Willing Suspension of Disbelief

".....transfer from our inward nature a human interest and a semblance of truth sufficient to procure for these shadows of imagination that willing suspension of disbelief for the moment, which constitutes poetic faith. Mr. Wordsworth on the other hand was to propose to himself as his object, to give the charm of novelty to things of every day, and to excite a feeling analogous to the supernatural, by awakening the mind's attention from the lethargy of custom..."
This is Coleridge"s classic description of how the reader accepts the fantastic and unreal in poetry (as well as a snapshot of Wordsworth and Romanticism.) I wonder if he has struck on a basic notion in human thinking, like catharsis or plot mirroring in secondary characters in tragedy. Is there an element in us that shields our logic from difficult or fantastic scenes? Does the mind turn its critical eye from the intellectually offensive or absurd? So we accept alliances with former bloody enemies. We look at the huge deficits and don't shudder. The mathematical error inherent in the benefits created in Social Security and Medicare is tolerated although everyone knows that it will not work. We disdain politicians during campaigns yet accept them at face value between elections. Perhaps this is not simple foolishness, perhaps it is the poet in us suspending our disbelief.

Racism and Debt

A question I have been asking of late is, "Is the animosity towards the government racially motivated?". Most have felt it was. This has not been my observation. I thought Obama was elected and seated as president in an overwhelming atmosphere of goodwill and hope. The polls show a high approval and then a gradual decline. What happened, I believe, is that he deferred his programs to the House and Senate which then proceeded to devour them in their usual way. A digested, picked over detritus emerged. It wasn't a legislative process, it was an auction. That, plus the worrisome numbers of deficit and debt soured everybody. I think racism is too convenient.
The numbers are daunting and it is difficult for me to understand the public unwillingness to confront them seriously. It is a bit like realigning alliances: In a matter of weeks, old enemies with vicious histories together somehow put all of their animosities aside to confront a new, common enemy. They don't look at the new alliance with any criticism or suspicion; they act as if their history does not exist. So we look at these unbelievable numbers, debt that can never be maintained, and don't see them. Those who do see them are seen as outliers and are driven from the camp.

Science and Its Discontent

Years ago, in unbridled youthful optimism, I enrolled in an electronics course "to see how things work." What I learned was how to use measuring tools to find parts that needed replaced. It wasn't useless, just disappointing and limited. When I was done I could find the component that was not functioning and replace it. It was a far cry from understanding the function.
Hannah Arendt opined that science and technology had so far outstripped the knowledge of the average person that they could no longer discuss them. It is an interesting notion if science is seen as our milieu. It would be like a sailor not understanding buoyancy or water; how would he think and what would he talk about? Would he be comfortable with this mystery that was with him day in and day out? Would he get peculiar? Would he pray to Poseidon? What does a jury think looking at complex DNA evidence in a murder case? What do they talk about around the table as they discuss the crucial information? Can a neurosurgeon in a malpractice case hope for justice from his "peers"?
This world faces huge problems. One is this science interface with the rest of us. Are we at risk of an energy shortage? How would that be measured? If we are at risk, is nuclear power a safe option? If not for us then why the French? Is there warming of the planet?Is it dangerous? Is it caused by human industrial activity? Why has the name for the question changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change?" Is it true, as a scientist said recently, that scientists who are not convinced of man made global warming must feign they are to get grants?
Science, and its thoughtless child Technology, are filling our world. Are they in their complexity crowding other thinking out? Will we be left with a residue of sports, gossip and sensuality? More important, will we be unable to discuss these questions and need to rely on other translators and their motives? And most important, if science becomes a strange tool to us, will we harm it?

We Are The World, Snowed In

We are so busy; life is so fast. We are bombarded with notions, concepts and good ideas without the opportunity of ever fully participating in them. Idealism seems a luxury. Remarkably, I have recently felt a part of the society around me; I have participated, joined, shared and been part of an uplifting redistribution of talent, effort and wealth.
Big storms change people. They make the world smaller. Perhaps it is the demonstration of Nature's power that subdues us, chastens us, rubs our sharp edges smooth. Perhaps storms homogenizes us before the same powerful and leveling force. Perhaps it is nothing more than the paralysis the community suffers, the negation of the automobile and the limiting of transportation. A big storm simplifies us, reduces us to basics. Everyone on the street is polite and helpful, despite the cold and inconvenience. Everyone goes out of his way. People pitch in to clean walks and shovel cars out of their snow traps. On our street it was multinational with me, a German and an Asian working on our cars, the street, the walks, other cars. It was a communal experience, all selfless and constructive towards the general, unseen welfare.
Later someone stole my shovel.

Carter vs. Salmela

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf4BoCP26rM&feature=player_embedded

This hockey moment raises interesting questions about hockey and the world. I have watched this film over and over and think the hit was legal, within the rules of the game. This brings us to the next question: Is legality enough? I think what the bankers, loan officers and ratings managers did over the last years was legal as well. But is it enough?
It is impossible, of course, to legislate a spirit of a game; that is where sportsmanship starts and that can be nebulous and dangerous. So, too, a culture; that area is morality. But there must be some consideration for analysis of behavior outside of the strictly legal. Legality should be the floor of behavior, not its ceiling. I have no good answer for that unwritten area. Make better people? After all, the hockey culture used to enforce "sportsmanship" with fists. And Salmela, unconscious before he hit the ice and with retrograde amnesia, made so little fuss he did not go to a hospital (where a traumatic unconscious/amnesia diagnosis might have put in in an ICU bed for a night). That type of culture is very forgiving.
Yet the hit was vicious, delivered against a player after the play was officially over by a man who knew it was unexpected and dangerous. Here the legality has no social function other than protect the perpetrator who should, in a civilized society, be last in the queue for protection.
Such a system, as the sage said of prostitution, is "technically perfect".

Mann Made Global Warming

It would be easy to be overwhelmed by the problems of this world; there are so many and seem so available. If I were to emphasize one problem as the lynch pin of the many risks facing us I would pick dishonesty and its various guises of insincerity, hypocrisy and half-truths. Drama is filled with dishonest people but usually as objects of ridicule. But that was from a time when truth was esteemed.
Years ago The United States admitted to a war crime, signed the paper and denied it in the same quarter hour at the same table. Did we invade Iraq because we were deceived by erroneous intelligence or did we see the loss of control over their oil as a "bigger picture" risk? A British military officer says the latter: Someone is lying. We have a dangerous deficit but discretionary spending is less than 17% of the budget: We deny we will encroach on the Social Security or Medicare but does anyone believe that? After all, the original plan was to cut 500 billion dollars from Medicare as we were saying we wouldn't. And what are those two entitlements? They are promises. Promises. Taxes were taken with the promise that money would be available for medical insurance and pension benefits. That money was taken from trusting citizens and its return was promised.
Science is often wrong but it doesn't lie. But now scientist do lie. Mann, the creator of the now debunked "hockey stick" graph, is under investigation for ethics violations. Virtually nobody believes these people now, regardless of the merits of their arguments. The American Heart Association came to the conclusion that butter is bad for you--when their main contributor was a margarine company. Now the vaccine/autism fiasco: The Lancet, one of the major medical journals in the world, retracted a report it published by a Dr. Wakefield that linked childhood vaccines and autism. Since that article many parents have been refusing to vaccinate their children; last year noted the first measles death in Britain in decades. The Lancet points to "collective failure" among researchers, government and peer reviewers. They did not mention that the esteemed Dr. Wakefield was, at the time of his "research", in the employ of plaintiff attorneys who were suing pharmaceutical companies over the autism risk inherent in vaccines. Nor did they mention that the good doctor had his own competitive vaccine. That's a lot more than "collective failure". That's falsifying data, a disgraceful breach of trust and, in the eyes of the parents of the child dead from measles I'm sure, a hanging offense.
Let's start right here; if you lie you you will be called on it. We won't call it a "collective failure", or an "ethical hiccup" or a "truth outlier". It will be "a lie" and you will be punished. Eventually we can move on to hypocrisy, deception and what should be said but is not.
What used to be the stuff of Comedy is no longer.

Faded Glory

An article appeared recently about Russia's effort to thwart the Americans' plans to get loans from the Chinese a few years ago. The motive seemed vague, cavalier, maybe capricious.
A number of years ago I was an usher in a wedding where a good friend of mine--and a contemporary--was to marry a young--and younger--woman. The groom's friends were 15 years older than the bride's party but the latter's cars were better. A number of them worked in Washington and were quite confident despite their youth. We were all sitting around after dinner discussing politics and it was clear the bridal group was talking past the groom's party. One of my friends, an accomplished banker, turned to me and said, "These guys don't care what we think." The groom's party sat back; it was the first time--even when in school--where no one cared what we thought. It was a defining unpleasant moment.
I'm getting the same feeling now internationally. We bluster, cajole and smooze but we are only tolerated; we no longer are esteemed. Part of this might be economic: We are certainly on a downturn. But it is likely we will recover, at least in relation to the other sick economies. And we are still dangerous, in military potential if not philosophy. But we seem feckless and uncertain. These terrorist trials are obviously an error, the government can't pass its signature legislation despite huge majorities and the philosophy of the government is linked with a loose thinking, impractical minority that threatens unlimited embarrassment at any moment. And we have made enemies, even among our friends.
For the first time I wonder about Obama's race and European bigotry (I am certain of Asia's bigotry.) Leadership requires some acceptance by the lead and that is not always easily achieved, even by the best of men. We may be headed towards difficult times where mutual respect and assistance will be a necessity. All of us may not be so lucky.

Taxes on the Wealthy

The concept of "raising taxes on the wealthy" packs a lot of notions into a deceptively short phrase, like "small cancer" or "local insurgents." Taxes remove money from very interested individuals and gives it to casual, inefficient groups. Could the government ever be a successful venture capitalist? Run a successful charity? Even build a specific project without the protection of a monopoly? The answer is no because government has too many mouths to feed, too many debts to pay, too many cross-purposes to cross. The government is a huge crazy quilt of competing factions, influence peddlers, friends and relatives--and these are just the legal conflicts with the task at hand; not even considered are the thefts, criminal inefficiencies, payoffs and errors of commission and omission of the amateurs, hacks and idiots involved.
Anyone who thinks taxes result in redistribution of wealth does not admit that the redistribution occurs long before the target group ever sees the residual. The government tax system is a huge dis-assembly line where money goes in and is removed at every station along the way until the tiny amount remaining dribbles out the end. It is a huge game of Telephone where the outcome is nothing like the planned input. So rather than the interested individual spending his money--and benefiting those he invests in or pays--in an efficient and targeted way, his money, when taxed, dissipates along the channel and becomes lost, like the "broken window theory" where the power and advantage of commerce barely keeps up.
Any tax, regardless of on whom, removes money from investment and commerce in the system and that is a tax on everyone.