MEN 1 - WOMEN 1

I do not subscribe to an inherent superiority in either gender.  Yet due to our socialization and our respective genetic makeups, in social situations men and women each enjoy certain specific advantages and disadvantages, along with significant overlap.  Here are two cases in point.

From Science Daily ~ "New research from Brigham Young University shows that dads are in a unique position to help their adolescent children develop persistence .... Over time, the persistence gained through fathers leads to higher engagement in school and lower rates of delinquency .... The key is for dads to practice what's called 'authoritative' parenting (not to be confused with authoritarian parenting).  Here are the three basic ingredients ~

• Children feel warmth and love from their father
• Accountability and the reasons behind rules are emphasized
• Children are granted an appropriate level of autonomy

The study report is brief, and does not compare how fathers and mothers might differ.  Indeed, mothers are not even mentioned.  The actual paper was published in the June 15 edition of the Journal of Early Adolescence.  It seems likely to me that children are just as likely to learn persistence from their mothers.  Despite this, it is gratifying to see male parents portrayed in a positive light, in a climate in which fathers are often described as either abusive or as deadbeat dads.

A much more thorough discussion appears in Why Women Are More Often Right, a Role/Reboot piece by Hugo Schwyzer.  The title is in the context of disagreements between male and female partners in heterosexual relationships.  The author explains ~

"As anyone who's ever been in a serious relationship can tell you, one near-certain source of conflict comes from the simple truth that thanks to our experiences, we all see the world slightly differently.  That's obvious enough.  But do women's experiences ~ as women ~ give them 'standpoint privilege' in arguments with men?  The answer is almost certainly yes.

"In a relationship between two people who are of different sexes, classes, or ethnic backgrounds, it's reasonable to assume that each person's knowledge of the world will have been shaped in no small part by their status.  Class and sex and race and faith are some of ~ but surely not the only ~ prisms through which we see and interpret the world.  Patriarchy, the complex system through which male identity is privileged in an extraordinary number of ways, impacts everyone.  Yes, as the famous saying goes, it 'hurts men too'.  But one particular thing that patriarchy does is warp our understanding of everything around us, particularly things like power dynamics, sexuality, and how we communicate with one another.  Feminists point out the deeply obvious ~ the class of persons most likely to be discriminated against by the system are also those most likely to be aware of the system itself.

"This enhanced awareness leads to something called 'epistemic privilege'.  (Epistemology is the philosophical discipline that deals with how we know things.)  Epistemic privilege means that in a heterosexual relationship, it is generally ~ though not universally ~ the case that the woman will see gender-based power imbalances more clearly than will her boyfriend or her husband.  This isn't because of 'feminine intuition', it's because folks in a historically oppressed class are always required to be more aware of power dynamics than those who belong to the dominant group.  The same epistemic privilege can occur in race and class relations, regardless of the sex of the people involved.

" .... This doesn't mean, by the way, that women are 'always right' and men 'always wrong'.  But it does mean that in heterosexual relations it is likely that a woman's understanding of some dynamics (particularly around sex and power) will be superior to those of her male partner.  In my marriage to Eira, for example, there are several layers of standpoint difference.  I am male, she is female.  I am white, the son of two college professors, and grew up in what most people seem to consider the upper-middle class.  My wife is of mixed race, dark enough to have been called a 'nigger' when she was a child, she grew up very poor and was the first member of her family to earn a bachelor's degree.  Around three intersecting issues ~ race, sex, and class ~ my wife's experience has been radically different from my own.  In a very real sense, that gives her a breadth and depth of knowledge about those issues that I cannot share.

"Sometimes my wife is wrong.  (Yes, my love, you are, even if it's only every fifth Tuesday.)  Sometimes I am.  We quarrel like any couple, though our experiences have given us tools like 'fair fighting rules' that not everyone, alas, possesses.  We know that in our marriage, each of us is equally important, each of us is entitled to his or her opinion, each of us deserves to be heard.  But we also know that we didn't come into this marriage as disembodied souls ~ we brought our gender identities, our class backgrounds, our skin tones, our multi-generational family histories.  And just as it's absurd to pretend that we've come from equally privileged backgrounds, it is equally absurd to pretend that those backgrounds have not at least in part shaped our worldviews.  Again, power obfuscates, oppression clarifies.  So when the topic at hand is gender dynamics or race or class, the epistemic privilege is not mine.  And thus the burden to reflect just a bit harder, is." 

Schwyzer's views resonate deeply in me (hence the extended quote).  Over the years, through three marriages, a time spent minoring in Women's Studies, and even more time spent thinking about and discussing power relationships (gender, race, class, etc.), my thoughts have come to closely parallel his.  If you'd like to learn more about "gender myths, body image, sexual harassment, rape prevention, sexuality and gender justice, check out his eponymous blog.

DRONE WARFARE ~ PART II

Yesterday's post dealt with the use of UAVs under the control of the CIA in military operations in foreign countries.  Today's post deals with the use of UAVs within the borders of the U.S.

According to an online report, drones have been used by American law enforcement agencies for surveillance for some time (see image above, click to enlarge).  In the near future, domestic drones may be weaponized ~ able to fire rubber bullets, tear gas, or Tasers.  According to a staff attorney for the ACLU, "It's simply not appropriate to use any force, lethal or non-lethal on a drone .... an officer operating an armed drone from afar would not have the same understanding of a situation that an officer on location would have.  So judgment on the use of force would be limited by this narrowness of observation .... The prospect of people out in public being Tased or targeted by force raises the prospect of unconstitutional force being used on individuals.

"The ACLU is also worried about the general atmosphere of pervasive surveillance that may engulf America as the use of drone technology becomes wider."

The scenario sounds like something out of the Terminator science fiction movies.  Not pretty.  Many years ago, when police departments in Tucson, AZ, and many other cities introduced helicopters for use in surveillance and the pursuit of suspects, there was much public outcry over the invasion of privacy by law enforcement's "eye in the sky".  That outcry has diminished as police helicopter have proven their utility in tracking fleeing criminals, especially at night, and as most law enforcement agencies have demonstrated restraint in their use.

But the obvious difference is that helicopters are manned by a pilot and navigator/copilot.  Human judgment is right there on the scene.  Drones have no such advantage.  Their operation by remote control (either line-of-sight radio or by satellite link) means that it becomes much easier for a drone operator sitting at a computer screen miles from the scene of action to be lulled into the mindset of playing a video game, rather than having the mindset of an officer on the scene whose own safety is on the line, depending on his/her judgment.  It's about human control and human presence, with the safety and civil liberties of the public at stake.

Further, there is a greater risk of collateral damage from drones, as has happened repeatedly with their use by the military.  Unintended civilian casualties are unlikely to see the justification of drones ~ especially when the use of even rubber bullets, tear gas, or Tasers can cause permanent disability or death.

UAVs come in a wide variety of sizes and configurations, depending on the mission.  Click here for images.  The FAA currently authorizes the use of UAVs weighing up to 11.3 kilograms (25 lb.) by police and fire agencies.  Armed drones would likely be larger and heavier, to accommodate their weaponry and ammunition.

Lastly, there is serious concern within the civil aviation community over domestic flights by both military and law enforcement drones.  AOPA has clearly voiced its concerns to the FAA and federal lawmakers over the potential conflict between civilian aircraft and drones, the latter being exempt from having to file flight plans.  Pilots' concern is not  unfounded.  There are 64 military drone bases on U.S. soil (see map here), added to dozens, potentially hundreds of civilian law enforcement drone operations.  A drone operator, focused on his/her target, is unlikely to see an approaching civilian aircraft.  And an airplane or helicopter pilot is unlikely to notice a much smaller drone, particularly without official notice of the drone's presence in the area.  A future collision appears inevitable as drones multiply in number.

DRONE WARFARE ~ PART I

The use of Predator drones (see image above, click to enlarge) in launching precision missile attacks against al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorist groups and leaders has been increasingly in the news ~ both when a particular surgical strike is successful, and when the strike is less surgical, resulting in unintended civilian casualties.  The most recent incident, which killed al-Qaeda's second in command, was notable not only for its success, but also for the degree to which the report revealed President Obama's personal involvement in the selection of targets and the final "go" command to launch the mission.

David Luban in Boston Review writes eloquently about drone warfare and the president's role, in the context of 'just war theory' ~ the doctrine of military ethics which holds that "a military conflict ought to meet philosophical, religious, or political criteria".  Among other sources, just war theory has its origins in the writings of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, who posited that in order for a war to be just, a number of conditions must be met ~

• war must be for a good and just purpose rather than for self-gain
• war must be waged by a properly instituted authority such as the state
• peace must be a central motive even in the midst of violence
• diplomatic agreement is preferable, even for the most powerful party, before a war is started
• the response should be commensurate to the evil ~ using more violence than is necessary would be unjust
• governing authorities declare war, but the war is just only if the people support it.
• there are moral limits to action ~ one may not attack innocents or kill hostages
• war is only legitimate as a last resort, after all options for dialogue and negotiation have failed

By Aquinas' reckoning, examples of just war include ~

• war in self-defense
• preventive war against a tyrant who is about to attack
• war to punish a guilty enemy
• war to prevent or halt genocide

Luban's article explores the nuances of just war theory in the context of the war on terrorism, focusing specifically on the use of weaponized UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, or drones).  There is little controversy surrounding the use of drones for reconnaissance, but arming them with missiles remotely guided in real time by an operator stationed on safely in the U.S., has pushed us into new military and ethical territory.  The wars of science fiction have become reality.  In Luban's words, "The most agonizing issue in the drone program is figuring out who is an enemy combatant, who is not, and how one knows.  The modern law of war is clear, however, that no matter how difficult the inquiry is, it must be undertaken.  Parties 'shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants, and between civilian objects and military objectives, and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.'  There is nothing quite so clear or straightforward in the just war classics, and they would offer no guidance to the president on this score.

" .... What about unintended civilian deaths, so-called collateral damage.  The rule in the modern law of war is that militaries must do everything feasible to minimize collateral damage, and must never launch an attack at a military target if the expected civilian damage would be excessive .... This rule permits proportionate collateral damage so long as harming civilians was not the intention.  This principle also has no clear counterpart in medieval just war theory .... In the war context, striking the military target is the intended effect, the collateral damage is the unintended effect, and it is the former, not the latter, that defines the moral character of the action .... President Obama and his advisers have cancelled targeted killings for fear of excessive collateral damage.  It was reportedly for this very reason that the president vetoed his advisers' recommendation of an airstrike on the bin Laden compound in favor of the riskier SEAL operation."

Clearly we have entered uncharted territory, and are refining the military and ethical aspect of the rules of engagement as we learn from experience.  War is troubling enough when engaged in by armed human combatants who risk injury or death.  The new dimension of armed drones, even though guided by humans, calls for heightened ethical scrutiny precisely because a drone or its operator can't be killed ~ only the target can be.  The reduction in risk to one side in a conflict inevitably calls up the temptation to engage at will ~ which is why an institutionalized devil's advocate is needed to argue against each and every deadly "nomination".  

Luban brings up further legal, moral, and practical issues, which I invite you to read and consider.  As an example ~ "So far i have said very little about the issue that, for the majority of observers, matters most ~ the drone strikes themselves ~ beyond my basic point that killing deadly enemies is in principle neither immoral nor illegal.  I say 'in principle' because so much turns on the details ~ the expected collateral damage, how much care has been taken to verify the target and the danger he poses, whether the target was trying to surrender, whether the foreign state is truly unwilling or unable to suppress the target, what the non-lethal alternatives were.  The wrong answer to any of these issues means the decision to kill from the air flunks the test of morality.

"But if the killing is legitimate, the fact that it was targeted, or done by a drone rather than a bomb or a gun, makes no difference.  If anything, targeted killing is better than untargeted killing, which the laws of war call 'indiscriminate' and a war crime."

WHITEWATER DREAMS

During the 1970s and 80s, I was an avid whitewater kayaker.  I lived in the southern Arizona desert ~ a condition which impeded my pursuit of an aquatic adrenaline rush, not to mention slowed the development of my skills and experience.  But being a member of the kayakers club at the University of Arizona helped, as did being good friends with a woman who herself had was an enthusiastic whitewater rafter.  During several memorable summers I kayaked the Sea of Cortez, the Salt and Gila Rivers in Arizona, the Eagle River in Alaska, the San Juan River in Utah, the Yampa River in Colorado/Utah, and lesser rivers in South Carolina, New Jersey, and Oregon.  Many more western rivers beckoned, most especially the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon, but life took a different turn and my kayaking days were put on hold.

I still dream of rivers I've run, and rivers I'd like to run.  On a multi-day trip, nature's riparian rhythm takes hold ~ rising with the dawn to birdsong, eating and breaking camp, easing into the current, and feeling yourself become one with the flow.  You might drift through a stretch of easy water, or you might become aware of the subsonic rumble of imminent rapids ~ or simply realize that downstream the river seems to disappear from view.  Either is a clue to pull out and walk down along the shore to visually scout what lies ahead, and decide how you want to navigate it.  Or even if you want to navigate it ~ some passages are too formidable, and a portage is called for.  It's important to be realistic about your skill level, and to understand the visual clues which the current is giving you.  It's also important to do some research beforehand, to have a reliable river map and river-running friends whose judgment you trust, to be properly equipped, and to have a safety backup plan when things go south.  And they will go south sooner or later.

Quiet drifting or manic paddling through a chaos of whitewater, it's all magic.  I treasure every trip in memory, and the Grand Canyon still awaits.

If you'd like a vicarious experience, try renting the movie The River Wild.  Several excellent actors make the best of a mundane thriller plot, but the real star of the film is the river itself.  (In reality, the film was shot on several rivers in Montana and Oregon.)  The scenery and cinematography are fine ~ one nice touch is that (as in real life training) you experience milder rapids early in the film, and are lulled into thinking "Gee, this is not so bad" ~ only to discover that each successive set of rapids is more intense and challenging, until the final rapids, at which point you think "No way".

I was reminded of all this when I came across the photo above (click to enlarge) ~ a waterfalls on the Yangtze River in China.  Whitewater is rated as Class I through Class VI, with Class I being flatwater and Class Six being unrunnable by even the most skilled paddler.  How do you think the Yangtze River falls should be rated?

BUTTERFLY VIVIDICITY

(Click to enlarge)

THE MAKER MOVEMENT

For the first eight years of my life, I was an only child.  Living on a farm, I was often left to my own devices for entertaining myself (when I wasn't doing chores), and thereby developed a healthy imagination.  By inclination and circumstance, my free time usually was spent applying any raw materials at hand toward the construction of play-related objects ~ rearranging hay bales to make a fort, or digging snow from a bank large enough to house tunnels and 'rooms', or meticulously fashioning roads, bridges, and plants into miniature landscapes for toys to populate.

Fast-forward a few years, and my creativity was channeled by membership in Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts.  Handicrafts, camping trips, and a variety of skills learned to earn merit badges were a source of much fun and pride, and contributed (as did projects for school science fairs) to my confidence in adult life that I could fix or build just about anything. That engagement and confidence is the goal of the Maker Movement, "a growing community of young people and adults who are designing and building things on their own time", as described by Thomas Kalil in his Slate article, "Every Child a Maker ~ How the Government and Private Sector Can Turn American Kids on to Science Through 'Making'.

Kalil explains that "The Maker Movement is important for a variety of reasons.  First, it promotes values that are ends in themselves, such as creativity, problem-solving, collaboration, and self-expression. Second, it has the potential to get more boys and girls excited about STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math], in the same way that chemistry sets inspired previous generations of scientists and engineers.  Third, many manufacturing companies complain that they have many job openings they can't fill, and they need more welders and machine tool operators.  The Maker Movement could promote a renaissance of 'shop class', which was historically a pathway to practical skills and middle-class jobs.  Finally, communities of hobbyists are often hotbeds of innovators .... The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is encouraging all agencies to provide R&D funding for entrepreneurs with good ideas for low-cost instruments and kits for Makers and citizen scientists."

A coalition of manufacturing companies, youth-serving organizations, science museums, individual Makers, and foundations and philanthropists is needed to supplement the already-active engagement by private events like Maker Faires, President Obama's "Educate to Innovate" campaign to improve STEM education, and the work of government agencies like DARPA, the VA, and NASA to fund and promote projects designed and built by students, ranging from robots to space exploration.

"A number of important technology trends are helping to fuel the Maker Movement.  The tools needed to design and build just about anything are becoming more affordable and easier to use, in the same way that the move from the mainframe to the PC to the smartphone has democratized information technology.  Although local communities are still important, the Internet has made it easier for Makers to share blueprints, software, CAD files, and step-by-step instructional videos and cartoons."

One cannot overstate the importance of instilling in young people a passion for science and the arts, both in school and at home.  With them, we are a unique and vibrant culture.  Without them, we will continue our present downhill slide from creative prominence among the world's nations.

LEGALIZING PROSTITUTION

Chris Vaughan in The New Yorker has written a careful review of Ronald Weitzer's new book Legalizing Prostitution:  From Illicit Vice to Lawful Business.  The sex trade is a hot-button topic, with most views highly polarized and passionate, but with little solid research as evidence.  Weitzer aims to change the nature of the debate by introducing evidence so that readers can have a firmer foundation on which to found their opinions.

The author "divides the warring camps into two ~ the followers of the empowerment paradigm and the followers of the oppression paradigm.  The empowerment paradigm hghlights the ways in which sexual services qualify as work, involve human agency and may be potentially validating or empowering for workers.  This paradigm holds there is nothing inherent in sex work that would prevent it from being organized for mutual gain by all parties ~ just as in other economic transactions.

" .... The oppression paradigm is a formulation of radical feminism.  According to this paradigm sex work is the quintessential expression of patriarchal gender relations and male domination.  Not only does the sex industry objectify and commodify women's bodies, it also give men the idea that they have a 'right' to buy erotic entertainment from women, thus reinforcing women's subordination to men.  Supporters of this paradigm argue that exploitation, subjugation and violence are intrinsic to and ineradicable from sex work."

The author argues that both paradigms suffer from being one-dimensional, with neither derived from carefully conducted research.  He proposes instead "a more nuanced paradigm, one he calls polymorphous, based on the current state of research which identifies a constellation of occupational arrangements, power relations and participants' experiences.  A growing body of research, he says, documents tremendous international diversity in how sex work is organized and experienced by workers, clients, and third parties, undermining some deep-rooted myths.  Victimization, exploitation, agency, job satisfaction, self-esteem and other dimensions should be treated as variables (not as constants) that differ with types of sex work, geographic locations and other structural conditions .... Most countries which have brought a degree of regulation to the sex industry have registered a degree of success in achieving one or more positive goals."

It should be clearly stated that Weitzer's vision of the sex trade is confined to behavior between consenting adults, with assurances of health and the absence of STDs or other communicable conditions.  Regulation, decriminalization, and maintaining a non-offensive low profile are key.  So is constraining the influence of profit-making third parties who may otherwise wield a corrupting influence on the process.

I can understand the feelings of those who endorse both traditional paradigms.  On balance, however, I think Weitzer's paradigm takes the broadest view, examining the sex trade as practiced in other countries to provide a standard of reference.  Having never sought out the services of a prostitute myself, and having no intention of doing so, for me the discussion is intellectual ~ until the social ills of the non-regulated sex trade enter the picture ~ the risk of disease infection, drug use, child prostitution, human trafficking, violence.  Those variables are not inevitable, and should not be tolerated.  Those things aside, if a woman or a man freely and without duress chooses to trade sex for money, and do so with discretion, what business is it of mine?

NOTE ~ the map above (click to enlarge) portrays the legality of prostitution and brothels around the world.  Green areas are places where prostitution is legal and regulated.  Blue areas are regions where prostitution is legal but unregulated, and organized activities such as brothels are illegal.  Red countries are places where prostitution is illegal.  Gray areas signify lack of data.  Map courtesy of Wikipedia here.

ENDING IT ALL

Here's something I did not expect ~ death has a preference for birthdays.  A research summary linked by Andrea Kuszewski explains ~ "Researchers studying mortality rates on over two million people over a forty year time span have found that statistically speaking, people are more likely to die on their birthday, than any other day of the year.  Bumping the numbers are suicides by men, who apparently find the ultimate milestone a little too hard to bear.  But those deaths aren't enough to account for the overall fourteen percent increased likelihood that any given person will die on the same day as the day they were born, compared to any other day of the year.

" .... The number that really stands out, of course, is the 34.9% greater chance of dying by suicide by men on their birthdays .... some have suggested higher death rates on birthdays is likely attributable to those trying to hang on, for whatever reasons, to reach their birthday.  [The] research doesn't agree with such speculation, however, [adding that increased] stress on birthdays is most likely the culprit, noting that average alcohol consumption goes up on birthdays as well."

What a concept.  I suppose much depends on the number and severity of stressors in one's life, but it seems counter-intuitive to choose one's birthday to exit this mortal coil.  I've thought about death over the years (who hasn't?), and other things being equal, I know I'd like to leave this life during the same season in which I entered it ~ Spring.  There's a nice balance there, giving up the nutrients in my body to rejoin the cycle of life.  No embalming fluids, metal caskets, or cremation for me ~ just a winding sheet or a plain pine box in which to decompose naturally. I'd like to be buried in a natural setting, with a tree sapling planted on my grave.  It pleases me to think of wild animals and birds making their home in my tree, or human children playing in it.

But I'm in no hurry.  Unless I come down with some virulent disease which leaves me in misery and unable to enjoy life, I shall persist as long as I can.  There remains so much beauty still to discover ~ music, art, books, travel, friends, laughter, fine food, soul-splitting ideas.  As for dying on my birthday, I don't think so.  A birthday is a time of celebration (although I suppose there are circumstances in which ending one's life might feel like a celebration).  I do know this ~ as I and my peers become older, I'm going to be careful about sneaking up behind a celebrant and yelling "Happy Birthday" ~ the unintended consequences could be fatal.

VIDEO TUESDAY

Lose Worry Through Wonder ~ "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."  Carl Sagan.

Our Story in 2 Minutes ~ Well, the choice of highlights is highly subjective.  That's all I'll say.

Secrets of Body Language ~  Fairly long, but deeply informative.  Bet you'll begin to notice things you'd never thought of before.

'You Are Not Special' commencement speech ~ sounds belittling, but it's not.  An entertaining and thoughtful reality check.

Why is 'X' the Unknown? ~ Yeah, why is that?  There's a surprising, yet logical story here.

AT-RISK YOUTH

I'm using the term "at-risk" not to refer to the risk of committing criminal activity, or to the risk of yielding to the temptation of addictive drugs, or the risk of academic failure.  My focus is on two aspects of life as a teenager in the U.S. ~

Marijuana.
The Centers for Disease Control has released the results of a study which found that in 2011, for the first time ever, more American teens were smoking marijuana than cigarettes.  "A full 23 percent of students surveyed told the CDC that they had used marijuana within the last month, whereas just 18 percent said they had smoked cigarettes."  The findings are consistent with a 2011 study conducted by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, which reports that "almost half of American teens (47 percent) said they have used marijuana at least once, representing a 21 percent increase over their 2008 study."

I'm not against the moderate use of marijuana by adults.  By any standard, among recreational substances marijuana is far and away the most harmless.  But the brains of children and teenagers are still developing, and to that extent pot presents a health risk similar to the early use of alcohol or tobacco.  THC, the principle psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, presents extremely low toxicity.  It does, however, contribute to a delayed motor response, acts as a mild depressant, and can lead to a dissociative state.  Frequent use is associated with disrupted linear memory and short-term memory, as well as impaired driving skills and judgment.  Equally troubling are the effects produced by inhaling marijuana smoke, which deposits four times the amount of tar in the human respiratory tract as tobacco does.

The concept of marijuana as a 'gateway drug' to other, more addictive and toxic drugs has been discredited.  In one sense, if young people are experimenting at all, I would rather it be with marijuana than with tobacco or alcohol.  But the biologist in me wishes that experimentation be postponed until one is in his/her early-to-mid 20s, when most brain development is complete.

Stop and Frisk.
Statistics show that young black and Latino men are disproportionately targeted in stop-and-frisk policing (see image above).  Here is an enlightening seven-minute discussion among three youths who are among the black and Latino males, ages 14-24, who account for 41.6 percent of NYPD stops (and other cities as well, it seems likely).  There are links at the bottom of the page to other videos related to minority issues.  It is a disgrace that racial profiling persists among law enforcement, whose job it is to "serve and protect" all citizens.

SHRINKING ICONS

When he was a youngster, one of my son's favorite TV shows was The Dukes of Hazzard.  The plot was thin, and the comedy was lowest-common-denominator, featuring two rascally good-ol'-boys (cousins in the Duke family) and The General Lee, their customized 1969 Dodge Charger ~ a vehicle which, like KITT in Knight Rider, seemed capable of feats which defied the laws of physics.

Unlike my son, I'm not a fan of super-charged cars or car racing.  But I can understand the attraction for a young rural boy in those times.  When I still lived in Tucson, Arizona, we had the chance to see KITT at an auto show there.  Years later, when I was living in northeastern Tennessee near Bristol Motor Speedway (the Mecca of stock car racing), I happened to see The General Lee, much to my son's envy.  Too bad I didn't get a picture of either vehicle.

But all is not lost, though it appears to be shrinking.  Below you can see an image of The General Lee, back in the day.  And below that is an image of a Smart Car tricked out in TGL's livery ~ The General Wee?  I had no idea that the troubled economy was actually shrinking cars.  My son is now grown, and father to my 10-year-old grandson.  Enjoy, Ian and Ryan.

2012 TRANSIT OF VENUS

Three days ago the planet Venus passed between the Earth and the Sun.  Such an event is called a transit, and the 2012 transit of Venus was one of the most-photographed celestial events in history.  According to NASA, "These [Venusian] transits occur in pairs eight years apart that are separated from each other by 105 or 121 years.  The last transit was in 2004 and the next will not happen until 2117."

In the image above (click to enlarge), Venus is the black sphere just inside the upper left arc, as it begins its transit.  Photos and videos like this give us a priceless perspective on the scale of objects and the distances between them.  Here's what I mean ~ we viewers on Earth are 93 million miles from the sun.  Venus, with 80 percent of Earth's mass, orbits at about 64 million miles from the Sun (and 29 million miles from Earth's orbit).  Yes, Venus is about two-thirds of the distance out from Sun to Earth.  Further, If you lined up 109 Earths in a row, they would equal the Sun's diameter.  Venus is even smaller than Earth.  It is the foreshortening of telephotography that creates the illusion that Venus is as large (relative to the Sun) as it appears to be in the image above.  The silhouette of Venus might be compared to that of the head of a pin, closer to the viewer than to the light bulb on the ceiling.

My Chicago friend Bill sent a link to what must surely be the definitive collection of videos of the Venus transit, provided by NASA, collected at various wavelengths of light.  Enjoy.

ENDING PARTISAN POLITICS

Several weeks ago an article appeared in the Washington Post, summarizing the gridlock in Washington (political dysfunction, partisanship, attack politics, low public approval of Congress).  The authors, Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein, went on to list five fruitless cures that are often proposed, and four cures that stand a better chance to make a meaningful difference.  Here's a summary (read the article for a fuller description) ~

Solutions to avoid ~

• A third party to the rescue.  DOA ~ 90 percent of Americans identify with or lean toward one of the two major political parties.
• Term limits.  Self-defeating ~ new lawmakers tend to have no incentive to think long-term, and start jockeying for their next step up once they leave office ~ e.g., lucrative careers in lobbying.
• A balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution.  Experience has already proven that this doesn't work.  49 states have balanced-budget amendments.  When an economic downturn occurs, the government experiences less revenue and increased demand for services.  The result?  Raising taxes and cutting spending.  Not a healthy way to run a society.
• Public financing of elections to restrain special interests.  Fail, for two reasons.  One, the money raised by public financing is a drop in the bucket compared to the floodtide of expenses in today's elections, and cannot compete with the massive cash infused by often-anonymous super-PACs under today's election rules.  Two, those same wealthy special interests (the NRA, AARP, the AFL-CIO to name a few) don't just donate to campaigns.  They also "mobilize powerful collections of single-minded members and followers to pressure lawmakers, and they hire former lawmakers or congressional staff members to gain access to power and boost policy expertise on key issues."  Individual private citizens don't have that kind of financial or policy influence.
• Stay calm ~ acrimony comes and goes in cycles.  True, but only up to a point.  "We are experiencing neither politics as usual nor an odd blip.  We are witnessing unprecedented and unbalanced polarization of the parties, with Republicans acting like a parliamentary minority party opposing everything put forward by the Democrats, the near-disappearance of the regular order of Congress, the misuse of the filibuster as a weapon not of dissent but of obstruction, and the relentless delegitimization of the president and policies enacted into law."

Solutions to consider ~

• Realistic campaign finance reform.  To include (a) "Passage of straightforward disclosure legislation requiring the timely identification of all significant donors to independent campaign ads (say, of $5000 or more)", and (b) "real efforts by the Internal Revenue Service to simply enforce its own regulation on nonprofit 501(c)4 entities to keep sham organizations from exploiting the law to hide political donors."
• Converting votes into seats.  Redistricting should use independent commissions to draw congressional district lines based on respect for communities' boundaries, to reduce escalating partisanship.  "Another option that would help make votes more accurately reflect the electorate's real feelings is instant runoff voting, where voters rank their candidate preferences.  Such a system produces majority winners, eliminates the spoiler role, and reduces the 'wasted vote' calculation for minority-party candidates."
• Restoring majority rule in the Senate.  "Restoring the filibuster to its traditional role of allowing an intense minority to temporarily hold up action on issues of great national import ~ and away from its new use as a regular weapon for obstruction ~ should be a top priority .... Senate rules should guarantee an up-or-down vote on executive and judicial nominations reported out of the relevant committees, with a time limit to the holds of the nominations."
• Expanding the electorate.  "Consider the Australian system of mandatory attendance at the polls, where not showing up results in a fine of $15 or so.  This modest penalty has spurred participation to more than 90 percent since the 1925 reform. Australian politicians can count on their bases turning out, so they focus on persuadable voters in the middle .... and they seek to attract a majority of the entire citizenry.  In the United States, such near-universal voting could eliminate the parties' incentive to diminish the turnout of their opponents' supporters and to mobilize the ideological extremes.  Boosting overall turnout would help tilt the balance back toward where most Americans actually are ~ closer to the middle .... Finally, if we can't persuade more Americans to vote with the threat of a fine, how about the promise of untold riches?  How about a lottery, where your vote stub is a ticket, and where the prize is the money collected rom the fines of those who didn't vote?"

The proposed solutions sound attainable.  I would add to the last solution expanding the electorate to include all undocumented immigrants ~ provided that they register as temporary workers, and are allowed to remain in the U.S. long enough to satisfy the requirements for citizenship.  Their presence in the interstices of our culture is simple reality, and they are as affected by our laws as anyone born in the U.S.  The infusion of another set of voters, educated in American history and politics, but with a different (not better or worse) experience with race, class, gender, and economics influence our worldview, could only serve to diversify and deepen everyone's understanding and (hopefully) mutual tolerance.  We are all immigrants, or the descendants of immigrants.

UNIONS AND SHARED PROSPERTY

From a blog entry by Ross Eisenbrey and Colin Gordon ~

"The passage in 1935 of the National Labor Relations Act, which protected and encouraged labor unions, sparked a wave of unionization that led to three decades of shared prosperity and what some call the Great Compression ~ when the share of national income taken by the very rich was cut by one-third.  The 'countervailing power' of labor unions (not just at the bargaining table but in local, state, and national politics) gave them the ability to raise wages and working standards for members and non-members alike.  Both median compensation and labor productivity roughly doubled into the early 1970s.  Labor unions both sustained prosperity, and ensured that it was shared.  Union bargaining power has been shown to moderate the compensation of executives at unionized firms.


However, over the next 30 years ~ an era highlighted by the filibuster of labor law reform in 1978, the Reagan administration's crushing o the PATCO strike, and the passage of anti-worker trade deals with Mexico and China ~ labor's bargaining power collapsed.  The consequences are driven home by the figure below (click to enlarge), which juxtaposes the historical trajectory of union density and the income shared by the richest 10 percent of Americans.  Union membership has fallen and income inequality has worsened ~ reaching levels not seen since the 1920s.

Over the years I held a variety of jobs, and uniformly the ones in which workers were unionized featured better job security, health benefits, wages, and working conditions.  My experience includes unionized government jobs at the city, county, state, and federal levels, as well as jobs as a professional transit driver.  It is revealing that unionization not only benefits workers, it also levels the fiscal playing field between employees and corporate executives.  As Arsenio Hall used to say on his late night variety show, "Kinda makes you go 'hmmmm'."

If you are opposed to labor unions, you are opposed to all benefits unions have won over the years ~ paid vacations, sick leave, seniority rights, paid holidays, wage increases, pensions, health insurance plans, time-and-a-half for overtime, unemployment benefits, safe working conditions, the end of child labor, and job security.  I'm certain that the robber barons who run Wall Street, hence Washington DC, would delight in rescinding those hard-won gains by their employees.

NORMANDY

World War II was arguably the defining event of the twentieth century.  Today marks the 68th anniversary of the Allied invasion of Nazi-held Normandy, France ~ the largest amphibious invasion in history, and the definitive turning point of World War II.  The landings took place along a 50-mile stretch of coast divided into five sectors (see map below) ~

• Sword Beach (British forces)
• Juno Beach (Canadian forces)
• Gold Beach (British forces)
• Omaha Beach (American forces) ~ see image above
• Utah Beach (American Forces)

The invasion was officially named Operation Overlord, but is known universally as D-Day.  The invasion fleet was the largest ever assembled ~ over 5000 ships.  The landings were preceded by paratroop drops behind enemy lines the night before, and by a massive naval artillery barrage and air attack.  Over 157,000 Allied troops landed on the first day alone, meeting heavy German resistance.  

You can read in more detail about the complex, secret planning and execution of D-Day here.  Two movies stand out for their depiction of the harsh reality of the invasion and its aftermath ~ Saving Private Ryan and the HBO miniseries Band of Brothers.

The generation which fought to save the world from Hitler's domination (and that of his Axis partners Benito Mussolini of Italy and Emperor Hirohito) was my parents' generation.  Those brave men and women, now in their 80s and 90s, are passing from our midst by the thousands daily.  Please take a quiet moment to honor their sacrifice.

Far too many free people in this world have no familiarity or understanding for momentous events in our recent past.  It is disturbing that many cannot describe why World War II took place, or when, or who the combatants were, or what life would be like today if we had lost.  Think the holocaust.  I am against war in principle.  But our fighting in World War II was an honorable necessity against unprovoked aggression.  It is important to know history, lest we repeat it. 

REVIVING A LOST ART

My earliest years were spent on farms.  Some might liken that to growing up in a gulag, but I treasure the experience.  These were the years before television intruded its cyclopian eye into our lives.  Family entertainment included reading, playing cards, and listening to radio news and dramas (radio being a medium which inherently lends itself to the imagination).  My play time was solitary or with neighbor kids who lived a quarter mile away ~ or on the playground at school ~ and we made up our own games.  When alone, I found it natural to immerse myself in a sensory microcosm ~ examining the inner parts of a flower, listening to the earth breathe, watching how submerged weeds undulated in an irrigation canal, or how the motion of cottonwood leaves formed shimmering patterns in the breeze.  Between books, the radio, music, and solo play, I developed a fertile imagination.

My attention shifted outward when we moved to a rural town in northern Montana, when I was about age 11.  School was opening new vistas of thought, and my favorite windows onto the wider world were the public library and the movie theater.  Like most of my peers, I left my home town, went to college, and later moved to larger cities with their museums, orchestras, theaters and restaurants.  But I remain grateful for those early, quiet years in which I learned to observe.

Such mindful attention has become more and more rare in the intervening years, as life has sped up and distractions have multiplied.  Each new generation has a shorter attention span ~ ADHD wasn't even recognized when I was a child, but now the symptoms, the diagnosis, and treatment seem to increase in numbers by an order of magnitude each year.  Young people and even many adults are so plugged into their electronic devices that they are oblivious to the world around them.

The world of research has taken note.  Neuroscientist and science writer Andrea Kuszewski provided a link to a Wall Street Journal article titled How to End the Age of Inattention ~ Reviving the Art of Observation.  The premise is simple.  "Today's signature move is the head swivel.  It is the age of look-then-look-away.  Our average attention span halved in a decade, from 12 to 5 minutes (and that was in 2008).  We miss almost everything.  We text while we walk.  What makes a person stand out now is the ability to look and keep looking.

"But as global competition makes us manic about technology .... we rush past the humanities, the very fields that teach us how and what to notice.  Before lunging for another engineering degree, we should catch our breath, look around.  We need an intervention .... A 'museum intervention' is now mandatory at Yale's School of Medicine for all first-year medical students.  Called Enhanced Observational Skills, the programs asks students to look at and then describe paintings.  The aim?  To improve diagnostic knack .... Each student is assigned a painting, which they examine for 15 minutes, recording all they see.  The group discusses its observations .... The conclusion matters less than the collection of detail.  'We are trying to slow down the students.  They have an urge to come up with a diagnosis immediately and get the right answer.'

" .... a three-year study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that, afterward, [medical students] are 10% more effective at diagnosis.   The program has expanded to include more than 20 medical schools, including Harvard, Columbia and Cornell."

My thought is, of course.  And why not have a class in observation as a requirement for every college degree, every high school graduation, every primary school curriculum?  People are naturally curious, given half a chance.  Channeling that curiosity in a guided setting which provides the time, the encouragement, and the tools for understanding, could only enhance growth and quality of life for people of all ages.  Attention, focus, being in the moment and open to all our senses, are a core part of being fully human.

SYNERGY AIRCRAFT

My post a few days ago dealt with two prototype designs for aircraft that can be converted to driving on roads.  Today I want to enthuse about an innovative aircraft design which I learned about in AOPA's e-newsletter ~ a design that is being developed just north of me, in scenic Kalispell, MT, a few minutes' drive from Glacier National Park.

Synergy Aircraft designer John McGinnis may join Burt Rutan among the ranks of visionaries who spark a revolution.  Synergy is a fixed-wing aircraft, but its double box tail configuration, pusher engine mount, and sleek futuristic appearance make it unlike any conventional fixed-wing GA plane I'm familiar with.  (See image above for a view of the plane in flight, and see image below for an overview of passenger seating configuration.  Orange shading indicates control surfaces ~ ailerons and rudders.  Click to enlarge.)  The AOPA article says that Synergy aims to "cut the fuel bill in half for a given horsepower, make it roomy, make it quiet, make it fast, easy to fly, and able to carry five people".

That's just the beginning.  Combining half a dozen principles of physics to reduce drag and enhance performance, along with cutting-edge construction and power plant technology, could mean that Synergy will be a quantum leap forward for small aircraft.  Click on the website link above for a fuller description of Synergy's advantages and goals ~ don't forget to browse the drop-down menu, especially the 'Images', 'Visual media', and 'FAQs' tabs.

As listed on the home page, Synergy's aim is to provide ~

• more interior cabin room
• a quiet, smooth ride with a panoramic view
• greater fuel economy
• ease of operation
• reduced travel time
• greatly reduced price
• a quiet presence when landing and taking off
• adaptability to hybrid, electric, and advanced engine technologies

Further, Synergy is capable of flying at 200 mph (and hints at faster speeds) ~ placing it in competition with high-performance, high-cost aircraft like the Cessna Corvalis or the Piper Malibu.  The provisional service ceiling is 25,000 feet, but test flights have gone much higher.

I'll be interested in learning more technical details as I uncover them ~ fuel consumption rate (Synergy runs on diesel fuel), takeoff and landing distances, rate of climb, max and cruise speeds, cargo capacity, etc.  But I gotta tell you, this aircraft makes my mouth water.  My current favorite small aircraft, the Diamond DA-40, may be in for some competition.

COLLISION COURSE

Imagine the Milky Way galaxy ~ 200-400 billion stars ~ our sun resides in a modest position along one of its spiral arms.  Now imagine the Andromeda galaxy ~ 1000 billion stars ~ the largest galaxy of the local group.  Now imagine that the two massive galaxies are on a collision course.  Guess what ~ they are.

Last week the science journal Nature reported astronomers' announcement that the Milky Way and Andromeda will undergo a direct and complete merger ~ "Four billion years from now, the two galaxies will pass through each other and 2 billion years after that, they will fall back into a permanent embrace to form a single galaxy."

The research team reached its conclusion after eight years of intense observation using the Hubble Space Telescope, coupled with intricate computer simulation software.  "The team's simulations had to account for the Sun's motion as well as the gravity of a satellite galaxy of Andromeda called M33, which the researchers say has a 9% chance of plowing into the Milky way before Andromeda does.

"The Milky Way - Andromeda collision will almost certainly move the Sun outwards from its current position of 8,000 parsecs (26,000 light years) away from the Galactic center.  The simulation shows a 10% chance that the Solar System will be exiled to a Galactic Siberia, more than 50,000 parsecs (160,000 light years) from the center of the merged bodies."

Let's contemplate this for a moment.  When I was young (back during the Punic Wars), I recall reading that the ratio of mass to space in the universe is similar to that of placing three grains of sand inside the world's largest cathedral. If objects in space are so far apart, one might think that two galaxies might simply pass through each other unchanged.  There are three reasons why this reasoning falls flat ~ (a) a galaxy is, by definition, a concentration of mass greater than that found in the rest of space ~ (b) in the intervening years we've discovered the presence of dark matter, which is not detectable by telescopes, but which nevertheless makes up an estimated 84% of the matter in the universe (including 84% of the matter in galaxies) ~ and (c) the most important factor of all, gravitation.

Even over vast distances, a single massive object (say our Sun) exerts an enormous gravitational pull on other objects too far to be seen with the unaided eye.  The Sun holds Earth in a captive orbit 93 million miles away, and Neptune in a captive orbit 2.7 billion miles away.  The Oort Cloud?  Forget about it.  Our Milky Way galaxy is a grand, slow-motion swirl of stars held in place (and in motion) by the dynamic balance of gravitation, centripetal force, and momentum.

So imagine the titanic gravitational forces at work when the paths of two galaxies merge.  It will be like stirring melted white chocolate into melted dark chocolate.  Initially the colors remain distinct, even as they whirlpool into each other.  Stir long enough, and the colors blend into a single composite hue.  Thus with the Milky Way and Andromeda.  There may be explosive collisions of individual stars, but for the most part the component stars will act like molecules of blending chocolate ~ remaining structurally intact, but rearranged in relation to each other.

I wish we humans had life spans long enough to witness such cosmic events.  Here is a brief animated simulation of what the Milky Way - Andromeda collision may look like.

A NEW FLYING TOY

In various posts from time to time I've written about non-traditional vehicles which can travel on land or in the air.  As an aviation enthusiast for the past fourteen years, I've come across a variety of designs ~ some of them sleek, others boxy.  As with any crossover concept, you end up sacrificing performance in one mode or the other, for the sake of versatility.

The most recent issue of AOPA Pilot, the flagship publication of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, included a brief article on the PAL-V ONE, which converts from something resembling a three-wheeled, enclosed motorcycle on the ground, to a gyrocopter in flight.  Images of both modes appear above (click to enlarge).  Performance is impressive ~

• powerplant ~ 230 horsepower engine
• on land ~ max speed 112 mph, 28 mpg, range 750 miles
• in the air ~ max speed 112 mph, cruise speed 68 mph, range 220-315 miles
• price $250,000

As a land vehicle, the aerodynamic PAL-V ONE is as agile as a motorcycle, thanks to a control system which automatically adjusts the tilt angle of the vehicle to its speed and acceleration.  As an aircraft, the vehicle needs very little room for takeoff and landing, and is quieter than a helicopter.  I've long been fascinated with gyrocopters, since controlling them is more intuitive and less complex than piloting a helicopter ~ though I'd love to learn choppers anyway.

The AOPA article compares the PAL-V ONE to the crossover vehicle furthest along in development and availability, the Terrafugia Transition, which more closely resembles an automobile on the ground (if you can ignore its pterosaur-like folded wings), since it has four wheels and a wider body.  In the air it looks like a somewhat blocky fixed-wing aircraft.  Images of both modes appear below (click to enlarge).  For comparison ~

• powerplant ~ 100 horsepower Rotax engine
• on land ~ max speed 115 mph, 35 mpg, range 490 miles
• in the air ~ max speed 115 mph, cruise speed 105 mph, range 490 miles.
• price $279,000

The PAL-V ONE looks sportier, the Terrafugia looks more suburban.  Yet both metamorphose from ground vehicle to aircraft smoothly at the push of a button. Both carry two people.  And both eliminate the need to tie down or hangar a conventional fixed-wing or rotor aircraft at the airport.  You simply land, exit the airport and drive home.  And bask in the stares of those you drive (or fly) past along the way.

DO RITUALS WORK?

Neuroscientist and science writer Andrea Kuszewski recently posted a link to an article in Psychology Today, concerning the hidden causal beliefs about rituals.  In part, the author states that "One of the biggest difficulties that we have to deal with is that most of the things that happen to us are utterly out of our control.  Cultures have developed many strategies for dealing with this fact.  One of the most fascinating of these strategies is the creation of rituals.

"[In one study], three aspects of [ritual formulas] seemed to have the biggest influence on people's beliefs about whether they worked.  First, formulas with more steps were thought to be more effective than those with fewer steps.  Formulas that required steps to be repeated were more effective than those that required no repetition.  Finally, formulas that had to be performed at a certain time (such as during the full moon) were thought to be more effective than those that could be performed at any time."

Certainly there is no shortage of examples of rituals we've woven into our lives ~ elaborate religious rites, audience behavior at a classical music concert, good luck gestures performed by a baseball batter stepping up to the plate, the chanting of gamblers about to throw dice, or wearing a 'lucky' article of clothing on a first date.  The question is, do rituals literally have the ability to influence an outcome, or do we simply lend credence when the outcome is positive, and find a rationalization when it is negative?  More likely the latter, in my view and according to the principle of parsimony, which states that the simplest explanation is most likely to be the correct one.

Andrea probably agrees.  In her comment preceding the article link, she said, "In my experience, ritualistic behaviors are most likely when the person is feeling out of control or anxious about something they can't immediately change.  The dissonance forces them to seek out ways to relieve the tension, and ritualistic behaviors emerge."

In short, while rituals may have comfort value, most simply demonstrate that we are placing our trust in an irrational belief which is not supported by evidence.  Just the opposite is true ~ if rituals worked, every Las Vegas gambler would be a winner, no marriages would end in divorce, prayers would always have the desired outcome, and that batter?  A home run every time.