Archive for December, 2007

What do the families of the world eat?

Wednesday, December 5th, 2007

Many of them eat much the same food as you, but there are many differences too. This is a wonderful photo-essay published by Time.  The Photographs, by Peter Menzel, are from the book Hungry Planet.

The unvarnished facts speak loudly while you click through the series of photos. I found that viewing these photos was emotionally intense, sometimes celebratory and other times guilt-provoking.

The cost of the families’ weekly food added an interesting dimension to the experience.  The German family downs $500 of food (including lots of meat and dairy) per week.  One of the American families eats $341 per week (including lots of pre-prepared foods), while the other American family (from California), spends only half that much and eats much healthier food.  The family from Chad somehow gets by on $1.23 per week, largely on grains, with just a smattering of fruit. 

The essay is allegedly about food, but the houses and neighborhoods are incredibly interesting.  Many of the world’s families featured here live in comfort comparable to the American families.  But not all of them, to be sure.

The essay is ostensibly about different types of food consumed by different types of families.  But it is also about healthy eating versus unhealthy eating.  It’s about prepared food versus prepare-it-yourself food.  It’s also about the way family members relate to each other.  There are a lot of clues in these photos.

To flip through the whole series only takes a few minutes. I highly recommend it.

This post was written by Erich Vieth

Pug humor

Tuesday, December 4th, 2007

This one is for Mindy, who loves her Pug.

This post was written by Erich Vieth

Survival tip

Tuesday, December 4th, 2007

You’re lost in the woods.  You are cold.  You have no matches to start a fire.  All you have are a can of Coke and some chocolate.  How do you get warm?

Here’s the answer.

This post was written by Erich Vieth

McKibben Christmas

Tuesday, December 4th, 2007

I’ve been a fan of Bill McKibben’s since he published an article in The New Yorker about spending a weekend in a cabin in Virginia doing nothing but watching television. What could he learn about the world from such an experience? Gonzo Journalism for nerds. His most famous book I think is “The End of Nature.” But here’s a nice piece that suggests you don’t have to get rid of the idea of “Christmas” if you spend a little creativity and energy to change the holiday season from crass commercial crapfest to humbling homebound holiday. (Sorry, for some reason when I open the link the article comes out as a very narrow one-word column preceded by tons of advertising, but it’s worth struggling through.)

This post was written by Phil

To save the environment - don’t get divorced

Monday, December 3rd, 2007

Two can live more energy-efficiently than one, according to this article from New Scientist: 

“Divorced households are smaller than married households, but consume more land, water, and energy per person than married households,” says Jianguo Liu of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, who carried out the 12-country analysis with colleague Eunice Yu.

In the US, for example, 627 billion gallons of water, the use of 38 million rooms, and 734 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity would have been saved in 2005 alone if no-one had got divorced.

In the same year, divorced households spent 46% more on electricity and 56% more on water per person than if they had stayed married. And following a split, US households consumed 42 to 61% more resources per person than while married.

Being married isn’t the only way to live together, of course.  This article points to our energy-expensive future as one where people will more readily share living spaces.  Master bedrooms in the 1950’s were about 130 square feet.  In moderately priced new homes, master bedrooms now measure 300 square feet.  Right after WWII, the average new house was 750 square feet.  Now, it’s almost 2,500 square feet.  We have insatiable cravings for more stuff and bigger stuff.  If energy continues to rise dramatically in cost, large suburban houses will become more of a challenge to maintain by small families or single people.

What else uses lots of energy?  According to a second article at New Scientist, the answer is storing computer data on a server, which is about as energy efficient as driving an SUV:

Global Action Plan, a UK-based environmental organisation, publishes a report today drawing attention to the carbon footprint of the IT industry in the UK.

“Computers are seen as quite benign things sitting on your desk,” says Trewin Restorick, director of the group. “But, for instance, in our charity we have one server. That server has same carbon footprint as your average SUV doing 15 miles to the gallon. Yet, whereas the SUV is seen as a villain from the environmental perspective, the server is not.”

This second article fails to note an important mitigating point: providing data with computer server actually saves lots of energy compared to providing that information in the form of catalogues, reports and other hard copy paper forms that would need to be delivered by using fossil-fuel burning vehicles.  For example, the server used by Dangerous Intersection is shared by numerous other web sites.  On a typical day, DI alone is visited by 2,500 people who view about 8,000 pages of information.  This total sometimes rises to more than 10,000 people.  Consider whether there is a more energy-efficient method of distributing information.

On the other hand, the report does call attention to the enormous amount of energy consumed by computers: 

The global IT sector is responsible for about 2% of human carbon dioxide emissions each year – a similar figure to the global airline industry.

This post was written by Erich Vieth

Big problems with how we nominate our president

Monday, December 3rd, 2007

Marty Kaplan writes about big  problems with our political primary system:

What I’m trying to get at is the stupendous sense of powerlessness among our citizenry that our current political system has created. It’s as though the best democracy can do is to cough up this beast that we’re being required yet again to ride. The nominating system, despite the folksy patina that quadrennially makes reporters swoon, is thoroughly idiotic, and it’s gotten worse every time than the cycle before, yet we treat it like a force of nature, not an act of hacks. Money is more important than ever. And though the Web has enabled unprecedented citizen pushback on candidate deception and media spinelessness, its reach feels puny, compared to the paid messages that special-interests can buy in the marketplace; its impact feels impotent, compared to the partisan fearmongering posing as news and the circus acts masquerading as information on our mass media.

Electability is much on Democrats’ minds. But no matter who runs against the GOP next fall, the political system we pretend to have inherited from the Founders could still produce a President Giuliani, a President Romney, a president more Bush than Bush, more Cheney than Cheney. This is not the genius of American democracy. This is the pathology of a terrible systemic illness. Some people may be too busy waving flags or scarfing corn dogs to notice the symptoms.

This post was written by Erich Vieth

FCC chairman Kevin Martin is again inviting big media to consolidate.

Monday, December 3rd, 2007

Salon.com has presented a must-read interview with do-gooder FCC Commissioner Michael Copps.  The audacity of the FCC chairman is simply unbelievable.  First of all, here is the intro to the article:

Michael Copps doesn’t want to be called a crusader. But as one of the two Democrats on the five-member Federal Communications Commission, he’s not shy about sounding biblical. He says he’s “blowing a loud trumpet” for a “call to battle” to stop the FCC from giving big media a generous Christmas present.

Copps is trying to defeat FCC chairman Kevin J. Martin’s last-minute proposal to loosen media ownership rules, which will be voted on by Dec. 18. As it stands now, a company can’t own both a daily newspaper and a broadcast outlet — a radio or TV station — in the same market without a waiver. In an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times on Nov. 13, Martin wrote that media companies in the 20 largest markets should be allowed to own both in the same market to bolster journalism. “If we don’t act to improve the health of the … industry,” he wrote, “we will see newspapers wither and die … and have fewer outlets for the expression of independent thinking and diversity of viewpoints.”

What is the effect of too much consolidation?  This consolidation of the media does not enhance democracy.  Just the opposite.  Consolidated corporate media don’t respond to the needs of the community:

The owners, instead of being members of the community, are often people who live hundreds or thousands of miles away. Too many stations aren’t even inhabited by human beings. They’re run by computers or by mechanical means. That’s why nobody’s there. Localism means that you go out and talk to people locally about the kinds of issues and programming that they want. We don’t do that anymore.

Does the corporate media cover these important media issues?

I visited the editor of the editorial page of a major newspaper in this country not too many weeks ago, and we got talking about this issue. I think the person in his heart was on my side of the issue, but he said they can’t cover that issue. And I said, “Oh, why not?” He said, “The publisher wouldn’t let us do that. It would be against the interest of the company. I have a lot of freedom to cover what I want issue-wise on my editorial page, but I’m not going there.” It wasn’t almost chilling; it was downright chilling.

Though the media doesn’t cover the deep media issues, it still loves a fight.   Hence, this recent article in the LA Times regarding the tactics used by Martin (free registration required to view the entire article):

Two key House lawmakers announced Monday that they were investigating the Federal Communications Commission, accusing its chairman of “possible abuse of power” and a failure to operate fairly and openly in handling proposed cable TV and media ownership regulations.

“Given several events and proceedings over the past year, I am rapidly losing confidence that the commission has been conducting its affairs in an appropriate manner,” Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, wrote to FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin.

Dingell said he was concerned that the FCC had not made the full text of proposed rules available to the public before it voted on them, and that Martin often had not given other commissioners details of proposals until it was too late for them to fully analyze them.

Epilogue:  Consider affixing this decal to every television set you find and consider supporting Free Press.

                 Free Press television warning decal - lo rez.jpg

This post was written by Erich Vieth

The Consternation of Henry Adams, Pt. 1

Sunday, December 2nd, 2007

To begin with, as this is my first posting on any blog, I must say that I am honored to join your ranks and look forward to interacting with many of you in the months and years ahead. Many thanks to Erich for his patience in setting me up and getting me on line.

My first post concerns education–what it is, what it isn’t, what it should be, and how we can make it better. My interest in this topic arises from my own “educational” experiences, in and out of the classroom, and the fact that I have two daughters of grade-school age. But the real pin that has pricked the bubble of my curiosity is “The Education of Henry Adams,” the autobiography of the great grandson of Founding Father John Adams and grandson of President John Quincy Adams. You know–for fun. 

After all, the cover of the version I have calls it “The #1 nonfiction book of the twentieth century.” Well, if you can’t trust the marketing department’s jacket copy, who can you trust? Besides, right now the top five books on the New York Times bestseller list for nonfiction include, at number 1, “An Inconvenient Book,” the latest ravings of right-wing–excuse me, I mean of course “fair and balanced”–radio personality Glenn Beck, yet another offering from former NBC News top-guy-turned-nostalgic-baby-boomer Tom Brokaw, and Eric Clapton’s autobiography. Well, except for maybe Clapton, not much to choose from. 

So over the Thanksgiving holiday I started reading this book, which I have seen cited in many American history books I’ve copyedited. At just over 500 pages it is by no means slight, and written in the style of the day (the book was published for about 100 of Adams’s friends and associates in 1906). 

Top on my list of questions about the book is its title. Adams places himself in the passive voice, a recipient of this thing called “education,” while Donald Hall begins his modern-day introduction with “Henry Adams’ education earns him a degree in irony.” I can understand the grammatical reason Hall put it that way, but I think the distinction between an education given (or forced, or coerced) onto someone is a very different animal from an education one actually chooses and claims as one’s own.

But I don’t want to belabor this point, and I didn’t read any more of Hall’s introduction. I want to come to my own conclusion about what education Adams received, or what education he siezed, and just what “education” meant to him anyway. I can’t answer these questions in one post, so I’m hoping someone out in the blogosphere will chime in and engage me on this topic.

As it turns out, “The Education” is actually a sequel of sorts. As Henry Cabot Lodge explains in his “Editor’s Preface,” the book was preceded by a book call “Mont-Saint-Michel and Chartres: A History of Thirteenth Century Unity.” Adams’s idea, according to Lodge, was to chronicle the century 1150-1250 and then “from that point he proposed to fix a position for himself, which he could label ‘The Education of Henry Adams: A Study of Twentieth Century Multiplicity.’”

An ambitious title, especially since Adams died in 1912. Yet he had lived through a major transformation–the shift from farm to field, from an agrarian economy to an urban one, with all of its negative consequences: deplorable working conditions, pollution, etc. He could not have foreseen exactly how tthese hings would turn out, but he could see which way the gyre was turning: “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold.”

Another curiosity of the book is that it is written in the third person. It’s off-putting to read an autobiography in the third person, and Adams hints at the reason for this choice in the book’s preface. Referring to Jean Jacques Rousseau’s “Confessions,” Adams writes that “as an educator, Jean Jacques was, in one respect, easily first; he erected a monument of warning against the Ego.” Adams’s capitalization of “Ego” predates Sigmund Freud’s articulation of the notion of Id, Ego, and Superego by about a decade; so while it is possible he had some notion of the theory Freud was developing, it seems like anattempt to read anything Freudian into this is stretching. I think Adams’s point is simply that he wrote the book in the third person so that he could objectively examine his life as though he were merely a character in it–but in the 100 or so pages of the book I’ve read so far, Adams sees his character/self not receiving much of an education at all.

After he acknowledges his awareness of the privileged ircumstances to which he was born–upper class, with strong political ties on many levels–he offers a catalog of the poor education he has received to date. A schoolmaster, in Adams’s eyes, was “a man employed to tell lies to little boys” and obsessed with rote memorization rather than education; at Harvard, “he got less than nothing, a result common enough in education”; and even the customary upper-class trip abroad–an opportunity, one imagines, to take part in activities frowned upon in the states (drinking, smoking, general “whoring around)–largely leaves him cold. On the trip over he learns mostly about seasickness; in London, he finds “education went backwards; in Berlin (a “poor, keen witted, provincial town, simple, dirty, uncivilized, and in most respects disgusting”) he learns mostly of “beer cellars and music-halls, and dance-rooms, smoking bad tobacco, drinking poor beer and eating sauerkraut and sausages as though he knew no better”; France (Glenn Beck would love this) “he disapproved of . . . in the lump.” Only Rome, even if it was “the most violent vice in all the world,” offers redeeming qualities–history, architecture, beauty. But all in all, the trip abroad a views mostly a failure in terms of his “education.” However, Adams saves special derision for Germany. “Even after Berlin became a nightmare,” he writes, “he [Adams] still persuaded himself that his German education was a success. He loved, or thought he loved the people, but the Germany he loved was the eighteenth-century, which the Germans were ashamed of, and destroying as fast as they could. Of the Germany to come he knew nothing. Military German was his abhorrence. . . . Germany had no confidence in itself, and no reason to feel it. She had no unity, and no reason to covet it. She never had unity.”

As he wrote these words, a teen-ager named Adolph Hitler was perhaps beginning to see Germany’s potential for unity. All which this begs the question–what, then, does education consist of? Should you receive it or seek it? And if you seek it, how do you know you are looking in the right place? 

My plan is to read the rest of the book with such questions and and thoughts in mind, reporting my findings here, and hopefully stirring some conversation about “the #1 nonfiction book of the twentieth century”–”The Education of Henry Adams.” 

This post was written by Phil

Why do conservatives become conservative? It’s not a rational choice.

Sunday, December 2nd, 2007

Nor is it primarily the result of a rational choice (i.e., a systematic analysis of facts) that liberals become liberals. 

We’d like to believe that we adopt our political views rationally, only after careful consideration of the “facts.” That’s a pipe dream, however.  Jay Dixit’s article, “The Ideological Animal,” (published by Psychology Today) demonstrates that our political persuasion takes root well before the cerebrum kicks fully into gear.  There are deep triggers that lead individuals to crave one political ideology over the other.  For many of us, rational thought is post-facto justification.  As David Hume famously argued,

Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.

Dixit’s arguments dovetail with Hume’s beliefs.  As Dixit argues,

We tend to believe our political views evolve as a result of rational thought, in that we consider arguments, weigh evidence, and draw conclusions. But the truth is more complicated. Our political preferences are equally the result of factors we’re not aware of—such as how educated we are, how scary the world seems at a given moment, and personality traits that are first apparent in early childhood. Among the most potent motivators, it turns out, is fear.

What else correlates with political leaning?  You won’t be surprised at some of these differences:

conservatives and liberals boast markedly different home and office decor. Liberals are messier than conservatives, their rooms have more clutter and more color, and they tend to have more travel documents, maps of other countries, and flags from around the world. Conservatives are neater, and their rooms are cleaner, better organized, more brightly lit, and more conventional. Liberals have more books, and their books cover a greater variety of topics. And that’s just a start. Multiple studies find that liberals are more optimistic. Conservatives are more likely to be religious. Liberals are more likely to like classical music and jazz, conservatives, country music. Liberals are more likely to enjoy abstract art. Conservative men are more likely than liberal men to prefer conventional forms of entertainment like TV and talk radio. Liberal men like romantic comedies more than conservative men. Liberal women are more likely than conservative women to enjoy books, poetry, writing in a diary, acting, and playing musical instruments.

And there’s more:

As kids, liberals had developed close relationships with peers and were rated by their teachers as self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient. People who were conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3. The reason for the difference, the [the researchers] hypothesized, was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority, and they found it in conservative politics.

Here’s another finding that might be easy to guess.  People who have exposed themselves to many ideas and cultures tend to be less conservative: (more…)

This post was written by Erich Vieth

Camus quotes

Sunday, December 2nd, 2007

It’s a gray and rainy day in St. Louis.  Not a sad day, but a thoughtful day.  I took a moment to read some Camus.  I respond intensely to much of his work.  His simple writing style elegantly carries deep thoughts.   Here are some of my favorite quotes by Camus:

A guilty conscience needs to confess. A work of art is a confession.

A man’s work is nothing but this slow trek to rediscover, through the detours of art, those two or three great and simple images in whose presence his heart first opened.

A taste for truth at any cost is a passion which spares nothing.

All great deeds and all great thoughts have a ridiculous beginning. Great works are often born on a street corner or in a restaurant’s revolving door.

An intellectual is someone whose mind watches itself.

As a remedy to life in society I would suggest the big city. Nowadays, it is the only desert within our means.

At any street corner the feeling of absurdity can strike any man in the face.

Autumn is a second spring when every leaf is a flower.

Blessed are the hearts that can bend; they shall never be broken.

But what is happiness except the simple harmony between a man and the life he leads?

Culture: the cry of men in face of their destiny.

Don’t believe your friends when they ask you to be honest with them. All they really want is to be maintained in the good opinion they have of themselves. Integrity has no need of rules.

It is a kind of spiritual snobbery that makes people think they can be happy without money.

It is not your paintings I like, it is your painting.

It’s a kind of spiritual snobbery that makes people think they can be happy without money.

Nothing is more despicable than respect based on fear.

The absurd is the essential concept and the first truth.

The evil that is in the world almost always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence if they lack understanding.

The modern mind is in complete disarray. Knowledge has stretched itself to the point where neither the world nor our intelligence can find any foot-hold. It is a fact that we are suffering from nihilism.

The myth of unlimited production brings war in its train as inevitably as clouds announce a storm.

The need to be right is the sign of a vulgar mind.

This post was written by Erich Vieth

More quotes of note

Sunday, December 2nd, 2007

I collect quotes.   They come from many places.   Many of them come from the quote of the day page of The Quotations Page–it’s my browser’s home page.   Here is a sampling of quotations that I’ve especially enjoyed over the past two months:

Last night I stayed up late playing poker with Tarot cards. I got a full house and four people died.
Steven Wright (1955 - )

Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well- warmed, and well-fed.
Herman Melville (1819 - 1891)

“Hell, there are no rules here - we’re trying to accomplish something.”
– Thomas Edison

We forfeit three-fourths of ourselves in order to be like other people.
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860)

If men could only know each other, they would neither idolize nor hate.
Elbert Hubbard (1856 - 1915)

The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.
George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office.
Aesop (620 BC - 560 BC)

“Believe those who are seeking the truth; be careful of those who find it.” - Andre Gide

Your manuscript is both good and original, but the part that is good is not original and the part that is original is not good.
Samuel Johnson (1709 - 1784), (attributed)

“Let no young man choosing the law for a calling for a moment yield to the popular belief — resolve to be honest at all events; and if in your own judgment you cannot be an honest lawyer, resolve to be honest without being a lawyer.”
–Abraham Lincoln. From the July 1, 1850 [?] Notes for a Law Lecture

Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.
Leo Tolstoy (1828 - 1910)

If you don’t know what to do, call the media and at least give the appearance of doing something.
David Peterson

A wise man gets more use from his enemies than a fool from his friends.
Baltasar Gracian

Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.
H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

This post was written by Erich Vieth