash spent by the late 1970's, Mr. Cooper had to tame his partying ways and find other employment. In 1978 he began working for a new TV news magazine which eventually became known as 20/20. However, he apparently had a hard time sitting still and remained somewhat nervous about being caught. After the producers began looking into doing a story on the 1971 hijacking, Mr. Cooper must have known it was time to get out.
In 1993, Mr. Cooper joined MTV and was largely responsible for moving the music entertainment channel from mostly a music video format to the growing genre of reality TV. MTV's Kurt Loder says that MTV still receives hate mail addressed to Dan Cooper over the destruction of how great MTV was in the 1980's music video era.
After MTV, Mr. Cooper moved on to Fox News in the mid 1990's. He was instrumental in creating the Fox News Brand, although his initial plan was considered bloated and unlikely to succeed by both investors and executives. As Mr. Cooper had realized the importance of weather in planning his hijacking in 1971, he invented the concept of the weather gadget in the corner of the TV screen. To this day he still gets small royalty checks every time it is used.
Bored with broadcasting, Mr. Cooper opened a Dippin' Dots franchise in Olathe, Kansas. This was done in partnership with William S Burroughs (author of Naked Lunch), who maintained a separate franchise in Lawrence, Kansas. Dippin' Dots was apparently very lucrative for both Cooper and Burroughs, Mr. Cooper even created a way of making far more uniform dots through the use of something called an acoustic nozzle. These far superior dots would likely have taken Dippin' Dots to a new level if it had not been for the worldwide frozen confectioner's scandal of 1999. While not directly implicated in the scandal, Dippin' Dots was unable to take advantage of the acoustic nozzle process and Mr. Cooper moved on.
After 2000, Dan Cooper returned to Michigan and opened an automotive repair shop in Muskegon. Mr. Cooper is happy to talk about his current life, "Muskegon is great. I have everything I need here. Cooper Dan Automotive is going gangbusters and I have my boat ready at a moment's notice on Lake Michigan."
Pushed for more information on the hijacking, Mr. Cooper just presses his lips together and shakes his head. Questions remain about the statute of limitations and there is still an indictment out of Portland, Oregon. When Alan Redford, Mr. Cooper's lawyer, was contacted, he only wanted to confirm he is still studying the case but there are more questions than answers, "Since Dan Cooper boarded the plane under his own name and hasn't been hiding, I think the in absentia indictment from 1976 is invalid."
A legal battle will likely play out over the coming weeks and months. The FBI has been largely silent since the information has come to light and one senior investigator, who would only talk off the record, suggested that department embarrassment over the whole issue has become a major morale problem. This same senior investigator also suggested that they have begun recently using Google to search for anyone relevant to unsolved cases, and it appears that Mr. Cooper's situation is not unique.
Standing on the rocky pier at Muskegon State Park for a few final words, Mr. Cooper is largely reticent, "Ya know, fake news has been in the news so much recently. And so maybe I made some news in the early 1970's and worked in the news in the 1990s. But maybe not. Maybe it is all fake news, ya know? Sad..."
The identity of Dan Cooper or DB Cooper has finally been revealed! His name really was Dan Cooper and he has been hiding in plain sight for decades. "I've never really kept my life a secret," he said during a recent interview. "I just assumed that the FBI wanted to keep the case unsolved for some reason. Maybe the FBI has a stake in keeping urban legends alive, or maybe they just didn't want to admit that they forgot to look into easily available records for 45 years."
In 1971, a flight from Portland to Seattle was hijacked by a passenger who bought a one-way ticket under the name Dan Cooper. His name was later represented by the press as DB Cooper. After securing a $200,000 ransom and some parachutes, Dan Cooper jumped from the back of the 727 over Washington State and parachuted down to terra firma. While mostly silent on the specifics of the hijacking, he has allowed a few details, "I actually landed in the parking lot for Glen's Market in Onalaska, Washington. The first thing that I used the money for was a package of Little Debbies. That money recovered by the Columbia River ... I guess the FBI must have done that. I think that is where the real mystery has been all these years."
Mr. Cooper's life before and after the hijacking has had some interesting twists. He is actually the cousin of shock rocker Alice Cooper. Dan Cooper and Alice Cooper kept in touch for many years, but now they are more limited to Christmas cards and the occasional birthday greetings. Alice Cooper refused comment at this time, but it is believed that Dan Cooper helped Alice Cooper find a relevant attorney after the on-stage chicken death in Toronto. It may have been that 1969 Toronto incident which led Dan Cooper to realize the need for a nest egg to prepare for the unexpected.
Little is known about Mr. Cooper immediately after the hijacking, but a close look at records show that he eventually moved to Alpena, Michigan and began living in a condominium with a J. Hoffa in 1975. Police records from the time show that the condo, on the shores of Lake Huron, was the site of many noise complaints. Jack Allerton, who still lives in Alpena remembers living next to Mr. Cooper and Mr. Hoffa, "We all knew Jimmy Hoffa just wanted out of organized labor, but didn't know Danny was a hijacker. Ya' know, it was the 70's though. Everybody was runnin’ from something." Mr. Allerton is quiet for a few moments with a telling smirk on his face, "Those were some wild times." The current whereabouts of Jimmy Hoffa are now being investigated with renewed vigor.
With much of his hijacking cash spent by the late 1970's, Mr. Cooper had to tame his partying ways and find other employment. In 1978 he began working for a new TV news magazine which eventually became known as 20/20. However, he apparently had a hard time sitting still and remained somewhat nervous about being caught. After the producers began looking into doing a story on the 1971 hijacking, Mr. Cooper must have known it was time to get out.
In 1993, Mr. Cooper joined MTV and was largely responsible for moving the music entertainment channel from mostly a music video format to the growing genre of reality TV. MTV's Kurt Loder says that MTV still receives hate mail addressed to Dan Cooper over the destruction of how great MTV was in the 1980's music video era.
After MTV, Mr. Cooper moved on to Fox News in the mid 1990's. He was instrumental in creating the Fox News Brand, although his initial plan was considered bloated and unlikely to succeed by both investors and executives. As Mr. Cooper had realized the importance of weather in planning his hijacking in 1971, he invented the concept of the weather gadget in the corner of the TV screen. To this day he still gets small royalty checks every time it is used.
Bored with broadcasting, Mr. Cooper opened a Dippin' Dots franchise in Olathe, Kansas. This was done in partnership with William S Burroughs (author of Naked Lunch), who maintained a separate franchise in Lawrence, Kansas. Dippin' Dots was apparently very lucrative for both Cooper and Burroughs, Mr. Cooper even created a way of making far more uniform dots through the use of something called an acoustic nozzle. These far superior dots would likely have taken Dippin' Dots to a new level if it had not been for the worldwide frozen confectioner's scandal of 1999. While not directly implicated in the scandal, Dippin' Dots was unable to take advantage of the acoustic nozzle process and Mr. Cooper moved on.
After 2000, Dan Cooper returned to Michigan and opened an automotive repair shop in Muskegon. Mr. Cooper is happy to talk about his current life, "Muskegon is great. I have everything I need here. Cooper Dan Automotive is going gangbusters and I have my boat ready at a moment's notice on Lake Michigan."
Pushed for more information on the hijacking, Mr. Cooper just presses his lips together and shakes his head. Questions remain about the statute of limitations and there is still an indictment out of Portland, Oregon. When Alan Redford, Mr. Cooper's lawyer, was contacted, he only wanted to confirm he is still studying the case but there are more questions than answers, "Since Dan Cooper boarded the plane under his own name and hasn't been hiding, I think the in absentia indictment from 1976 is invalid."
A legal battle will likely play out over the coming weeks and months. The FBI has been largely silent since the information has come to light and one senior investigator, who would only talk off the record, suggested that department embarrassment over the whole issue has become a major morale problem. This same senior investigator also suggested that they have begun recently using Google to search for anyone relevant to unsolved cases, and it appears that Mr. Cooper's situation is not unique.
Standing on the rocky pier at Muskegon State Park for a few final words, Mr. Cooper is largely reticent, "Ya know, fake news has been in the news so much recently. And so maybe I made some news in the early 1970's and worked in the news in the 1990s. But maybe not. Maybe it is all fake news, ya know? Sad..."
Sunday, December 18, 2016
Who died?
I turned on the TV as I was getting ready for work on Tuesday and heard a theme song I instantly recognized. I didn't think I had left the channel on one of the many broadcast rerun channels, so I instantly said, "Wonder who died?"
I probably only watched a couple seasons of Growing Pains. I was certainly done watching by the time they put the show on life support by bringing in Chrissy (Ashley Johnson) and Luke (Leonardo DiCaprio) as Kirk Cameron and Tracey Gold got too old to be relevant to the show anymore. About the only episode I actually remember is the one where Mike and dad go to a Bruce Springsteen concert and get caught on TV after - resulting in some teasing by Mike's friends; I was quite surprised this was a very early episode in the series.
This started me thinking about all the other people who died in 2016. There seems to be an acceleration in the notable people of some level of celebrity who have played a role in my past who are now dying. Presumably, this will only continue to increase...
David Bowie, January 8: I can't say I was a huge fan; I sort of saw him as this weird, androgynous performer. But I recognized his unique contribution to music. I probably appreciated Ziggy Stardust more later in my life...
Phil Fish, January 26: I probably only watched Barney Miller in reruns, late at night - and I'm not sure when, since we weren't really allowed to watch that much TV, but I do remember watching Abe Vigoda on the show. Hard to say now if those memories are good or bad, but there they are.
Antonin Scalia, February 12: My Criminal Justice professor in college said that listing the names of the 12 Supreme Court justices would be on the final exam. With the internet in its infancy at that point, I was trying to find current information and it was not terribly easy. My boss at the time called directory assistance, got the number for the Supreme Court in Washington DC and got the information from the person who answered the phone. Seriously! The list wasn't on the final exam - which I shouldn't be surprised about since the professor had some major problems. I'm quite sure he at least had an alcohol problem, if not issues with something much more troublesome. I liked Scalia's matter-of-fact, no apologies style; reportedly when Helen Prejean (Dead Man Walking) ran into him in an airport and she asked him if he was Antonin Scalia, he responded, "Well, somebody has to be..." The fact that he remained friends with the diametrically opposed Ruth Bader-Ginsburg is something everyone with strong political beliefs should emulate.
Henry Warnimont, February 15: Punky Brewster was one of several kid-themed Annie-esque TV shows (think Different Strokes and Webster). I guess we all at some level wanted fabulously rich pseudo-parents to appear out of nowhere - 'cause this happens all the time. George Gaynes as Punky's "dad" is slightly unmemorable, or maybe I didn't actually (and embarrassingly) watch the show enough to remember it that well.
Harper Lee, February 19: Too Kill a Mockingbird is a great book, an American classic that is actually worth reading. I've read enough reviews to know I should probably proceed cautiously with Go Set a Watchman, and it is sad that there was so much controversy surrounding the release of that book. At a minimum, it was updated from its original form to be more in line with modern political philosophy in a way.
@, March 5: He may not be a household name, but Ray Tomlinson "invented" email and pioneered the use of the "@" symbol. One man, one symbol, forever a part of modern technical history.
Nancy Reagan, March 6: "Just Say No!" First Lady, Mrs. Reagan, played her own role in the Ronald Reagan White House. Lots of criticism over astrology or spending of money on household furnishings, but it is without a doubt that President Reagan would not have been who and what he was without her.
Benny, March 17: I'm not sure if Larry Drake's character on LA Law had a last name, but his portrayal as a functionally slow person was really good. LA Law had a good run as one of the better of the many 1980's lawyer shows.
Gary Shandling, March 24: Not my favorite comedian, but I did watch The Gary Shandling Show quite a bit. I don't recall finding it particularly enjoyable, but his awkward comedic style was done in a such a non-television way that the show was actually quite revolutionary.
Eugene Gatling, March 28: The premise of Benson wasn't very strong, but James Noble's character as governor allowed Robert Guillaume to have the self-named show. Despite the show, the story lines were often surprisingly funny.
Merle Haggard, April 6: I'm sort of neutral on country music, but broadly speaking, there is a sliding scale from the music's origins to the music now. Merle lived country music in a way that Garth Brooks is a best a very weak copy of (and his new beard is really, really awful). When we lose Chris Kristofferson, who is about the same age, it will be a very sad day indeed.
Mildred Krebs, April 17: Remington Steele was a great show, and paved the way for other flirtatious detective shows (i.e. Moonlighting). Doris Roberts was a great part of Remington Steele, even if a little over-the-top. Not as much over-the-top as Everybody Loves Raymond, which was not loved by everyone (and even got a little bit dark for a sitcom).
Prince, April 21: Probably the death that bugged me the most. Like David Bowie, I really wasn't a big fan in the 1980s, and also like Bowie, I saw Prince as this weird, androgynous singer. I may or may not have ever seen the movie Purple Rain, but I listened to the music from it a lot. "Is the water warm enough?" He definitely had a very unique role in popular music that will continue to influence for some time.
Morely Safer, May 19: 60 Minutes is no longer the show that it once was. Now more pop-political than anything else and while I like Scott Pelley as CBS News anchor, I think this has weakened both the CBS News and 60 Minutes. Morely Safer's interview with Salvador Dali has to be one of the best people interviews ever, and the Homer Simpson/The Shining/60 Minutes blurb from TreeHouse of Horrors V is a great brief tribute.
Mohamed Ali, June 3: An arrogant man if there ever was one, yet oddly humble at the same time. His place in American culture goes beyond boxing. Somewhere I have a book of jokes - oddly 1980's jokes that are ethnic without being racial - one of which references him. "How can I preach against violence when I just plunked down $200 to watch Ali and Frazier pummel each other for a few hours?"
Mr. Lebowski, August 2: David Huddleston was the other Mr. Lebowski from The Big Lebowski - yet another cult Cohen Brother's movie. "I'm just going to go find a cash machine..."
The Waco Kid, August 29: Blazing Saddles could not be made today - and both Gene Wilder and Cleavon Little (1992) made that movie what it still is today. I also sort of remember watching Young Frankenstein after it was accidentally grabbed at a VHS video rental store instead of Young Einstein. Einstein may have been more topical at the time, but in retrospect, Frankenstein was probably the better choice. See No Evil, Hear No Evil with Richard Pryor (2005) would have been the better topical choice...
Janet Reno, November 7: Quite glad the Clinton (Bill) Administration has ended and no fan of Janet Reno as Attorney General. But she played a major role in politics during a formative time in college. I guess I'll probably remember her Dance Party from Saturday Night Live as much as anything else, and her willingness to play along after she left office. Hopefully she got a chance to see much of the country in her red pickup truck too.
Gwen Ifill, November 14: I wasn't a fan of the News Hour and I saw her as unnecessarily partisan, but she was also very smart. She seemed so very young, cancer is a bitch...
Mrs. Brady, November 24: The mom nobody had, which was probably a good thing. Why a stay-at-home mom needed a live-in house keeper still baffles me. The Brady Bunch was seemingly always on in the afternoon, so I watched a lot of it in reruns at friend's houses. It is nearly unwatchable now - and it may have been then as well. Perhaps Florence Henderson's demise seems somehow tied to the slow, painful death of Crisco.
Fidel Castro, November 25: Revolutionary, Dictator, Celebrity Ruler, Tyrant, the list goes on. Those of us who grew up in the Reagan era still miss the cold war. In a world where Russia could no longer be the bad guy, Cubans were still able to play that role in the movie Red Dawn.
John Glenn, December 8: An American hero, but I just didn't like the guy. I wrote him a letter when he was our Senator (also when I was less realistically cynical about politics) and the letter I got in return was quite condescending. I still have it somewhere, although I'm not sure where it is. In retrospect, the return letter was almost certainly written by some flunky staffer and not something he ever even saw.
Which brings us to Jason Seaver, December 13: Dad from the formerly mentioned Growing Pains, Alan Thicke - a show when sitcoms still allowed the dad's to more than just the buffoon of every joke.
It is transitionally sad to see all these deaths of "notables" from 2016. Still, the year isn't over yet!
And it makes me start to think ... how many people who were actually important in my life, but who I've lost touch with over the years are continuing to pass? Maybe that is the real lesson from a list of celebrity deaths.
Belated Edit: The death of the very influential Princess Leia occurred after this was published. Starpuff hairdo, "Into the garbage chute, Flyboy" and "It's not funny anymore James" (Big Bang Theory cameo). 'nuff said...
I probably only watched a couple seasons of Growing Pains. I was certainly done watching by the time they put the show on life support by bringing in Chrissy (Ashley Johnson) and Luke (Leonardo DiCaprio) as Kirk Cameron and Tracey Gold got too old to be relevant to the show anymore. About the only episode I actually remember is the one where Mike and dad go to a Bruce Springsteen concert and get caught on TV after - resulting in some teasing by Mike's friends; I was quite surprised this was a very early episode in the series.
This started me thinking about all the other people who died in 2016. There seems to be an acceleration in the notable people of some level of celebrity who have played a role in my past who are now dying. Presumably, this will only continue to increase...
David Bowie, January 8: I can't say I was a huge fan; I sort of saw him as this weird, androgynous performer. But I recognized his unique contribution to music. I probably appreciated Ziggy Stardust more later in my life...
Phil Fish, January 26: I probably only watched Barney Miller in reruns, late at night - and I'm not sure when, since we weren't really allowed to watch that much TV, but I do remember watching Abe Vigoda on the show. Hard to say now if those memories are good or bad, but there they are.
Antonin Scalia, February 12: My Criminal Justice professor in college said that listing the names of the 12 Supreme Court justices would be on the final exam. With the internet in its infancy at that point, I was trying to find current information and it was not terribly easy. My boss at the time called directory assistance, got the number for the Supreme Court in Washington DC and got the information from the person who answered the phone. Seriously! The list wasn't on the final exam - which I shouldn't be surprised about since the professor had some major problems. I'm quite sure he at least had an alcohol problem, if not issues with something much more troublesome. I liked Scalia's matter-of-fact, no apologies style; reportedly when Helen Prejean (Dead Man Walking) ran into him in an airport and she asked him if he was Antonin Scalia, he responded, "Well, somebody has to be..." The fact that he remained friends with the diametrically opposed Ruth Bader-Ginsburg is something everyone with strong political beliefs should emulate.
Henry Warnimont, February 15: Punky Brewster was one of several kid-themed Annie-esque TV shows (think Different Strokes and Webster). I guess we all at some level wanted fabulously rich pseudo-parents to appear out of nowhere - 'cause this happens all the time. George Gaynes as Punky's "dad" is slightly unmemorable, or maybe I didn't actually (and embarrassingly) watch the show enough to remember it that well.
Harper Lee, February 19: Too Kill a Mockingbird is a great book, an American classic that is actually worth reading. I've read enough reviews to know I should probably proceed cautiously with Go Set a Watchman, and it is sad that there was so much controversy surrounding the release of that book. At a minimum, it was updated from its original form to be more in line with modern political philosophy in a way.
@, March 5: He may not be a household name, but Ray Tomlinson "invented" email and pioneered the use of the "@" symbol. One man, one symbol, forever a part of modern technical history.
Nancy Reagan, March 6: "Just Say No!" First Lady, Mrs. Reagan, played her own role in the Ronald Reagan White House. Lots of criticism over astrology or spending of money on household furnishings, but it is without a doubt that President Reagan would not have been who and what he was without her.
Benny, March 17: I'm not sure if Larry Drake's character on LA Law had a last name, but his portrayal as a functionally slow person was really good. LA Law had a good run as one of the better of the many 1980's lawyer shows.
Gary Shandling, March 24: Not my favorite comedian, but I did watch The Gary Shandling Show quite a bit. I don't recall finding it particularly enjoyable, but his awkward comedic style was done in a such a non-television way that the show was actually quite revolutionary.
Eugene Gatling, March 28: The premise of Benson wasn't very strong, but James Noble's character as governor allowed Robert Guillaume to have the self-named show. Despite the show, the story lines were often surprisingly funny.
Merle Haggard, April 6: I'm sort of neutral on country music, but broadly speaking, there is a sliding scale from the music's origins to the music now. Merle lived country music in a way that Garth Brooks is a best a very weak copy of (and his new beard is really, really awful). When we lose Chris Kristofferson, who is about the same age, it will be a very sad day indeed.
Mildred Krebs, April 17: Remington Steele was a great show, and paved the way for other flirtatious detective shows (i.e. Moonlighting). Doris Roberts was a great part of Remington Steele, even if a little over-the-top. Not as much over-the-top as Everybody Loves Raymond, which was not loved by everyone (and even got a little bit dark for a sitcom).
Prince, April 21: Probably the death that bugged me the most. Like David Bowie, I really wasn't a big fan in the 1980s, and also like Bowie, I saw Prince as this weird, androgynous singer. I may or may not have ever seen the movie Purple Rain, but I listened to the music from it a lot. "Is the water warm enough?" He definitely had a very unique role in popular music that will continue to influence for some time.
Morely Safer, May 19: 60 Minutes is no longer the show that it once was. Now more pop-political than anything else and while I like Scott Pelley as CBS News anchor, I think this has weakened both the CBS News and 60 Minutes. Morely Safer's interview with Salvador Dali has to be one of the best people interviews ever, and the Homer Simpson/The Shining/60 Minutes blurb from TreeHouse of Horrors V is a great brief tribute.
Mohamed Ali, June 3: An arrogant man if there ever was one, yet oddly humble at the same time. His place in American culture goes beyond boxing. Somewhere I have a book of jokes - oddly 1980's jokes that are ethnic without being racial - one of which references him. "How can I preach against violence when I just plunked down $200 to watch Ali and Frazier pummel each other for a few hours?"
Mr. Lebowski, August 2: David Huddleston was the other Mr. Lebowski from The Big Lebowski - yet another cult Cohen Brother's movie. "I'm just going to go find a cash machine..."
The Waco Kid, August 29: Blazing Saddles could not be made today - and both Gene Wilder and Cleavon Little (1992) made that movie what it still is today. I also sort of remember watching Young Frankenstein after it was accidentally grabbed at a VHS video rental store instead of Young Einstein. Einstein may have been more topical at the time, but in retrospect, Frankenstein was probably the better choice. See No Evil, Hear No Evil with Richard Pryor (2005) would have been the better topical choice...
Janet Reno, November 7: Quite glad the Clinton (Bill) Administration has ended and no fan of Janet Reno as Attorney General. But she played a major role in politics during a formative time in college. I guess I'll probably remember her Dance Party from Saturday Night Live as much as anything else, and her willingness to play along after she left office. Hopefully she got a chance to see much of the country in her red pickup truck too.
Gwen Ifill, November 14: I wasn't a fan of the News Hour and I saw her as unnecessarily partisan, but she was also very smart. She seemed so very young, cancer is a bitch...
Mrs. Brady, November 24: The mom nobody had, which was probably a good thing. Why a stay-at-home mom needed a live-in house keeper still baffles me. The Brady Bunch was seemingly always on in the afternoon, so I watched a lot of it in reruns at friend's houses. It is nearly unwatchable now - and it may have been then as well. Perhaps Florence Henderson's demise seems somehow tied to the slow, painful death of Crisco.
Fidel Castro, November 25: Revolutionary, Dictator, Celebrity Ruler, Tyrant, the list goes on. Those of us who grew up in the Reagan era still miss the cold war. In a world where Russia could no longer be the bad guy, Cubans were still able to play that role in the movie Red Dawn.
John Glenn, December 8: An American hero, but I just didn't like the guy. I wrote him a letter when he was our Senator (also when I was less realistically cynical about politics) and the letter I got in return was quite condescending. I still have it somewhere, although I'm not sure where it is. In retrospect, the return letter was almost certainly written by some flunky staffer and not something he ever even saw.
Which brings us to Jason Seaver, December 13: Dad from the formerly mentioned Growing Pains, Alan Thicke - a show when sitcoms still allowed the dad's to more than just the buffoon of every joke.
It is transitionally sad to see all these deaths of "notables" from 2016. Still, the year isn't over yet!
And it makes me start to think ... how many people who were actually important in my life, but who I've lost touch with over the years are continuing to pass? Maybe that is the real lesson from a list of celebrity deaths.
Belated Edit: The death of the very influential Princess Leia occurred after this was published. Starpuff hairdo, "Into the garbage chute, Flyboy" and "It's not funny anymore James" (Big Bang Theory cameo). 'nuff said...
Saturday, November 5, 2016
Election Yard Signs are Stupid
As the grass dies and the leaves change, election yard signs spring up out of the ground. Their crop value is quite limited however.
On my drive to work, there is one - and only one - yard sign for some faceless candidate who has the same last name as a coworker. I feel compelled to steal this sign and put it in his cubicle. This behavior, theft of yard signs, has been interpreted as quashing free speech and has been punished with legal ramifications, so I've resisted, despite the brief humor it would provide. Humor in politics, or at work, is more important than legislation at this point.
As I've contemplated this yard sign, I'm struck by how stupid yard signs really are. Has anyone ever driven down the road as a die hard Hillary Clinton supporter and seen a Donald Trump yard sign and said, "Gosh, that is a lovely Tudor, therefore I'm going to vote for Trump!"
Nope.
Not gonna happen.
Maybe signs help name recognition? I don't buy that either. If Helen Keller were still alive, even she would be sick of Clinton v. Trump by this point.
It appears there have been studies that attempted to measure the value of yard signs. The result is, at best, not statistically significant and I'm not sure I even believe the trivial differences observed.
Yard signs are the equivalent of the CoExist bumper sticker on the Subaru Outback or the Buckmark on the Chevy Silverado. They are merely decorative ornamentation that further defines an already defined individual. While I may, or may not, have strong feelings on any given subject, I am frightened by anyone who can communicate their most deeply held beliefs in the space of a yard sign or bumper sticker.
Shortly after the yard sign by the candidate with the same last name as my coworker is another series of signs for two opposing candidates for some other office. This is in a demilitarized zone between two interstates and immediately on either side of the sign for Candidate A, someone put signs for Candidate B. I guess this is less illegal than removing Candidate A's sign? I'm quite sure that whoever did this was probably quite smug about his or her attempt at political cleverness...
Election yard signs are stupid.
Thankfully, in a few days our "long national nightmare" will be over - or it will have just begun.
Winter winds will sweep away dead leaves and a few dead candidate yard signs. Candidates should be personally responsible for every yard sign, to ensure it is disposed of promptly and appropriately. This would give both the winners and losers something useful to do after the election.
On my drive to work, there is one - and only one - yard sign for some faceless candidate who has the same last name as a coworker. I feel compelled to steal this sign and put it in his cubicle. This behavior, theft of yard signs, has been interpreted as quashing free speech and has been punished with legal ramifications, so I've resisted, despite the brief humor it would provide. Humor in politics, or at work, is more important than legislation at this point.
As I've contemplated this yard sign, I'm struck by how stupid yard signs really are. Has anyone ever driven down the road as a die hard Hillary Clinton supporter and seen a Donald Trump yard sign and said, "Gosh, that is a lovely Tudor, therefore I'm going to vote for Trump!"
Nope.
Not gonna happen.
Maybe signs help name recognition? I don't buy that either. If Helen Keller were still alive, even she would be sick of Clinton v. Trump by this point.
It appears there have been studies that attempted to measure the value of yard signs. The result is, at best, not statistically significant and I'm not sure I even believe the trivial differences observed.
Yard signs are the equivalent of the CoExist bumper sticker on the Subaru Outback or the Buckmark on the Chevy Silverado. They are merely decorative ornamentation that further defines an already defined individual. While I may, or may not, have strong feelings on any given subject, I am frightened by anyone who can communicate their most deeply held beliefs in the space of a yard sign or bumper sticker.
Shortly after the yard sign by the candidate with the same last name as my coworker is another series of signs for two opposing candidates for some other office. This is in a demilitarized zone between two interstates and immediately on either side of the sign for Candidate A, someone put signs for Candidate B. I guess this is less illegal than removing Candidate A's sign? I'm quite sure that whoever did this was probably quite smug about his or her attempt at political cleverness...
Election yard signs are stupid.
Thankfully, in a few days our "long national nightmare" will be over - or it will have just begun.
Winter winds will sweep away dead leaves and a few dead candidate yard signs. Candidates should be personally responsible for every yard sign, to ensure it is disposed of promptly and appropriately. This would give both the winners and losers something useful to do after the election.
Saturday, April 30, 2016
In Search of Type B (Trump and Clinton are the same)
My last post ended up being more political than I originally planned, and since I've rung that bell, I'll continue to let it ring, briefly, before quelling it.
The race for the nomination for the White House is still in full swing. On the Right, Donald Trump pretty much has the votes locked up. Ted Cruz is tripping over himself chasing after him, with John Kasich very distant and hopeless third.
On the right, Hillary Clinton pretty much has the votes to be the Democratic nominee over Bernie Sanders.
"I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president." - Hillary Clinton, circa 1993
Can you imagine the outrage if Bill Clinton says the same thing?
The political class Republicans hate Donald Trump, and they are looking for a reason, any reason, to deny him the nomination. This is somewhat understandable since he has not really been a Republican and many of his historic social views have been pretty far left. Having come up in private industry with his political role mostly as a donor, the Republican elite see him as distasteful, he hasn't paid his dues. This is probably something the left should pay attention to. It would not be impossible for Trump to continue his wild-card streak and govern from a viewpoint left of Clinton if elected.
I'm personally convinced Hillary Clinton is being handed the nomination on a server platter by the Democratic political elite. The idea that in an open-year election, there was so little interest in becoming the Democratic nominee is absolutely ludicrous. Bernie Sanders serves as a good, never-win opponent; a self-described Democratic Socialist never had a chance. He also serves the role of making Hillary Clinton appear to be a moderate, despite being left of a Democratic Socialist on some issues. Nice planning. The fact that Sanders is doing as well as he is only shows the real problem the public has with Clinton.
The press, the left and many on the right were quick to blow Donald Trump off as a blow-hard, reality-TV candidate ... until he started to win. His base is still being written off as "just a bunch of white uneducated males." In a world where every minority is a protected class, the only group that can be rounded up and ridiculed, written off and ignored is the boring middle class. Trump has definitely tapped into something here. And deciding that it is a voice that doesn't matter is quite sad. It is hard to see Donald Trump ever being elected in a general election, but that shouldn't discount the voice of people who see something wrong, even if it is an unfashionable wrong or the blow-hard solutions are unrealistic. The fact that Donald Trump thinks his election will be a steam roller in November, shows the fantasy land he lives in.
The Democratic nomination process is rigged to avoid a Donald Trump (or a Bernie Sanders). The Democratic Superdelegates are party insiders who can vote any way they wish and serve as a safety valve against the wrong kind of candidate - ie the candidate the people might choose if given a real choice. In a more normal year, with several viable candidates that the politico glitterati can smile at, their role is minimized, but in a year with a lot of broken rules, Bernie has even less of a chance. Sadly, this situation seems to be accepted by the voting left. Sayeth the Superdelegates: Don't worry, no matter how you vote, dear voter, we know better. Democratic Superdelegates like to claim that their role is largely symbolic, so why not get rid of them???
Even with all this, I'm surprised at the number of people who will vote for Donald Trump; I'm equally surprised at the number of people who will vote for Hillary Clinton.
The reality is, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are exactly the same person. For the past 30 years as their feet hit the floor every morning they both have said, "What can I do to promote myself today." Donald Trump is actually pretty honest about this; he has no problem telling people how rich he is and how years of capitalist behavior has been to his favor.
Hillary Clinton has hidden behind a facade of working for the everywoman, while becoming fabulously wealthy in the process (and sometimes claiming poverty, despite being in the upper 0.1% of wealth holders in the Country). This can be best illustrated by what happened after Bill Clinton left office in 2001. Instead of going home to Arkansas, and there probably would have been respect if Hillary decided to represent her actual home state, she moved to New York, claimed to always be a New Yorker. New York is a much bigger, more powerful, left-leaning state than Arkansas. New York voting for a carpet bagger with a famous name says something about New York, and it is merely further evidence of the Democratic machine, and how much of that machine is controlled by so few.
There are voices of reason chirping in from the mayhem of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, but the reality is far too squalid.
Much like Bill Richardson never had a chance in 2008, despite likely being the candidate who had accomplished much with little fanfare, John Kasich is all but sidelined at this point, his quiet demeanor hidden behind the Trump private jets and screeching of Hillary Clinton.
And that is what is missing from politics in the United States. There are no shortage of Uber-Type-A people screaming they are right and everyone else is wrong. This isn't exclusive to politics, the same situation exists anywhere Uber-As scream and yell above everyone else - basically everywhere. Nixon's Great Silent Majority still exists, and will always be the great silent majority; the listeners and doers who will continue on continuing on, no matter which self-promoting, dishonest narcissist is eventually elected.
The race for the nomination for the White House is still in full swing. On the Right, Donald Trump pretty much has the votes locked up. Ted Cruz is tripping over himself chasing after him, with John Kasich very distant and hopeless third.
On the right, Hillary Clinton pretty much has the votes to be the Democratic nominee over Bernie Sanders.
"I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president." - Hillary Clinton, circa 1993
Can you imagine the outrage if Bill Clinton says the same thing?
The political class Republicans hate Donald Trump, and they are looking for a reason, any reason, to deny him the nomination. This is somewhat understandable since he has not really been a Republican and many of his historic social views have been pretty far left. Having come up in private industry with his political role mostly as a donor, the Republican elite see him as distasteful, he hasn't paid his dues. This is probably something the left should pay attention to. It would not be impossible for Trump to continue his wild-card streak and govern from a viewpoint left of Clinton if elected.
I'm personally convinced Hillary Clinton is being handed the nomination on a server platter by the Democratic political elite. The idea that in an open-year election, there was so little interest in becoming the Democratic nominee is absolutely ludicrous. Bernie Sanders serves as a good, never-win opponent; a self-described Democratic Socialist never had a chance. He also serves the role of making Hillary Clinton appear to be a moderate, despite being left of a Democratic Socialist on some issues. Nice planning. The fact that Sanders is doing as well as he is only shows the real problem the public has with Clinton.
The press, the left and many on the right were quick to blow Donald Trump off as a blow-hard, reality-TV candidate ... until he started to win. His base is still being written off as "just a bunch of white uneducated males." In a world where every minority is a protected class, the only group that can be rounded up and ridiculed, written off and ignored is the boring middle class. Trump has definitely tapped into something here. And deciding that it is a voice that doesn't matter is quite sad. It is hard to see Donald Trump ever being elected in a general election, but that shouldn't discount the voice of people who see something wrong, even if it is an unfashionable wrong or the blow-hard solutions are unrealistic. The fact that Donald Trump thinks his election will be a steam roller in November, shows the fantasy land he lives in.
The Democratic nomination process is rigged to avoid a Donald Trump (or a Bernie Sanders). The Democratic Superdelegates are party insiders who can vote any way they wish and serve as a safety valve against the wrong kind of candidate - ie the candidate the people might choose if given a real choice. In a more normal year, with several viable candidates that the politico glitterati can smile at, their role is minimized, but in a year with a lot of broken rules, Bernie has even less of a chance. Sadly, this situation seems to be accepted by the voting left. Sayeth the Superdelegates: Don't worry, no matter how you vote, dear voter, we know better. Democratic Superdelegates like to claim that their role is largely symbolic, so why not get rid of them???
Even with all this, I'm surprised at the number of people who will vote for Donald Trump; I'm equally surprised at the number of people who will vote for Hillary Clinton.
The reality is, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are exactly the same person. For the past 30 years as their feet hit the floor every morning they both have said, "What can I do to promote myself today." Donald Trump is actually pretty honest about this; he has no problem telling people how rich he is and how years of capitalist behavior has been to his favor.
Hillary Clinton has hidden behind a facade of working for the everywoman, while becoming fabulously wealthy in the process (and sometimes claiming poverty, despite being in the upper 0.1% of wealth holders in the Country). This can be best illustrated by what happened after Bill Clinton left office in 2001. Instead of going home to Arkansas, and there probably would have been respect if Hillary decided to represent her actual home state, she moved to New York, claimed to always be a New Yorker. New York is a much bigger, more powerful, left-leaning state than Arkansas. New York voting for a carpet bagger with a famous name says something about New York, and it is merely further evidence of the Democratic machine, and how much of that machine is controlled by so few.
There are voices of reason chirping in from the mayhem of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, but the reality is far too squalid.
Much like Bill Richardson never had a chance in 2008, despite likely being the candidate who had accomplished much with little fanfare, John Kasich is all but sidelined at this point, his quiet demeanor hidden behind the Trump private jets and screeching of Hillary Clinton.
And that is what is missing from politics in the United States. There are no shortage of Uber-Type-A people screaming they are right and everyone else is wrong. This isn't exclusive to politics, the same situation exists anywhere Uber-As scream and yell above everyone else - basically everywhere. Nixon's Great Silent Majority still exists, and will always be the great silent majority; the listeners and doers who will continue on continuing on, no matter which self-promoting, dishonest narcissist is eventually elected.
Sunday, April 17, 2016
Liberty and Fish
A few weeks ago, I saw a diatribe written by a raving, sanctimonious left-winger on how conservatives are destroying liberty. This was a fringe viewpoint that was so far left, it was almost a right-wing viewpoint. I didn't search this out, but it would have been just as possible that a similar diatribe could be been keyed by a raving, sanctimonious right-winger.
"It is interesting how, once one edits justifications for violence down to a length suitable for T-shirt slogans, political distinctions between left and right disappear." - Sarah Vowell
The raving, sanctimonious liberal mentioned the distinction between Freedom From versus Freedom To. Ignoring the writer after the first couple paragraphs was easy, but this started quite a bit of thinking on the distinction between Freedom From and Freedom To.
The father of this concept is probably Isaiah Berlin who talked about Negative Liberty and Positive Liberty in the 1950's. This is a seemingly simple concept that is actually less straight forward than it appears at first glance. As it is a concept in the political realm, it is sadly claimed by both the political left and right in haughty fashion. Ideologues in both camps claim to own moral superiority here.
I've read a little more about Isaiah Berlin, who was an admitted liberal, but at a different political time than today. I do wish I could have a picture of me that is as menacingly smart as this one of him...
Negative and Positive Liberty should not be thought of as bad vs. good or wrong vs. right. In simplest forms, Negative Liberty is the absence of external barriers to freedom, Positive Liberty is the ability to act without barriers to freedom. A simplified example is in order.
I am going to the store to buy soap.
If there is no soap to buy, I have neither negative, nor positive freedom.
If there are three bars of soap and I can buy any of them, I have both positive and negative freedom. There is a choice (Negative Liberty) and I can choose freely (Positive Liberty).
If there are three bars of soap, and one costs $1, another $7 and the third $45, but I only have $2, I have negative freedom (I can buy any bar I choose), but not positive (my money constraints mean I can only buy the $1 bar). Money or internal limits do not have to be the only constraint on Positive Liberty; if a large, vicious dog is snarling over one bar of soap, my Positive Liberty is constrained since I also value my hands.
Conceptually, Negative Liberty is a precondition for Positive Liberty. If there is no soap, or only one bar of soap, my choice is limited. It doesn't matter how much money I have, my Positive Liberty is constrained by my Negative Liberty.
How liberals like to twist the concept into their favor:
Everyone should have at least enough money to choose between two kinds of soap, so we'll take $6 from the rich, give it to the poor to allow them positive freedom.
How conservatives like to twist the concept into their favor:
By taking $6 from the rich, you may have deprived the rich of being able to buy the $45 soap, or being able to spend that money on other things where the rich had Positive Liberty.
The conservative argument gets a little difficult if the rich has $238,922 - there is almost no reduction to the Positive Liberty of the rich in this case. However, if the rich has $12 (still substantially more than my $2), the Positive Liberty of the rich is greatly affected. If the rich has $238,922, but $156,223 is taken in small increments to increase the Positive Liberty of the poor for a myriad of things, it is arguable that the Positive Liberty of the rich person has now been negatively affected. Where this is in reality, is a matter of perspective.
The concept can be taken to the extreme. This can be instructive, or it can be what the ideologues on both the political left and right like to do to try to make a point. The limits of total Negative Liberty is anarchy - no limits at all. I can take any soap I want and do anything I want to get the soap I want, Total Negative Liberty!
The limits of Positive Liberty is Communism - no choice since everyone must be completely equal in Positive Liberty. I have one soap, we all have one soap, and we will all like it!
And so, much like EVERYTHING else in life, there is a balance. And where this balance lies is dependent on the political wing. Sadly, these choices toward both the left or right are end up being coercive.
Conservative: I should be able to buy guns.
Liberal: I should be able to walk down the street in even the worst neighborhood without fear of getting shot (never mind knives, clubs, etc.).
Conservative: I agree, so buy a gun and protect your liberal-ass self.
But this is coercive. The liberal may be afraid of guns; the liberal may be of limited means and so can not afford the gun or the training to use it properly, etc. And taxes are already paying for police to provide for the general good of the community.
Liberal: In order to have any liberty, I need to be healthy and so health care must be available.
Conservative: I'm 24 and very healthy, I don't want to buy health care insurance, besides, I just finished college so I'd rather spend that money on beer.
Liberal: You don't have to buy it.
But this is coercive, since not buying health care now comes with a punitive tax!
<slight rant> In reality, the 24-year-old will be covered by his parents policy which is the most coercive part of Obamacare. This is coercive to the parent's employer. CUT THE UMBILICAL CHORD ALREADY!!! At 24, the beer drinker should be able to take care of himself!!! <end slight rant>
Golly Jeepers, this post is turning politically negative which was not the intent, since I'm mostly a political agnostic, I'll go back to soap...
We might want to look at why I have limited Positive Liberty. Is my inability to buy $7 soap because I decided to buy a very expensive shampoo? Not much sympathy there - I've purposefully limited my Positive Liberty with respect to soap, by choosing to buy something else. Is my inability to buy $7 soap because I worked for a poorly run company and lost my job - maybe being helped out to buy good soap for a short time will help with my future employment prospects by smelling better? Is my inability to buy $7 soap because I'm in college - maybe I should suck it up with cheap soap and plan that some day, I may be able to buy $7 soap. Is my inability to buy $7 soap because I quit high school and now make very little money - maybe I need help for a little while, but ultimately I should be able to work toward opportunities to correct my poor past decisions and buy better soap in the future.
Lets take the issue of soap a bit further. Sometimes, Positive Liberty can and should limit Negative Liberty. But the line can get quite grey.
Let's say that we've had new companies come into the soap market and now there are 5 soaps to choose from. Choice and competition brings down the price of the expensive ones, but raises the cost of the cheap ones a bit since the supply of soap raw materials is now more limited. (Oops, by having more Negative Liberty, Positive Liberty may be decreased for some. So free market forces can actually decrease freedom.)
Now, it is determined that one of the soaps is really bad for the environment, so it is forced to be taken off the market. This is bad for Negative Liberty - one less soap to choose from. But may be good overall - people are free from the tyranny of dead fish. But who decides that the soap in question is bad? Science can determine this, but scientific understanding evolves over time. And are all scientists devoid of soap preferences and investment in the soap companies? Does a soap study funded by the soap industry mean it is axiomatically flawed? And what if all soap is a little bad and the one soap is proven to be only slightly worse for the environment, but I can use much, much less of it, so it has a net positive - should it be banned? But if it isn't banned, then that frees another person to use a lot more of it than is really needed and kill fish. And if all soap is a little bad, should it all be banned, thus freeing people from the tyranny of dead fish, but subjecting everyone to the tyranny of stinky people?
Nope, the fish are telling us that there are no simple answers, just degrees of dead fish.
The entire concept of liberty is a political, or at least authoritative, construct - so I guess this post had to become political.
But the sad thing is, we don't really have that much liberty, positive or negative, in politics.
In theory, I can vote for anyone I wish this coming November, I have a lot of Negative Liberty with respect to my vote. I can even write myself in on the ballot. My Positive Liberty is restricted in that there will likely only be two realistic choices in November for president. My Positive Liberty is further restricted in that we appear to be heading toward a situation where both of those choices are really, really bad. Even worse, my Negative Liberty isn't even all that good, since most of the listed choices are not as different as they would like to pretend that they are. Both are more interested in their own Positive and Negative Liberty, and people like them, than they are in the Positive or Negative Liberty of the average voter.
So in the end, I guess I'm just a dead fish. A very soapy dead fish.
"It is interesting how, once one edits justifications for violence down to a length suitable for T-shirt slogans, political distinctions between left and right disappear." - Sarah Vowell
The raving, sanctimonious liberal mentioned the distinction between Freedom From versus Freedom To. Ignoring the writer after the first couple paragraphs was easy, but this started quite a bit of thinking on the distinction between Freedom From and Freedom To.
The father of this concept is probably Isaiah Berlin who talked about Negative Liberty and Positive Liberty in the 1950's. This is a seemingly simple concept that is actually less straight forward than it appears at first glance. As it is a concept in the political realm, it is sadly claimed by both the political left and right in haughty fashion. Ideologues in both camps claim to own moral superiority here.
I've read a little more about Isaiah Berlin, who was an admitted liberal, but at a different political time than today. I do wish I could have a picture of me that is as menacingly smart as this one of him...
Negative and Positive Liberty should not be thought of as bad vs. good or wrong vs. right. In simplest forms, Negative Liberty is the absence of external barriers to freedom, Positive Liberty is the ability to act without barriers to freedom. A simplified example is in order.
I am going to the store to buy soap.
If there is no soap to buy, I have neither negative, nor positive freedom.
If there are three bars of soap and I can buy any of them, I have both positive and negative freedom. There is a choice (Negative Liberty) and I can choose freely (Positive Liberty).
If there are three bars of soap, and one costs $1, another $7 and the third $45, but I only have $2, I have negative freedom (I can buy any bar I choose), but not positive (my money constraints mean I can only buy the $1 bar). Money or internal limits do not have to be the only constraint on Positive Liberty; if a large, vicious dog is snarling over one bar of soap, my Positive Liberty is constrained since I also value my hands.
Conceptually, Negative Liberty is a precondition for Positive Liberty. If there is no soap, or only one bar of soap, my choice is limited. It doesn't matter how much money I have, my Positive Liberty is constrained by my Negative Liberty.
How liberals like to twist the concept into their favor:
Everyone should have at least enough money to choose between two kinds of soap, so we'll take $6 from the rich, give it to the poor to allow them positive freedom.
How conservatives like to twist the concept into their favor:
By taking $6 from the rich, you may have deprived the rich of being able to buy the $45 soap, or being able to spend that money on other things where the rich had Positive Liberty.
The conservative argument gets a little difficult if the rich has $238,922 - there is almost no reduction to the Positive Liberty of the rich in this case. However, if the rich has $12 (still substantially more than my $2), the Positive Liberty of the rich is greatly affected. If the rich has $238,922, but $156,223 is taken in small increments to increase the Positive Liberty of the poor for a myriad of things, it is arguable that the Positive Liberty of the rich person has now been negatively affected. Where this is in reality, is a matter of perspective.
The concept can be taken to the extreme. This can be instructive, or it can be what the ideologues on both the political left and right like to do to try to make a point. The limits of total Negative Liberty is anarchy - no limits at all. I can take any soap I want and do anything I want to get the soap I want, Total Negative Liberty!
The limits of Positive Liberty is Communism - no choice since everyone must be completely equal in Positive Liberty. I have one soap, we all have one soap, and we will all like it!
And so, much like EVERYTHING else in life, there is a balance. And where this balance lies is dependent on the political wing. Sadly, these choices toward both the left or right are end up being coercive.
Conservative: I should be able to buy guns.
Liberal: I should be able to walk down the street in even the worst neighborhood without fear of getting shot (never mind knives, clubs, etc.).
Conservative: I agree, so buy a gun and protect your liberal-ass self.
But this is coercive. The liberal may be afraid of guns; the liberal may be of limited means and so can not afford the gun or the training to use it properly, etc. And taxes are already paying for police to provide for the general good of the community.
Liberal: In order to have any liberty, I need to be healthy and so health care must be available.
Conservative: I'm 24 and very healthy, I don't want to buy health care insurance, besides, I just finished college so I'd rather spend that money on beer.
Liberal: You don't have to buy it.
But this is coercive, since not buying health care now comes with a punitive tax!
<slight rant> In reality, the 24-year-old will be covered by his parents policy which is the most coercive part of Obamacare. This is coercive to the parent's employer. CUT THE UMBILICAL CHORD ALREADY!!! At 24, the beer drinker should be able to take care of himself!!! <end slight rant>
Golly Jeepers, this post is turning politically negative which was not the intent, since I'm mostly a political agnostic, I'll go back to soap...
We might want to look at why I have limited Positive Liberty. Is my inability to buy $7 soap because I decided to buy a very expensive shampoo? Not much sympathy there - I've purposefully limited my Positive Liberty with respect to soap, by choosing to buy something else. Is my inability to buy $7 soap because I worked for a poorly run company and lost my job - maybe being helped out to buy good soap for a short time will help with my future employment prospects by smelling better? Is my inability to buy $7 soap because I'm in college - maybe I should suck it up with cheap soap and plan that some day, I may be able to buy $7 soap. Is my inability to buy $7 soap because I quit high school and now make very little money - maybe I need help for a little while, but ultimately I should be able to work toward opportunities to correct my poor past decisions and buy better soap in the future.
Lets take the issue of soap a bit further. Sometimes, Positive Liberty can and should limit Negative Liberty. But the line can get quite grey.
Let's say that we've had new companies come into the soap market and now there are 5 soaps to choose from. Choice and competition brings down the price of the expensive ones, but raises the cost of the cheap ones a bit since the supply of soap raw materials is now more limited. (Oops, by having more Negative Liberty, Positive Liberty may be decreased for some. So free market forces can actually decrease freedom.)
Now, it is determined that one of the soaps is really bad for the environment, so it is forced to be taken off the market. This is bad for Negative Liberty - one less soap to choose from. But may be good overall - people are free from the tyranny of dead fish. But who decides that the soap in question is bad? Science can determine this, but scientific understanding evolves over time. And are all scientists devoid of soap preferences and investment in the soap companies? Does a soap study funded by the soap industry mean it is axiomatically flawed? And what if all soap is a little bad and the one soap is proven to be only slightly worse for the environment, but I can use much, much less of it, so it has a net positive - should it be banned? But if it isn't banned, then that frees another person to use a lot more of it than is really needed and kill fish. And if all soap is a little bad, should it all be banned, thus freeing people from the tyranny of dead fish, but subjecting everyone to the tyranny of stinky people?
Nope, the fish are telling us that there are no simple answers, just degrees of dead fish.
The entire concept of liberty is a political, or at least authoritative, construct - so I guess this post had to become political.
But the sad thing is, we don't really have that much liberty, positive or negative, in politics.
In theory, I can vote for anyone I wish this coming November, I have a lot of Negative Liberty with respect to my vote. I can even write myself in on the ballot. My Positive Liberty is restricted in that there will likely only be two realistic choices in November for president. My Positive Liberty is further restricted in that we appear to be heading toward a situation where both of those choices are really, really bad. Even worse, my Negative Liberty isn't even all that good, since most of the listed choices are not as different as they would like to pretend that they are. Both are more interested in their own Positive and Negative Liberty, and people like them, than they are in the Positive or Negative Liberty of the average voter.
So in the end, I guess I'm just a dead fish. A very soapy dead fish.
Friday, December 18, 2015
Confessions of a Climate Agnostic
There were a lot of pomportant people in Paris and they seemed very self-congratulatory after signing a climate treaty. Other than the smiles, hand-holding and comments like, "this is historic," it should be noted how little coverage the final agreement actually received. The day after signing, it wasn't even mentioned on the evening news. Even NPR had only a tacit story on it.
After learning more about the agreement, the lack of coverage probably makes more sense than should be admitted. The final agreement has a lot of "shoulds" in place of "shalls" and there are basically no ramifications, other than global shaming, for non-compliance. No country other than Luxembourg seems to really care about public shaming - there is always someone else to blame. There is also very little in the way of objective measurements across the globe, making compliance with the suggestion even more doubtful.
The should versus shall should not be downplayed. I should eat healthier and exercise more. The law says I shall not walk out of Walmart with Twinkies without paying for them. The former is a suggestion, the latter has consequences. While the scale of a global environmental agreement is much bigger, the binding of the language is the same.
Reportedly, some of these "shoulds" were put in place at the urging of the US since the Obama administration was fearful that "shall" would then require Senate approval of the agreement, and this would not be a requirement if the agreement is merely a suggestion. So rather than face the difficult political work at home, John Kerry pushed for a, largely, vapid agreement.
What the Paris agreement will allow, is for a lot more finger wagging. Al Gore has been finger wagging for quite some time now. And, frankly, something does need to be done. However, even Mr. Gore does not agree that anything drastic needs to be done. He is quite content living a lavish 1%er lifestyle while earning his living as a professional finger wagger. He has attempted to address his oppulence, but his response is actually more dangerous than the problem his lifestyle creates.
I could almost admire his honesty if he said some form of, "I'm imperfect, and like everyone else, would like to do better. But alas, I'm human so do as I say, not as I do." What his response is really saying is, "I'm very wealthy, so I can live an extravagant lifestyle with only some guilt and an insignificantly small additional expense. Those of you who are not rich must make real sacrifices." (and he says this with condescension). Elsewhere, the referenced "10 geothermal wells" are noted as being under Al Gore's driveway. Just How friggin' long is his driveway?
I shouldn't pick on Al Gore too much. It is just too easy to do and if the environmental movement ever does take off for the non-Birkenstock crowd, he would have to find something else to prognosticate on.
Expanding in a minute, I do see climate change as a real and growing threat. What is almost unbelievable is how little population is discussed as part of the issue and solution. As soon as procreation is mentioned, eyes get wide and hands are thrown up - having seven children, even if you can't afford three, is a basic human right! Sadly, in the first world through the third, the people having seven children are too often the ones that can't raise them in a more sustainable manner. The lack of including population changes as part of any solution, or even any discussion, of the environment in the future is further evidence of the (lack of) real importance of the issue. As Al Gore has taught us, real sacrifices must always be made by someone else.
The question most of asked around the issue is, "Do you believe in global warming?" This question itself is wrong and unfortunate. The branding of the phenomenon as "global warming" was a huge mistake made decades ago. Branding it as "climate change" allows for more honest discussions without including anecdotal observations of a frigid winter in Dallas. There should actually be three questions:
So, is the climate changing?
Yes. This is fact, and there is data to support this. Denying this is, frankly, wearing blinders.
Is the climate change caused by human activity?
Somewhere between probably and almost for sure. Scientific fact is hard to come by, but the vast majority of climate scientists are not dumb and while modeling the atmosphere is notoriously difficult, most models together point in generally the same direction. Even the most conspiracy-minded skeptic must admit that, at best, human activity is not helping since, as above, the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is fact.
What should be done about it?
AAAHHHHHHHHHH, here is the real question. The difficult one. The question even Al Gore doesn't want to live by if he really believes what his prophet persona says.
The question of what to do about it must not be based exclusively on hard climate science, since any changes shall take into account economic theory, social changes, etc.
As much as I've spent much of my adult scientific life poopooing the "social sciences," they play a bigger role here than what anybody wants to admit. Until the Joe and Jane six-pack crowd sees a short term benefit to changes that might improve the climate situation, it will never take hold.
Witness how when gas was $4/gallon a few years ago, the sale of small cars began to noticeably creep up, while in our current oil-glut environment, larger vehicles are again making a strong comeback.
Great, so the answer is to make not being a granola really, really expensive, right?
Wrong, economic theory must also play a role. As resilient as the atmosphere may or may not be, the global economy is a fragile glass figurine in comparison. Any attempt to affect a large change quickly will result in catastrophic consequences, even if the long term result is good (and modeling the economy long term is harder than the environment). Negative changes in the economy moves people, business, and government into preservation mode and the climate will quickly become an even lower priority.
Similarly, it is ludicrous to expect advanced economies to digress - the economy must grow or die and any politician who suggests a decrease in lifestyle for the next generation will be railroaded out on a log.
We also should not expect developing economies to do anything other than pursue the lifestyle that the developed world has. Suggesting otherwise is borderline evil. I do sometimes wonder if the developing world is not in a better position to move ahead of the developed world - without the entrenched infrastructure in places like the United States, France and Germany, is it easier to put a different, more sustainable infrastructure in Subsaharan Africa? If environmentally friendly solutions are such a no-brainer and so much better for the long term economy and technologically advanced to the point everyone should have them, how come they are not becoming the norm in places like China, India or Brazil? Maybe not quite as much of a no-brainer as the solar crowd would hope.
The difficulty of individuals making changes can be illustrated by what I do to help and hurt the globe. I do this not to flog myself, or to be self-congratulatory, but to illustrate that almost everyone does things that help and hurt.
I recycle nearly everything I can, but I also realize that much of what is recycled does end up in a landfill.
I have a longer-than-average commute, but I chose my truck as the highest mpg open-bedded 4wd vehicle available at the time.
I drive very little on the average weekend, but pursuing mass transportation is not something I have much interest in.
I could buy a more efficient 4-wheeled vehicle, but then I would have yet another vehicle which is not really helping.
In the summer I do most of my commuting on a motorcycle which uses much less fuel than most cars, but my bikes are not really built for fuel efficiency and, frankly, I ride motorcycles because I like motorcycles, with any environmental benefit a tertiary thought at best - do motives matter?
I heat and cool my house with geothermal and keep it at a cool 64F in the winter, but if the house wouldn't have had geothermal when I bought it, I probably wouldn't have put it in myself.
I've looked into solar panels, and even ran full electric to my pole bard with that in the back of my mind, but any payout for solar panels, using realistic estimates, would be at about the anticipated lifetime of them, so I don't think I'll do it anytime soon. To be clear, it is getting closer to being cost effective if subsidies are maintained, but looking at the actual cost, it is not. And I can think of better uses environmental or otherwise for that money.
I see water scarcity as a potentially much larger problem in the future, but water use minimization is almost silly living in the Midwest.
I have planted many trees on my property, but they keep dying.
Everyone of these things has a "but" in it. Nobody wants to destroy the environment or return to the days of burning rivers. Everyone could be doing more and probably should (even Al Gore), but...
And that is the real answer, there are no easy answers to this.
After learning more about the agreement, the lack of coverage probably makes more sense than should be admitted. The final agreement has a lot of "shoulds" in place of "shalls" and there are basically no ramifications, other than global shaming, for non-compliance. No country other than Luxembourg seems to really care about public shaming - there is always someone else to blame. There is also very little in the way of objective measurements across the globe, making compliance with the suggestion even more doubtful.
The should versus shall should not be downplayed. I should eat healthier and exercise more. The law says I shall not walk out of Walmart with Twinkies without paying for them. The former is a suggestion, the latter has consequences. While the scale of a global environmental agreement is much bigger, the binding of the language is the same.
Reportedly, some of these "shoulds" were put in place at the urging of the US since the Obama administration was fearful that "shall" would then require Senate approval of the agreement, and this would not be a requirement if the agreement is merely a suggestion. So rather than face the difficult political work at home, John Kerry pushed for a, largely, vapid agreement.
What the Paris agreement will allow, is for a lot more finger wagging. Al Gore has been finger wagging for quite some time now. And, frankly, something does need to be done. However, even Mr. Gore does not agree that anything drastic needs to be done. He is quite content living a lavish 1%er lifestyle while earning his living as a professional finger wagger. He has attempted to address his oppulence, but his response is actually more dangerous than the problem his lifestyle creates.
I could almost admire his honesty if he said some form of, "I'm imperfect, and like everyone else, would like to do better. But alas, I'm human so do as I say, not as I do." What his response is really saying is, "I'm very wealthy, so I can live an extravagant lifestyle with only some guilt and an insignificantly small additional expense. Those of you who are not rich must make real sacrifices." (and he says this with condescension). Elsewhere, the referenced "10 geothermal wells" are noted as being under Al Gore's driveway. Just How friggin' long is his driveway?
I shouldn't pick on Al Gore too much. It is just too easy to do and if the environmental movement ever does take off for the non-Birkenstock crowd, he would have to find something else to prognosticate on.
Expanding in a minute, I do see climate change as a real and growing threat. What is almost unbelievable is how little population is discussed as part of the issue and solution. As soon as procreation is mentioned, eyes get wide and hands are thrown up - having seven children, even if you can't afford three, is a basic human right! Sadly, in the first world through the third, the people having seven children are too often the ones that can't raise them in a more sustainable manner. The lack of including population changes as part of any solution, or even any discussion, of the environment in the future is further evidence of the (lack of) real importance of the issue. As Al Gore has taught us, real sacrifices must always be made by someone else.
The question most of asked around the issue is, "Do you believe in global warming?" This question itself is wrong and unfortunate. The branding of the phenomenon as "global warming" was a huge mistake made decades ago. Branding it as "climate change" allows for more honest discussions without including anecdotal observations of a frigid winter in Dallas. There should actually be three questions:
So, is the climate changing?
Yes. This is fact, and there is data to support this. Denying this is, frankly, wearing blinders.
Is the climate change caused by human activity?
Somewhere between probably and almost for sure. Scientific fact is hard to come by, but the vast majority of climate scientists are not dumb and while modeling the atmosphere is notoriously difficult, most models together point in generally the same direction. Even the most conspiracy-minded skeptic must admit that, at best, human activity is not helping since, as above, the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is fact.
What should be done about it?
AAAHHHHHHHHHH, here is the real question. The difficult one. The question even Al Gore doesn't want to live by if he really believes what his prophet persona says.
The question of what to do about it must not be based exclusively on hard climate science, since any changes shall take into account economic theory, social changes, etc.
As much as I've spent much of my adult scientific life poopooing the "social sciences," they play a bigger role here than what anybody wants to admit. Until the Joe and Jane six-pack crowd sees a short term benefit to changes that might improve the climate situation, it will never take hold.
Witness how when gas was $4/gallon a few years ago, the sale of small cars began to noticeably creep up, while in our current oil-glut environment, larger vehicles are again making a strong comeback.
Great, so the answer is to make not being a granola really, really expensive, right?
Wrong, economic theory must also play a role. As resilient as the atmosphere may or may not be, the global economy is a fragile glass figurine in comparison. Any attempt to affect a large change quickly will result in catastrophic consequences, even if the long term result is good (and modeling the economy long term is harder than the environment). Negative changes in the economy moves people, business, and government into preservation mode and the climate will quickly become an even lower priority.
Similarly, it is ludicrous to expect advanced economies to digress - the economy must grow or die and any politician who suggests a decrease in lifestyle for the next generation will be railroaded out on a log.
We also should not expect developing economies to do anything other than pursue the lifestyle that the developed world has. Suggesting otherwise is borderline evil. I do sometimes wonder if the developing world is not in a better position to move ahead of the developed world - without the entrenched infrastructure in places like the United States, France and Germany, is it easier to put a different, more sustainable infrastructure in Subsaharan Africa? If environmentally friendly solutions are such a no-brainer and so much better for the long term economy and technologically advanced to the point everyone should have them, how come they are not becoming the norm in places like China, India or Brazil? Maybe not quite as much of a no-brainer as the solar crowd would hope.
The difficulty of individuals making changes can be illustrated by what I do to help and hurt the globe. I do this not to flog myself, or to be self-congratulatory, but to illustrate that almost everyone does things that help and hurt.
I recycle nearly everything I can, but I also realize that much of what is recycled does end up in a landfill.
I have a longer-than-average commute, but I chose my truck as the highest mpg open-bedded 4wd vehicle available at the time.
I drive very little on the average weekend, but pursuing mass transportation is not something I have much interest in.
I could buy a more efficient 4-wheeled vehicle, but then I would have yet another vehicle which is not really helping.
In the summer I do most of my commuting on a motorcycle which uses much less fuel than most cars, but my bikes are not really built for fuel efficiency and, frankly, I ride motorcycles because I like motorcycles, with any environmental benefit a tertiary thought at best - do motives matter?
I heat and cool my house with geothermal and keep it at a cool 64F in the winter, but if the house wouldn't have had geothermal when I bought it, I probably wouldn't have put it in myself.
I've looked into solar panels, and even ran full electric to my pole bard with that in the back of my mind, but any payout for solar panels, using realistic estimates, would be at about the anticipated lifetime of them, so I don't think I'll do it anytime soon. To be clear, it is getting closer to being cost effective if subsidies are maintained, but looking at the actual cost, it is not. And I can think of better uses environmental or otherwise for that money.
I see water scarcity as a potentially much larger problem in the future, but water use minimization is almost silly living in the Midwest.
I have planted many trees on my property, but they keep dying.
Everyone of these things has a "but" in it. Nobody wants to destroy the environment or return to the days of burning rivers. Everyone could be doing more and probably should (even Al Gore), but...
And that is the real answer, there are no easy answers to this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)