"Folks in Nebraska, like folks all across the country, aren't going to say to themselves, 'We're going to take a few thousand jobs if it means our kids are potentially drinking water that would damage their health." So said Mr. Obama in Omaha recently as the government officially put on hold the Keystone XL project, a pipeline program that would send Canadian oil to the United States for refining. The Canadian Prime minister said that, absent the pipeline, the Canadian oil would be sent to Asia.
This is a significant moment in a number of ways. At least 20,00 good, high paying jobs, direct and indirect, hinged on the building of the pipeline. Oil from a friendly nation now goes elsewhere. One wag said this shows the administration is not friendly towards unions but is friendly only towards public sector unions.
But there is a bigger problem here that is consistent throughout our society. It appears in Marcellus shale, smallpox, Gulf of Mexico oil rigs, food production, nuclear power plants--it is the fear of "The Worst Possible Outcome." The WPO. Rather than a challenge to be met, problems to be overcome, difficulties to manage, our culture looks at a possible project and sees the WPO. Unless we can be assured the WPO will not occur, we stop cold.
This, of course, is contrary to all aspects of life except government. Who would get pregnant? Who would build a house or buy one? Who would cross a bridge, fly in a plane, drive through a tunnel? Indeed who would leave their house? If every decision was made through the lens of the WPO no one would do anything. We would live the risk less life of algae.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Hannity and Sebelius: A Pox on both Their Houses
Kathleen Sebelius, the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services--and the woman who taught us all how to sneeze, has written an article in The New York Times on why we need to continue research into smallpox generally and smallpox vaccines in particular. This is a result of another outbreak of a problem stalking the democracy, the politicization of science.
The World Health Organization is having a debate soon on whether to destroy the remaining stores of smallpox currently held in approved microzoos. Since Jenner, humanity has been trying to eradicate smallpox, a savage illness with a high infectivity and mortality. The success we have had is a tribute to human science, innovation, persistence and cooperation. The disease was officially eradicated in 1980 and now these zoos are the last remaining reservoir of the organism. One would think a world holiday would be declared as we finish off the little devils.
But there are other considerations. Vaccinated subjects can sometimes reconstitute the killer organism into a virulent form to infect the subject and spread. There may be viral stores we are unaware of. And, the real worry, there may be homicidal maniacs out there who think the organism is good way to fulfill their goal of death and unhappiness. The DNA of the organism is well known and can be engineered by an experienced biologist. More, the Russians, through their infamous Biopreparat Program developed smallpox as a primary biological weapon and as a secondary carrier for more lethal viruses. (Apparently they were dissatisfied with the traditional 30% mortality and 70% misery with the single organism and developed attachments to Ebola and other such bugs that have a 100% mortality but are so lethal they kill the host before they can spread.)
There is a legitimate argument against the zoos: The group with the vaccine wins. But the notion that there can be a policing of laboratories to guard against such an effort is insane. And the Sebelius article has emerged for a single reason: An American company has developed a retroactive vaccine for smallpox. The vaccine works after the individual has contracted the disease. But because the threat of the illness is not immediate and straightforward, interest and support of the drug has raised the supercilious eyebrows of the Right. Hannity and Bortz have raised questions about its legitimacy as a pursuit. After all, isn't everyone immunized? Are rich people involved in the company? Are some of them Democrates? Is this possibly another Solyandra? We have vaccines, isn't this just overcure? Was undue influence involved? In the war against Obama everything is a weapon.
It is easy to criticize superficial political thinking but, in fairness, it is hard to prove the value of a drug like this. You cannot just give someone smallpox to prove the drug works and a Tom Clancy-like scenario might never develop. But the idea that a smallpox attack would stimulate a successful worldwide immunological campaign is quite naive.
This looks like a very valuable drug for dangerous times. The recent revelation of company influence and that insider trading is the exclusive right of our elected representatives makes everything look suspect.
But sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
(N.B. I own the company in question and when it falls further I intend to buy more.)
The World Health Organization is having a debate soon on whether to destroy the remaining stores of smallpox currently held in approved microzoos. Since Jenner, humanity has been trying to eradicate smallpox, a savage illness with a high infectivity and mortality. The success we have had is a tribute to human science, innovation, persistence and cooperation. The disease was officially eradicated in 1980 and now these zoos are the last remaining reservoir of the organism. One would think a world holiday would be declared as we finish off the little devils.
But there are other considerations. Vaccinated subjects can sometimes reconstitute the killer organism into a virulent form to infect the subject and spread. There may be viral stores we are unaware of. And, the real worry, there may be homicidal maniacs out there who think the organism is good way to fulfill their goal of death and unhappiness. The DNA of the organism is well known and can be engineered by an experienced biologist. More, the Russians, through their infamous Biopreparat Program developed smallpox as a primary biological weapon and as a secondary carrier for more lethal viruses. (Apparently they were dissatisfied with the traditional 30% mortality and 70% misery with the single organism and developed attachments to Ebola and other such bugs that have a 100% mortality but are so lethal they kill the host before they can spread.)
There is a legitimate argument against the zoos: The group with the vaccine wins. But the notion that there can be a policing of laboratories to guard against such an effort is insane. And the Sebelius article has emerged for a single reason: An American company has developed a retroactive vaccine for smallpox. The vaccine works after the individual has contracted the disease. But because the threat of the illness is not immediate and straightforward, interest and support of the drug has raised the supercilious eyebrows of the Right. Hannity and Bortz have raised questions about its legitimacy as a pursuit. After all, isn't everyone immunized? Are rich people involved in the company? Are some of them Democrates? Is this possibly another Solyandra? We have vaccines, isn't this just overcure? Was undue influence involved? In the war against Obama everything is a weapon.
It is easy to criticize superficial political thinking but, in fairness, it is hard to prove the value of a drug like this. You cannot just give someone smallpox to prove the drug works and a Tom Clancy-like scenario might never develop. But the idea that a smallpox attack would stimulate a successful worldwide immunological campaign is quite naive.
This looks like a very valuable drug for dangerous times. The recent revelation of company influence and that insider trading is the exclusive right of our elected representatives makes everything look suspect.
But sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
(N.B. I own the company in question and when it falls further I intend to buy more.)
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
The Conceit of Sports
From the Greeks to the present, sport has been more than play. It is a mirror of the man, a training field for war and life, a blueprint and a crucible for the developing young. Practice, hard work, leadership, teamwork, goal setting, mental toughness, pain tolerance, preparation, health, sportsmanship, delayed gratification, exertion of the will--all these factors come into play in sport and, later, in life. So what did Penn State, about as high a level in college athletics as there is, teach its students/athletes and what does it teach us?
It teaches that at some point sport no longer is developmental, it is an end in itself and no longer teaches anything. The competitors have learned about as much as they are going to; they are now relying on their training not developing it. One might argue that we always learn but, when our formative years are over, learning is an accident, a by-product or a specific project of individual inspiration. As sport progress, the audience follows it for the diversion, the distraction, the fun and the empathy but the true uplifting moment--that character building moment that is the key to tragedy--that moment is rare. (The first and third Ali-Frazier boxing matches come to mind.) It is always hoped for but it is rare.
The problem with the Penn State scandal is that it is viewed as a problem with amateur athletics when in fact it is nothing of the sort. It is the end stage of athletics. It is a business. A product. A thing, an enjoyable thing but a thing nonetheless with all its youth, its nobility and its verisimilitude wrung out of it. Not to say it is not an enjoyable business to watch; it is. But the only time it mimics life is when it tries to pretend it is part of education, part of our growth.
At that moment it is like us: Hypocritical.
It teaches that at some point sport no longer is developmental, it is an end in itself and no longer teaches anything. The competitors have learned about as much as they are going to; they are now relying on their training not developing it. One might argue that we always learn but, when our formative years are over, learning is an accident, a by-product or a specific project of individual inspiration. As sport progress, the audience follows it for the diversion, the distraction, the fun and the empathy but the true uplifting moment--that character building moment that is the key to tragedy--that moment is rare. (The first and third Ali-Frazier boxing matches come to mind.) It is always hoped for but it is rare.
The problem with the Penn State scandal is that it is viewed as a problem with amateur athletics when in fact it is nothing of the sort. It is the end stage of athletics. It is a business. A product. A thing, an enjoyable thing but a thing nonetheless with all its youth, its nobility and its verisimilitude wrung out of it. Not to say it is not an enjoyable business to watch; it is. But the only time it mimics life is when it tries to pretend it is part of education, part of our growth.
At that moment it is like us: Hypocritical.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Joe Frazier
Joe Frazier is being buried today. If I had my way it would be a state funeral.
In my youth I drove to another state to watch him fight Ali the first time. It was Everyman assailing the tower. It was as close to Shakespeare as anything I had ever seen in sports. It was brutal, it was painful but everyone who was there, regardless of his sympathy or his bet, walked out of the fight a better person. Frazier was shorter, lighter and much less athletic than Ali. He went into the fight a buffoon. Ali ridiculed him, taunted him, denigrated him to the glee of the media who loved Ali because of his conscientious objection to the Vietnam War, his good looks, his entertaining glibness and his Muslim thinking. They thought this new Black Muslim notion was interesting and they felt Ali was a better guy. Ali, Kennedy aside, was the first man I can recall whose celebrity eclipsed his achievement--and he was one of the best fighters ever. Ever. But he was cruel.
With the help of his Muslim advisers, Ali polarized the fight by making it racial. It seems hard to believe now but Ali actually made it a fight between him, a Black Muslim, and Frazier, whom he successfully classified as white. The logic was a bit loose but Ali said Frazier was of a slave mentality, worked like a white man and believed in the America as seen by white men. (Ali actually once spoke at a KKK meeting against miscegenation.) The fight was a battle of human will, expert and savage on both sides. And Frazier heroically won. Ali's camp thought they had won and not without reason. It was close but Frazier won, a remarkable victory of the human spirit. He was hospitalized after the fight for three weeks.
They fought again twice, once an embarrassing clutch and jab fest that Ali "won" and the third, in Manila. Ali kept up his cruelty, introducing a gorilla puppet he called "Joe" and carrying it, or a facsimile, everywhere as he promoted the fight. Frazier, neither facile nor particularly bright, never could respond well and actually attacked Ali in frustration during a television interview. The fight was filled with the usual Ali drama although there was one strange event late at night when Ali showed up with a gun to threaten Frazier at his hotel. The fight was a war, fifteen rounds of toe-to-toe attack and defense. Into the fifteenth, Ali had come back in the thirteenth and fourteenth and the fight was a draw on most cards. The fifteenth would decide it. In the corner Ali told his manager to cut his gloves off, that he wanted to quit. In Frazier's corner the trainer realized that Frazier was blind in one eye (something he had hidden for years) and his good eye was closed. He rightfully threw in the towel against Frazier's wishes. At Frazier's withdrawal, Ali collapsed in his corner and had to be revived. Most think that had Frazier just answered the bell, Ali would have quit.
Strangely, Frazier provided Ali with his finest moments as a fighter and it defined his career. He was a brave and skilled fighter and only Frazier allowed him to show that. (His performance against Ken Norton where he fought for 10 rounds with a broken jaw and won a split decision was another such moment.)
But despite his skill and heroics, he was never the better man.
In my youth I drove to another state to watch him fight Ali the first time. It was Everyman assailing the tower. It was as close to Shakespeare as anything I had ever seen in sports. It was brutal, it was painful but everyone who was there, regardless of his sympathy or his bet, walked out of the fight a better person. Frazier was shorter, lighter and much less athletic than Ali. He went into the fight a buffoon. Ali ridiculed him, taunted him, denigrated him to the glee of the media who loved Ali because of his conscientious objection to the Vietnam War, his good looks, his entertaining glibness and his Muslim thinking. They thought this new Black Muslim notion was interesting and they felt Ali was a better guy. Ali, Kennedy aside, was the first man I can recall whose celebrity eclipsed his achievement--and he was one of the best fighters ever. Ever. But he was cruel.
With the help of his Muslim advisers, Ali polarized the fight by making it racial. It seems hard to believe now but Ali actually made it a fight between him, a Black Muslim, and Frazier, whom he successfully classified as white. The logic was a bit loose but Ali said Frazier was of a slave mentality, worked like a white man and believed in the America as seen by white men. (Ali actually once spoke at a KKK meeting against miscegenation.) The fight was a battle of human will, expert and savage on both sides. And Frazier heroically won. Ali's camp thought they had won and not without reason. It was close but Frazier won, a remarkable victory of the human spirit. He was hospitalized after the fight for three weeks.
They fought again twice, once an embarrassing clutch and jab fest that Ali "won" and the third, in Manila. Ali kept up his cruelty, introducing a gorilla puppet he called "Joe" and carrying it, or a facsimile, everywhere as he promoted the fight. Frazier, neither facile nor particularly bright, never could respond well and actually attacked Ali in frustration during a television interview. The fight was filled with the usual Ali drama although there was one strange event late at night when Ali showed up with a gun to threaten Frazier at his hotel. The fight was a war, fifteen rounds of toe-to-toe attack and defense. Into the fifteenth, Ali had come back in the thirteenth and fourteenth and the fight was a draw on most cards. The fifteenth would decide it. In the corner Ali told his manager to cut his gloves off, that he wanted to quit. In Frazier's corner the trainer realized that Frazier was blind in one eye (something he had hidden for years) and his good eye was closed. He rightfully threw in the towel against Frazier's wishes. At Frazier's withdrawal, Ali collapsed in his corner and had to be revived. Most think that had Frazier just answered the bell, Ali would have quit.
Strangely, Frazier provided Ali with his finest moments as a fighter and it defined his career. He was a brave and skilled fighter and only Frazier allowed him to show that. (His performance against Ken Norton where he fought for 10 rounds with a broken jaw and won a split decision was another such moment.)
But despite his skill and heroics, he was never the better man.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Sunday Sermon 11/13/11
Today's sermon, the sermon of the talents, is a tough one. In its place with the previous sermon, the wise and foolish virgins, it is especially difficult.
The virgins are waiting for the bridegroom who is late. Half have brought extra oil for their lamps, half have not. As the hour grows late and the half without the extra oil begin to lose their lamps, they go to the others and ask for help. They are refused and are forced to leave and buy more oil. In their absence, the bridegroom comes. In the next parable, today's, three servants are given money to hold in their master's absence. One is given 10,000 talents, one 2,000 and the last 1,000 each according to the master's assessment of his ability. The first two invest their portion and double it, the third, fearful of losing it, buries his. The master returns, lauds and rewards the first two and throws the third out.
These two gospels have been translated in many ways, sometimes as a tribute to selfishness on the part of the virgins, sometimes as a tribute to investing and interest as in the case of the talents, sometimes as a parable on the fulfillment of one's ability as if Christ was making a cross-cultural and language pun with "talent." (A "talent" was a measure of weight.) But it seems more difficult than any of these and more bleak. There seems in these two parables a remorseless emphasis on the responsibilities of the individual. Risk and responding to those risks with the acceptance of the consequences is paramount. No one can bail you out, hiding your responsibilities from danger is not safe. Moreover the master trusts the servant to do the right thing. Nor does he give these servants more than they can manage. He recognizes the differences among them. But he does have expectations. He expects his servants to make a difference.
There is another question: What does Christ mean when the third and unsuccessful servant describes the master as one who reaps where he does not sow and the master agrees with him? Who is such a man, a magician? A thief? A raider? Is it a reference to the gentiles who will be a default recipient of Christ's message? And is some irony implied when the third servant buries--plants--his assigned money?
The virgins are waiting for the bridegroom who is late. Half have brought extra oil for their lamps, half have not. As the hour grows late and the half without the extra oil begin to lose their lamps, they go to the others and ask for help. They are refused and are forced to leave and buy more oil. In their absence, the bridegroom comes. In the next parable, today's, three servants are given money to hold in their master's absence. One is given 10,000 talents, one 2,000 and the last 1,000 each according to the master's assessment of his ability. The first two invest their portion and double it, the third, fearful of losing it, buries his. The master returns, lauds and rewards the first two and throws the third out.
These two gospels have been translated in many ways, sometimes as a tribute to selfishness on the part of the virgins, sometimes as a tribute to investing and interest as in the case of the talents, sometimes as a parable on the fulfillment of one's ability as if Christ was making a cross-cultural and language pun with "talent." (A "talent" was a measure of weight.) But it seems more difficult than any of these and more bleak. There seems in these two parables a remorseless emphasis on the responsibilities of the individual. Risk and responding to those risks with the acceptance of the consequences is paramount. No one can bail you out, hiding your responsibilities from danger is not safe. Moreover the master trusts the servant to do the right thing. Nor does he give these servants more than they can manage. He recognizes the differences among them. But he does have expectations. He expects his servants to make a difference.
There is another question: What does Christ mean when the third and unsuccessful servant describes the master as one who reaps where he does not sow and the master agrees with him? Who is such a man, a magician? A thief? A raider? Is it a reference to the gentiles who will be a default recipient of Christ's message? And is some irony implied when the third servant buries--plants--his assigned money?
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Cab Thoughts 11/12/11
In the background of the Penn State drama, attorneys are flocking. Most seem interested in the civil liabilities, not the criminal ones. Schools are rich, very rich. How much of their wealth is at risk and is the Commonwealth at risk too?
China was responsible for 50% more greenhouse emissions in 2010 than the U.S.. The unspoken requirement of all atmospheric control is to control emerging nation economic growth. That will not be voluntary. Can anyone imagine a tough U.N. police force landing in Beijing with a pollution warrant?
In "State of Fear" Crichton argues that national leaders control their populations by giving them periodic problems--mostly fictional--that seem overwhelming. One wonders if they apply they same fiction to the solutions. We terrify ourselves about Iran's nuclear capacity and then soothe ourselves with the solution: Negotiations with Iran. Global warming: Stupid mercury laden light bulbs. Red menace: capitalism. It all sounds sometimes like the instructions one gets from the stewardess at the beginning of the flight about what to do during an unplanned water landing.
As heartless and cold as venture capital funds sound, there is a remarkably naive quality about many: They hate to miss out on something and are remarkably competitive and jealous. I've always thought it would be a great crime caper to have guys with a fake "hot product" show up in Silicon Valley and make the rounds, supported by cocktail party rumors that one or the other venture company was going to jump on it thus stampeding one guy to jump first. Then everyone skips out with the money.
Marcel Petiot, a physician who was an astonishing serial killer--maybe 150 people, Bundy level--, prowled occupied Paris at the end of the second war. People were disappearing all the time and no disappearance was investigated. He killed Jews, a group with fewer friends. It's a fascinating idea, the effort to investigate a homicide during a war in a country occupied by genocidal army.
It takes 14.5 seconds for the sun to provide as much energy to Earth as humanity consumes in a day. It takes 88 minutes for the sun to provide as much energy to Earth as humanity consumes in a year. But this is no gimme. Storage and the cost of non-ferrous metals will be the factor in how this promise is fulfilled.
There is a book about the Comanche called "Empire of the Summer Moon"; this was a small very violent group. After the Civil War they never numbered more than 4,000 people--men, women and children--in their entire 'nation' at any time. Yet, they ranged from the Rio Grande river west to what is now Colorado, north of present day Kansas and east to Missouri. After they got the horse they were called the finest light cavalry in the world.
China was responsible for 50% more greenhouse emissions in 2010 than the U.S.. The unspoken requirement of all atmospheric control is to control emerging nation economic growth. That will not be voluntary. Can anyone imagine a tough U.N. police force landing in Beijing with a pollution warrant?
In "State of Fear" Crichton argues that national leaders control their populations by giving them periodic problems--mostly fictional--that seem overwhelming. One wonders if they apply they same fiction to the solutions. We terrify ourselves about Iran's nuclear capacity and then soothe ourselves with the solution: Negotiations with Iran. Global warming: Stupid mercury laden light bulbs. Red menace: capitalism. It all sounds sometimes like the instructions one gets from the stewardess at the beginning of the flight about what to do during an unplanned water landing.
As heartless and cold as venture capital funds sound, there is a remarkably naive quality about many: They hate to miss out on something and are remarkably competitive and jealous. I've always thought it would be a great crime caper to have guys with a fake "hot product" show up in Silicon Valley and make the rounds, supported by cocktail party rumors that one or the other venture company was going to jump on it thus stampeding one guy to jump first. Then everyone skips out with the money.
Marcel Petiot, a physician who was an astonishing serial killer--maybe 150 people, Bundy level--, prowled occupied Paris at the end of the second war. People were disappearing all the time and no disappearance was investigated. He killed Jews, a group with fewer friends. It's a fascinating idea, the effort to investigate a homicide during a war in a country occupied by genocidal army.
It takes 14.5 seconds for the sun to provide as much energy to Earth as humanity consumes in a day. It takes 88 minutes for the sun to provide as much energy to Earth as humanity consumes in a year. But this is no gimme. Storage and the cost of non-ferrous metals will be the factor in how this promise is fulfilled.
There is a book about the Comanche called "Empire of the Summer Moon"; this was a small very violent group. After the Civil War they never numbered more than 4,000 people--men, women and children--in their entire 'nation' at any time. Yet, they ranged from the Rio Grande river west to what is now Colorado, north of present day Kansas and east to Missouri. After they got the horse they were called the finest light cavalry in the world.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Team Penn State or Penn State Nation?
One wonders about the team concept and how it translates to the world outside athletics. I have seen students from colleges with team backgrounds confounded in the workplace when they encounter competition from colleagues in the workplace. For all of its Japanese influenced "team building", companies love people with intense individual competitive backgrounds, like wrestling and boxing. Yet from business divisions to military units, the team concept is deeply taught and ingrained in modern society.
Now Penn State. How could this happen? Some of the response was clearly terror. The 28 year old graduate student called his dad; he has been raked for this--most recently by the angry doughty Irish Dowd--but it seems more forgivable to me than to her. He did not uncover or discover this madness; this was already known throughout the athletic program at least. Sandusky had a desert disparagingly named after him! It's much more likely the phone call to his dad was not "I can not believe what I just saw, what should I do?" but rather "It's true! What should I do?". That does not excuse inaction but the known institutional tolerence of it prior to his discovery certainly complicates it.
Nor does modern moral indifference fit, despite the eagerness of the right to make this a national cultural failure. People wept. People considered emergency room visits. Yet people did not consider intervention.
Academic institutions are self consciously isolated. They have their own police forces. Every time the police from the general community comes on campus everyone, rightfully or not, thinks of Chile. Sandusky was a great coach on a great team in a great and isolated university. Did this make it harder to deal with him? Or was this more egocentric?
Strong teams tolerate a lot of diversity but not disloyalty.
Now Penn State. How could this happen? Some of the response was clearly terror. The 28 year old graduate student called his dad; he has been raked for this--most recently by the angry doughty Irish Dowd--but it seems more forgivable to me than to her. He did not uncover or discover this madness; this was already known throughout the athletic program at least. Sandusky had a desert disparagingly named after him! It's much more likely the phone call to his dad was not "I can not believe what I just saw, what should I do?" but rather "It's true! What should I do?". That does not excuse inaction but the known institutional tolerence of it prior to his discovery certainly complicates it.
Nor does modern moral indifference fit, despite the eagerness of the right to make this a national cultural failure. People wept. People considered emergency room visits. Yet people did not consider intervention.
Academic institutions are self consciously isolated. They have their own police forces. Every time the police from the general community comes on campus everyone, rightfully or not, thinks of Chile. Sandusky was a great coach on a great team in a great and isolated university. Did this make it harder to deal with him? Or was this more egocentric?
Strong teams tolerate a lot of diversity but not disloyalty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)