Quantcast
Channel: Pax on both houses
Viewing all 30150 articles
Browse latest View live

The Cost Of A Barrel Of Oil Just Dipped Below $50.00

$
0
0
Tar Sands
Not a pretty picture.
Uglier still the carbon load.

Alan: It is said the Saudis are prepared to pressure the price of oil down to $40.00 a barrel to prove to U.S. and Canadian tar sands and shale oil producers that they will not tolerate any major new players in the petroleum market and that they will "break them" by making production costs prohibitively high relative to re-sale value. It is widely assumed that tar sand and shale oil production costs $60.00 a barrel, a figure that does not include remediating the ecological disasters to come.

The American Oil Boom Won't Last Long At $65.00 A Barrel

http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-american-oil-boom-wont-last-long-at.html

Oil just dipped below $50 per barrel. How much lower can it go?Oil continued its plunge today, as markets opened for the first full week of trading in 2015. A barrel of U.S. benchmark West Texas Intermediate crude oil most recently traded at $ 50.14, after briefly dipping below $ 50 per barrel. That is a mindboggling decline from late June of 2014, when prices were more than … [continued]



Yes, Watching Fox Does Make You More Conservative. Here's How Much...

$
0
0
 January 5
What decided the 2000 election? A few hanging chads? The Supreme Court? Or was it Fox News?
A new working paper argues that former President George W. Bush's popular vote total would have been 1.6 percentage points lower in his race against former Vice President Al Gore if Fox had not launched four years earlier. The paper provides new evidence that Fox and MSNBC have a real influence on how their audiences are likely to vote.
The fact that Republicans are more likely to watch Fox and Democrats to watch MSNBC is a chicken-and-egg problem. To be sure, people prefer to watch anchors and commentators whose views they already agree with, but do the channels actually make their viewers more liberal or conservative as well?
To solve this riddle, the researchers, Emory University's Gregory Martin and Stanford University's Ali Yurukoglu, took advantage of a surprising pattern among cable subscribers: People are more likely to watch any station with a lower channel number.
As Martin explained, that's probably because the oldest and most popular channels, like ESPN, usually have lower numbers. Viewers watching those channels might flip through a few others on their remotes during a commercial break, but they won't stray too far.
Fox's and MSNBC's numbers are more or less random across the country, and in towns where MSNBC has a lower a number, cable subscribers tend to be more liberal -- even compared to people who get their television through a satellite dish.
These viewers watch a few more minutes of MSNBC a week on average, but not because they agree with the hosts' politics. They're watching MSNBC because they're more conveniently placed in the line-up. The same is true of Fox.
Martin and Yurukoglu found that watching four more minutes of Fox a week makes you 0.9 percentage points more likely vote Republican, while watching MSNBC for four more minutes makes you 0.7 percentage points more likely to vote Democrat.
Matthew Gentzkow, an economist at the University of Chicago and an expert on bias in the media, called the paper "exciting" and "extremely clever."
Other researchers have analyzed Fox's effect on voting, he said, but the new study examines data from more channels over a longer period of time, with more detailed data.
"I think this paper has the potential to be pretty important," Gentzkow said.
The paper raises immediate practical questions for Time Warner Cable and Comcast, which have proposed a merger.
Federal regulators have long denied mergers in media markets to prevent any one person or company from acquiring too much control over Americans' opinions and to be sure that people hear a variety of points of view. This paper suggests they had good reasons for doing so. To the extent that people only watch news anchors whose views they already agreed with, large media companiesreach a broader audience and make more money by offering opposing views. But people will watch what's available, even if they don't always agree, Martin and Yurukoglu found. Over time, they'll find themselves persuaded by what they hear, which will make them less interested in listening to other ideas.
These days, most people confront a wide range of opinions online and on television, in contrast to three decades ago, when almost everyone watched the nightly news broadcast. Media companies that are looking to merge will have to find ways to protect that diversity. When Comcast acquired NBCUniversal a few years ago, for example, regulators required Comcast to assign Bloomberg a number close to CNBC's, so that viewers would not have to hunt for an outlet that was a competitor of Comcast's new subsidiary in financial news. Comcast didn't live up to the agreement, the Federal Communications Commission later found.
"If we maintain some diversity, then we can maintain some optimism that things will wash out, but if everything is concentrated in the hands of one owner, that's going to be a problem," Martin said.
Martin said his next goal is to determine whether there are differences between individual shows on the channels. Two MSNBC hosts like Chris Hayes and Joe Scarborough can have major differences of opinion, for example -- and one might be more persuasive than the other as well.
Max Ehrenfreund is a blogger on the Financial desk and writes for Know More and Wonkblog.


Leo Tolstoy: How To Prevent (Almost) All War

$
0
0


"Why of course the people don't want war... Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought along to do the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." Hermann Goering, Adolf Hitler's Deputy Chief and Luftwaffe Commander, at the Nuremberg trials, 1946.

"War, Peace And Political Manipulation: Quotations"

Weird Enuf Fer Ya? News From Barbaria #166

$
0
0

Alan: The encounter that resulted in Michael Brown's death at the hands of Officer Darren Wilson started as a jaywalking offense and escalated from there. A significant minority of American police are predisposed by bias and fear to be trigger-happy when they encounter black suspects.

"Bad Black People." Why Bill O'Reilly Is Wrong Even When He's Right

Epicurus: The Luxury Of Wealth Is No More Use Than An Overflowing Container

$
0
0
Live your life as if water were wine and you'll be healthy, wealthy and wise.
You will also delight in the working of ceaseless miracle.



“No one can serve two masters. For you will hate one and love the other; 
you will be devoted to one and despise the other. 
You cannot serve both God and money."
Matthew 6:24 



Frog Hospital Prompts Discussion Of Certitude, Absolutism And Responsibility

$
0
0

One other thing... Don't wear your seat belt.
That way "you'll be thrown clear of the car."


Dear Fred,

Thanks for your email.

I agree with you. By and large, the world is a reliable place. 

It is this same reliability which moved me to observe that the world functions quite dependably on "mere" scientific "theory" without even considering the relative unbreachability of scientific Law

My apprehension over "certitude" arises from another source.
For example, you may know of my personal belief in levitation and my consequent belief that "The Law of Gravity" is not absolutely inviolable.  http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/COPERTIN.htm

Even so, I always align my political and personal behavior with "the preponderance of scientific evidence" which, in this case, supports The Law of Gravity.

In the end, we are called upon to "do what reasonable people would do" and,very often science tells us, with relative certainty, what lies on "the safe side" of "reasonable doubt."

However, many American conservatives - and virtually all Christian conservatives - disdain any scientific principle that threatens them ideologically, and as soon as they've located (or think they've located) "an exception to a scientific rule" they argue (or at least imply) that Scientific Rule be supplanted (or at least be overthrown) by the The Exception.

A revealing aside...

Decades ago, I met a San Franciscan who -- convinced he could fly -- jumped off the upper deck of the Bay Bridge and was blown back on the lower deck where he snapped his spinal cord, leaving him paraplegic.

Self-arrogation of the "right" to manipulate epistemological outcomes according to pre-existing beliefs is as dangerous as leaping from the upper deck. 

Truth is what it is. 

We discover it. 

We do not invent Truth or "tailor" it to our liking.

Sound epistemology is not founded on wishful thinking, opinionated email chains, denial or which "team" yells loudest.

"The Rules" are "The Rules." 

And "Exceptions to Rules" are "Exceptions to Rules" - statistical outliers void of scientific significance.

It is benighted (as only The Prince of Darkness can be) to believe -- and, even worse, to preach/promote -- that "Exceptions to Rules" are grounds for "New Rules" or reason to disregard old ones.

The Guardian: John Olivers' Viral Video Is The Best Climate Debate You'll Ever See

Stewart, Colbert, Oliver Probe The Spectacular Idiocy Of Climate Change Deniers


Take for example the conservative chestnut that 1934 was an exceptionally hot year in the United States.

Yes, it was.

However, that year's anomalous heat is not an argument against the massive (and growing) body of evidence that demonstrate the reality of global warming and, more specifically, anthropogenic global warming. 

"1934 Is The Hottest Year On Record." What Science Says Vs. Dodgy Lies


Consider Christian conservatism's twin objections to global warming. 

On one hand it is believed that God -- as a function of his "meta-level oversight" -- would "take out the garbage" for us so that we humans needn't bother de-toxifying our waste.  

On the other hand, once "we" determine that humans are responsible for "taking out the garbage," immediately there is inexorable need for collective, political action to undertake "de-toxification," a fact that contradicts the primary conservative Christian belief in Individual Conscience as "supreme and inviolable." And so conservative Christianity refuses countenance any appeal to moral mandate under aegis of collective decision-making.

Pope Francis: Moving The Moral Compass From "The Individual" Toward "The Collective"

Pro-Science Pontiff: Pope Francis On Climate Change, Evolution And The Big Bang

http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-pro-science-pontiff-pope-francis-on.html

Pope Francis: What Christianity Looks Like When Believers Realize "God Is Love"


The quest for "certitude" presumes an underlying absolute and therefore I am wary of all references to certitude since they infuse absolutists with a brittle sense of self-certainty that makes them cantankerous, uncompromising and murderously angry. (Hence their fondness for war and the zeal with which they damn to people to The Unquenchable Lake Of Eternal Fire.)

With increasing regularity -- particularly in the three Abrahamic traditions -- self-certain absolutists have grown so disdainful of earthly existence that they don't care who they "take down" with them.

After all, they are going to heaven. (Tautology is seldom so exquisitely neat. And rarely so revealing.)

At bottom, eschatological Abrahamics - whether Jewish, Christian or Islamic - are Armageddon Cheerleaders, so convinced of their personal glorification in the after-life that they play loose and recklessly with the only Life we know, the Life where Divine Incarnation is actually taking place.

  1. "Republicans For Revolution," A Study In Anarchic Apocalypticism
When I studied at University of Cincinnati, my friend Jody had a sign over her bed that read: "Is there life after birth?"

The wild-eyed radicals on The Religious Right might wisely ask themselves why God "plunged" Christendom into half a millennium of Dark Age at the very moment Christianity - still inspired by proximity to the incarnation of Yeshua - had been declared the official religion of The Roman Empire. 

Nor would it hurt Christian conservatives to re-examine the story of Noah whose family survived The Flood, a catastrophe (purportedly) wrought by God to cleanse the earth of evil.

Remarkably, there is scant discussion of what came next: Noah's own children became more villainous than the generation swept away by "God's Plan" to restore virtue on earth!?!


Absolutism - and its Siamese twin, "perfectionism" - are more vicious than virtuous.

"Is Perfectionism A Curse? Paul Ryan Tells The Truth"


It is not coincidental that every major fascist society -- Germany, Italy and Spain in the 30s and 40s and Argentina, El Salvador, Guatemala and Chile in the 80s -- were launched by cradle Catholics. 

This is not an esoteric "reading" of history like The Thinking Housewife's fanciful interpretation of Genesis. 

Rather, it is a straightforward rendering of The Historical Record.


Here's how the last Crusade worked out.
Want your child to sign up for the next?

"Bush's Toxic Legacy In Iraq"

"The terrible thing about our time is precisely the ease with which theories can be put into practice.  The more perfect, the more idealistic the theories, the more dreadful is their realization.  We are at last beginning to rediscover what perhaps men knew better in very ancient times, in primitive times before utopias were thought of: that liberty is bound up with imperfection, and that limitations, imperfections, errors are not only unavoidable but also salutary. The best is not the ideal.  Where what is theoretically best is imposed on everyone as the norm, then there is no longer any room even to be good.  The best, imposed as a norm, becomes evil.”  
"Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander,” by Trappist monk, Father Thomas Merton

More Merton Quotes

Pax tecum

Alan


White. Christian. Conservative.
You supply the other adjective.

"Wingnuts And President Obama"
Harris Poll Results

"Brazen Lies About Obama"

"Obama Hatred"

The American Conservative: "Obama Is A Republican"

On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Fred Owens <froghospital911@gmail.com> wrote:
You're making an academic argument against certitude. It does exist, although not to the nth decimal point. I just read a book about the construction of the Golden Gate Bridge, finished in 1937, built with certitude, almost 80 years now, and good for another 80 years. You drive across it, sure it might collapse, or you might get hit by a crashing meteorite, but I would say in terms of human understanding, the bridge was built with certitude.
(The twin towers were struck and destroyed by fanatics in airplanes -- which proves their certitude was not absolute.)
--
Fred Owens
cell: 360-739-0214

My gardening blog is  Fred Owens
My writing blog is Frog Hospital

send mail to:

Fred Owens
35 West Main St Suite B #391
Ventura CA 93001


From Jackie O to Mario Cuomo, Jesuit Parish Is Final Stop For Boldface Catholics

$
0
0
NEW YORK (RNS) Former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo’s funeral will be held on Tuesday (Jan. 6) at the Roman Catholic Church of St. Ignatius Loyola, a Jesuit-run parish in Manhattan that has often served as the venue for bidding a final farewell to the rich and/or famous.
Among the well-known Catholics whose funerals were held at St. Ignatius:
Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis: The widow of John F. Kennedy died in 1994, and while she was a longtime member of the Church of St. Thomas More several blocks away, the Kennedy family chose the larger St. Ignatius for the funeral.
Aaliyah: The singer and performer was killed in a place crash in the Bahamas in 2001 and her funeral procession had an estimated 800 mourners.
Lena Horne: The famous African-American singer and civil rights advocate died in 2010 and was a regular communicant at St. Ignatius (as is her daughter).
Philip Seymour Hoffman: The Oscar-winning actor died in February 2014 after a relapse with heroin. He was raised Catholic but was not a churchgoer. Yet he had a keen interest in the faith and took on many roles and projects related to Catholicism.
Oscar de la Renta: One of the world’s most famous fashion designers, he died in October 2014 at 82 following a long battle with cancer. He was buried after a star-studded funeral Mass at St. Ignatius.
BJR_0108
Former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo’s funeral will be held on Tuesday (Jan. 6) at the Roman Catholic Church of St. Ignatius Loyola, a Jesuit-run parish in Manhattan that has often served as the venue for bidding a final farewell to the rich and/or famous. Photo courtesy of the Church of St. Ignatius Loyola
Why choose that particular parish?
The top three reasons are the same responses you get to almost every question about New York: location, location, location. The Upper East Side is home to the wealthy and the well known, many of them Catholic. St. Ignatius is their parish church, and their contributions help maintain the church as a grand sanctuary with a reputation for great music and fine liturgies.
Yet even if the deceased was not a regular at the parish, the church has several other factors in its favor.
For one thing, it is large, and can handle the hundreds of mourners who turn out for big-name funerals (even as many more are often turned away).
ChurchExterior172
Former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo’s funeral will be held on Tuesday (Jan. 6) at the Roman Catholic Church of St. Ignatius Loyola, a Jesuit-run parish in Manhattan that has often served as the venue for bidding a final farewell to the rich and/or famous. Photo courtesy of the Church of St. Ignatius Loyola
In addition, it is run by the Jesuits, the largest male religious order in the world (Pope Francis is a member). The Society of Jesus is renowned for ministering both to the powerful and influential — Jesuits were once criticized as “confessors to kings” — and for their missionary work to those at the margins of society.
The order also has a certain degree of independence from the local diocese, which is convenient if the deceased had a reputation that might have created difficulties for the archbishop, in this case Cardinal Timothy Dolan.
While no one is saying so publicly, some or all of those factors may have worked in favor of the decision to hold Cuomo’s funeral at St. Ignatius.
Certainly the turnout is expected to be large, and the crowd is going to be full of boldface names and big-time pols. Cuomo’s own home parish farther downtown is too small to hold such an event.
Cuomo, as shown in the extensive news coverage following his death on Jan. 1, had a contentious relationship with some Catholic leaders, mainly over his willingness to defend abortion rights (even as he proclaimed his personal opposition) and his bona fides as a Mass-going Catholic.
St. Patrick’s Cathedral is currently undergoing extensive renovations and isn’t really in the best shape for a liturgy like this one, even if that’s what Cuomo wanted. But avoiding the cardinal’s parish circumvented any possible complications or controversies, and was a win-win for everyone.
The Jesuits don’t like to talk about their role in burying anyone, much less trumpeting their record as eulogizers of celebrities; several declined to comment about St. Ignatius or arrangements for the Cuomo funeral.
Even the parish’s website was downplaying things: A brief notice said only that the 12:10 pm Mass on Tuesday had been canceled. “We apologize for any inconvenience,” it said, with no explanation.
David Gibson

David Gibson

David Gibson is an award-winning religion journalist, author and filmmaker. He is a national reporter for RNS and has written two books on Catholic topics, the latest a biography of Pope Benedict XVI.


"The Lost History Of The NRA," Originally A Sane Organization


The U.S. Has More Jails Than Colleges. Here's The Map

$
0
0
The Caging Of America: Why Do We Lock Up So Many People?

"The Caging Of America: American Prisons Routinely Used To Incarcerate The Mentally Ill. 500,000 Behind Bars"
There were 2.3 million prisoners in the U.S. as of the 2010 Census. It's often been remarked that our national incarceration rate of 707 adults per every 100,000 residents is the highest in the world, by a huge margin.
We tend to focus less on where we're putting all those people. But the 2010 Census tallied the location of every adult and juvenile prisoner in the United States. If we were to put them all on a map, this is what they would look like:
The map shows the raw number of prisoners in each U.S. county as of the 2010 Census. Much of the discussion of regional prison population only centers around inmates in our 1,800 state and federal correctional facilities. But at any given time, hundreds of thousands more individuals are locked up in the nation's 3,200 local and county jails. This map includes these individuals as well.
To put these figures in context, we have slightly more jails and prisons in the U.S. -- 5,000 plus -- than we do degree-granting colleges and universities. In many parts of America, particularly the South, there are more people living in prisons than on college campuses. Cumberland County, Pa. -- population 235,000 -- is home to 41 correctional facilities and 7 colleges. Prisons outnumber colleges 15-to-1 in Lexington County, S.C.
As you can see in the map, states differ in the extent to which they spread their correctional populations out geographically. Florida, Arizona and California stand out as states with sizeable corrections populations in just about every county. States in the midwest, on the other hand, tend to have concentrated populations in just a handful of counties. Prisons tend to leave an unmistakeable mark on the landscape, as artist Josh Begley has documented.
Because of the mix of state, federal and local correctional facilities in each county, it doesn't make sense to express these numbers as a rate -- X prisoners per Y number of adults. The presence of a federal or state facility in a given county will greatly inflate that county's prisoner count relative to the general population. And in many instances, large correctional facilities are located in sparsely populated regions, like Northern New York. In some of these counties, prisons account for 10, 20 or 30 percent of the total population.
In recent years criminal justice reform has risen to prominence in the national conversation, with both Democrats and Republicans looking for ways to dial back the incarceration-focused policies of the '80s and '90s. This map shows one reason why the issue is gaining traction: prisoners are literally every where you look in the U.S. Nearly 85 percent of U.S. counties are home to some number of incarcerated individuals. Localities spend tens of thousands of dollars per prisoner each year -- and often much more than that -- to house, feed and provide them with medical care. Most counties would doubtless prefer to spend this money elsewhere.
Christopher Ingraham writes about politics, drug policy and all things data. He previously worked at the Brookings Institution and the Pew Research Center.


Homor Among Thieves: College Students Twice More Likely To Rat Than Inmates

$
0
0

PRISONERS THWART PRISONER’S DILEMMA

CC image Wikipedia.orgA study by two economists at the University of Hamburg revealed that when presented with the “prisoner’s dilemma”, inmates actually achieved a more favorable outcome than college students.
The prisoner’s dilemma goes as follows: Two criminals are arrested on suspicion of burglary. The cops believe the prisoners worked together during the heist, but they don’t have enough evidence to convict them on 1st degree burglary Prionunless the criminals testify against one another. The suspects are brought into separate rooms for questioning with no means of communication.
They are then told that if they testify and their accomplice remains silent, they will walk free and their partner will get three years in jail. On the other hand, if they remain silent and their partner agrees to testify, they will get three years in prison and their accomplice will go free. If both agree to testify, they will each receive two years in prison. If neither agrees to testify, the cops will only be able to book them on trespassing charges, and they’ll each receive one year in prison.
According to game theory, also known as strategic decision-making, choosing to testify is always the more popular answer. Let’s assume, for example, you knew what your accomplice was going to do. In each case, for the lesser sentence, you would choose to testify. If you knew your accomplice was staying silent, you could walk free if you testified. If you knew your accomplice was talking, your testimony would reduce your sentence from three years to two. In this rational sense, it leads one to believe that testifying will be your best option, when in fact, mutual cooperation leads to the greatest result for both parties.

Testing the Theory on Prisoners

Although termed the prisoners dilemma, the study had never been conducted on a prison population. Menusch Khadjavi and Andreas Lange decided to put the theory to test, and they used a group of college students as a control group.
Because humans are not purely rational individuals, researchers did not expect all 100% of either group to betray their partner. They did, however, believe that the inmate population might be more jaded and distrustful, meaning they may be more likely to betray their partner. The results showed quite the opposite:
  • When students were presented with the dilemma, only 37% opted not to betray their partner.
  • When prisoners were presented with the dilemma, 56% of inmates decided not to betray their partner.
  • When examined in a pair setting, only 13% of students managed to get the best mutual outcome for both players. Prisoners obtained the best mutual outcome for both players 30% of the time.
Although they weren’t actually presented with years in prison (money for the students and coffee and cigarettes for the prisoners were used), the study highlights what some behavioral economists have been arguing for years; that convicts aren’t as distrusting as one might naturally believe.

Global Warming Deniers Are Full Of It. Here Comes The Enema!

$
0
0
Speaking on the Senate floor in July, Oklahoma's James Inhofe -- soon to head, once again, the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee -- made a claim that has become quite prevalent among skeptics of climate change skeptics.
"For the past 15 years," Inhofe said, "temperatures across the globe have not increased."
Inhofe was offering one of the favorite arguments of skeptics, namely, thatglobal warming  paused or slowed down since the very hot year of 1998.
But the argument has one big problem. This:
What you're looking at is a preliminary assessment by the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) of how 2014's globally averaged surface temperatures compare with those of prior years, all the way back to 1891. Based on this data, 2014 was the hottest year on record for the globe. That surpasses the year 1998 (now in 2nd place in the JMA dataset) and 2013 and 2010 (now tied for 3rd).
You'll also note, incidentally, that while the dataset is noisy, the upward trend is quite clear, and the decade of the 2000s is plainly warmer than the decade of the 1990s. So much for any "pause" in global warming.
Japan's is the first major meteorological outlet to pronounce on how 2014 ranks for temperatures. But if others -- the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA, and the UK Met Office's Hadley Center -- concur with the agency, it could be a serious blow to the  "pause" argument.
The strange idea that global warming has paused.
Let's first consider the "pause" notion itself. It went truly mainstream in 2013, when the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released the first part of its much awaited Fifth Assessment Report.
In a poorly worded statement, a leaked draft of the IPCC's report observed that the rate of global temperature increase, during the 15 year period from 1998 to 2012, was somewhat less than the rate of increase from 1951 to 2012. In other words, while the IPCC didn't say the globe had stopped warming, it did suggest a situation that is a bit like a driver easing off the accelerator in a moving car.
This led to voluminous media coverage of the so-called "pause" and how much it allegedly undermined arguments about global warming -- ananalysis by Media Matters of coverage of the IPCC report release found that 41 percent of stories cited the "pause."
But as it turned out, this was all much ado about nothing. The IPCC wouldlater emphasize, in its finished report, that "trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends." Moreover, many scientists observed that using 1998 as a beginning date in the first place is misleading, because 1998 was a super hot El Niño year, and thus a fairly dramatic anomaly for the 1990s (as you can see in the chart above).The weakness of the "pause" argument is perfectly captured in this GIF from the website Skeptical Science, showing that you can still have global warming even if you have shorter periods during which temperatures don't rise much:
In the end, then, the "pause" argument largely relies on the then-record temperatures of 1998 in order to create the impression that there's been little or no global warming ever since.
Yet the fact remains that the 2000s were considerably hotter than the 1990s, and indeed, in most datasets 1998 isn't even the hottest year any longer. Without even taking 2014 into consideration at all, NASA considers1998 merely the fourth hottest year (behind 2010, 2005, and 2007, and tied with 2002) and NOAA considers it third (behind 2010 and 2005).
So what happens to the "pause" if 2014 now becomes the hottest year?
A possible temperature record for 2014.
At least for some expert agencies, 2014 is looking more and more like it will surpass 1998 and all other contenders. And this is particularly remarkable because unlike 1998, 2014 is not an official El Niño year (these years tend to be hotter).
We've already seen the Japan Meteorological Agency's preliminary analysis. NOAA and NASA are slated to jointly release their assessments of 2014's temperatures on January 16. The Hadley Center, meanwhile, just affirmed that 2014 was the hottest year on record for the UK in particular -- and it is also expected to weigh in on temperatures globally soon enough.
So what can we expect from these agencies?
As far as NOAA goes, a 2014 record seems pretty likely. "NOAA’s in the bag," says John Abraham, a climate scientist at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota who tracks global temperatures carefully, and has himself already declared 2014 a new record temperature year.
Indeed, while NOAA has only released global averaged temperature analyses through November so far, its last release included this helpful figure, showing where 2014 currently stands in the record books, and what would have to happen in order for it to set a new record (or fail to). Basically, it looks pretty hard for 2014 to fall short, assuming last month's temperatures were reasonably warm:
As for NASA and the Hadley Center, it remains to be seen. When it comes to NASA, Abraham says he sees "probably a 60 to 70 percent chance they’ll break the record."
So at this point, it seems likely that for at least some of the official agencies, 2014 will go down in the record books.
Pausing the "pause."
So can 2014's temperatures finally silence global warming "pause" mongers, like Inhofe?
I asked several prominent climate scientists this question. "The record-breaking temperatures should put to rest once and for all the silly claim by contrarians that climate change has somehow stopped or stalled," observed climate researcher Michael Mann from Penn State. "In fact, the warming of the globe continues unabated as we continue to burn fossil fuels and increase concentrations of planet-warming greenhouse gases."
"2014 is now the warmest on record by only a tiny amount," added Kevin Trenberth, a much cited climate researcher at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. "Nevertheless it continues the human-induced upward trend in temperatures that has been evident since the 1970s. Starting trends in 1998 is quite misleading. Undoubtedly Mother Nature will continue to surprise us, but we should expect continued increases in extremes of temperature, heat and wild fires, and stronger storms and more intense droughts."
In fairness, in a technical sense 2014 is just another year and just another data point. Despite the January ritual of tallying up each year's temperatures and ranking it against prior years, what actually matters (as always) is the trend, not the individual year. But as we've seen, the global warming trend is intact -- 2014 may just be an exclamation point on top of it.
Indeed, this year -- 2015 – the temperatures of 2014 could take on major significance. After all, the world is now racing to complete a global climate agreement this December in Paris. A new temperature record for 2014 would surely light a fire under negotiators.
Meanwhile, there remains a 65 percent chance that we'll see an El Niño -- which could also help drive a new temperature record -- in 2015.

Chris Mooney reports on science and the environment.

The Borowitz Report: "Day Old Congress Most Hated Ever"

$
0
0
Hmm.... Do I see only white guys representing a country that's more than 50% non-white?
Duh.
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) – In a troubling sign for the 114th Congress, a new poll released on Tuesday indicates that the day-old legislative body is the most hated in the nation’s history.
According to the poll, conducted by the University of Minnesota’s Opinion Research Institute, only eight per cent of those surveyed approved of the job Congress is doing, a scathing indictment of the legislators’ first day on the job.

The 114th Congress started the day on a slightly more positive note, garnering a ten-per-cent approval rating, but after the House of Representatives reëlected John Boehner (R.-Ohio) to a new term as Speaker, the number sank to eight.
On the Senate side, Joni Ernst (R.-Iowa), newly elected to the most despised Congress in American history, said that the low approval number was no cause for concern.
“If you ask somebody to pick a number between one and ten, eight is a pretty high number,” she said. “So it’s all good.”
After Senator Ernst made her comment, Congress’s approval rating plummeted to four per cent.

Man Who Lost All Four Limbs Receives Double Arm Transplant

$
0
0

Will Lautzenheiser lost his arms and legs after a near-fatal infection in Montana.
When Here & Now’s Robin Young spoke to Will and his identical twin Tom Lautzenheiser this summer, Will had found out he was a candidate for a double arm transplant at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
Will Lautzenheiser and his identical twin Tom are pictured at Will's home in Brookline, Mass. on July 3, 2014. (Samantha Fields/Here & Now)
Will and Tom Lautzenheiser are pictured at Will’s home in Brookline, Mass. on July 3, 2014, before Will received a double arm transplant. (Samantha Fields/Here & Now)
Now that Will has received the double arm transplant, Robin paid another visit to Will and Tom to find out how they’re doing.
“I feel such happiness. Every time I look and see my arms, I get giddy almost,” Will said. “I wonder whether this man was aware of how beautiful his arms were, or are, because I look at them every day as a complete gift.”
Robin also asked how Tom feels about the arms of a donor being attached to his identical twin.
“The arms that Will got are perfect for him,” Tom said. “They’re strong hands, they’re healthy — they’re a match. They may not be exactly as Will’s hands were or my hands are, but they are close enough.”

Interview Highlights: Will Lautzenheiser

On life after the transplant
“I feel like a newborn, haplessly moving around through space and trying to reintegrate, but doing it rather fumblingly. For example, I seem to have developed a habit of unintentionally groping people. If I knock into someone I don’t notice it so much. A little awkward, peculiar.  I’ve become a serial groper, an unwitting serial groper.”
On what has surprised him the most
“The [donor’s family] said, ‘Our son gave the best hugs. We pray that you make a wonderful recovery and that your loved ones will be able to enjoy your warm embrace’… I had thought I had missed being able to give hugs and to embrace, but what I hadn’t realized was how much that actually meant. You have a memory of it, but then when you can do it — I can’t give enough hugs now!”
On public reaction to his transplant
“People have been asking how I feel about organ donation; gee, I don’t want to put it so coarsely but essentially the thought is, you know, ‘what do you feel like having a dead person’s arms on your arms?’ And that’s not how I look at it at all. These arms are completely alive and are my own.”
Watch a 2013 video about Will Lautzenheiser:

Guests

  • Will Lautzenheiser, filmmaker, teacher of screenwriting and film production, and quadruple amputee.
  • Tom Lautzenheiser, regional scientist for the Massachusetts Audubon Society and Will’s twin brother.

Other stories from Monday's show
  • Man Who Lost All Four Limbs Receives Double Arm Transplant

Elizabeth Warren: The Rich Throw Crumbs. The Poor Fight One Another For Them

$
0
0

Elizabeth Warren: Illustrated Quotes

Elizabeth Warren: Our Populist Agenda - in Her Own Words

Tuesday, 06 January 2015 10:07By Roger HickeyCampaign for America's Future | Report
Sen. Elizabeth Warren has become the most visible leader of the growing populist movement that is uniting a new majority around an agenda for economic change.
But with media visibility comes oversimplified media analysis. For example, a December 24 McClatchy News Service article characterizes Warren supporters as a liberal faction mobilizing “voter outrage” against the banks – as if Americans were not already outraged by the way bankers manipulate our economy. The story describes populists as pitted against “centrists who want the party to provide economic incentives for people to succeed, relying less on wealth redistribution through higher taxes or guaranteed incomes.” Note the absurd implication that we populists somehow oppose helping people to succeed. 
Alan: The suggestion that populists oppose helping people to succeed is grounded in conservatives' inability to acknowledge their own obstructionism and consequent projection of denied guilt onto "the other guy." This projection is the last think "common sense" would suppose and the first thing that actually happens.
All reporters and pundits – and all Warren supporters – should read a series of speeches (stitched together below) in which Sen. Warren carefully explains why so few people are able to succeed in today’s American economy. And her solutions, drawn from some of the best thinkers and social movements in America today, go well beyond stale debates about redistribution, zeroing in on what it will take to create jobs, raise wages, and put government on the side of working Americans.
For those who know her ideas only from TV sound bites, we present Elizabeth Warren’s thinking about the economy in her own words – words that are teaching us how to talk about economic populism and build a new American majority for change.
On May 22, 2014, Sen. Warren addressed the New Populism conference organized by the Campaign for America’s Future. (The link takes you to a video and transcript.)
The Game is Rigged by Powerful Interests – Against the Rest of Us.
I know you’ve spent much of the day talking about populism – about the power of the people to make change in this country. This is something I believe in deeply.
Our uphill, against-the-odds, can’t-win battle for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau wasn’t unique. . . .But we were able to fight back because people like you – along with people across the country – said: we’re in this fight, too. And we won.
Throughout our history, powerful interests have tried to capture Washington and rig the system in their favor. From tax policy to retirement security, the voices of hard-working people get drowned out by powerful industries and well-financed front groups. Those with power fight to make sure that every rule tilts in their favor. Everyone else just gets left behind.
Just look at the big banks. They cheated American families, crashed the economy, got bailed out, and now the six biggest banks are 37 percent bigger than they were in 2008. They still swagger through Washington, blocking reforms and pushing around agencies. A kid gets caught with a few ounces of pot and goes to jail, but a big bank breaks the law on laundering drug money or manipulating currency, and no one even gets arrested. The game is rigged – and it’s not right!
But it isn’t just the big banks. 
Look at the choices the Federal government makes:
Our college kids are getting crushed by student loan debt.
 
We need to rebuild our roads and bridges and upgrade our power grids.
We need more investment in medical research and scientific research.
But instead of building a future, this country is bleeding billions of dollars in tax loopholes and subsidies that go to rich and profitable corporations.
Many Fortune 500 companies, profitable companies, pay zero in taxes. Billionaires get so many tax loopholes that they pay lower tax rates than their secretaries. But they have lobbyists – and their Republican friends – to protect every loophole and every privilege.
Take a look at what’s happening with trade deals.
For big corporations, trade agreement time is like Christmas morning. They can get special gifts they could never pass through Congress out in public. Because it’s a trade deal, the negotiations are secret and the big corporations can do their work behind closed doors. We’ve seen what happens here at home when our trading partners around the world are allowed to ignore workers’ rights and environmental rules. From what I hear, Wall Street, pharmaceuticals, telecom, big polluters, and outsourcers are all salivating at the chance to rig the upcoming trade deals in their favor.
Why are trade deals secret? I’ve heard the supporters of these deals actually say that they have to be secret because if the American people knew what was going on, they would be opposed. 
Think about that. Real people – people whose jobs are at stake, small business owners who don’t want to compete with overseas companies that dump their waste in rivers and hire workers for a dollar a day – those people, those people without an army of lobbyists – would be opposed. I believe that if people across this country would be opposed to a particular trade agreement, then that trade agreement should not happen.
The tilt in the playing field is everywhere. When conservatives talk about opportunity, they mean opportunities for the rich to get richer, for the powerful to get more powerful. They don’t mean opportunities for a young person facing $100,000 in student loan debt to start a life, for someone out of work to get back on his feet, for someone who worked hard all her life to retire with dignity.
The game is rigged. The rich and the powerful have lobbyists, lobbyists and lawyers and plenty of friends in Congress. Everyone else, not so much.
Now we can whine about it. We can whimper. Or we can fight back.
Me? I’m fighting back.
 
After the November election, Senator Warren addressed several groups. On November 19, she spoke to the Center for American Progress.
(The link takes you to a video and transcript.)
Now I know everyone has been wringing their hands about the election two weeks ago. What went right, what went wrong, what we could have done better, what we need to do now that Republicans are taking over the Senate and other offices around the country, and these are all very important questions. But one thing has not changed: the stock market and GDP continue to go up, while families across this country are getting squeezed harder and harder. Dealing with this problem requires an honest recognition of the kinds of changes we need to make if families across the country are going to get a shot at building a secure future.
You know, this is not about big government or small government, it’s not the size of government that worries people. Rather, it’s a deep down concern over who government works for. Say what you like, people across this country, everyday folks with bills to pay and kids to raise, know that this government does not work for them.
You know, there was a time when government worked for real people.
Coming out of the Great Depression, our country believed that we could build an America that was better than the boom and bust economy that we’d had for over a century. So we made some key decisions that helped us build a strong middle class, helped make this country work for Americans, and think about what the core of that was.
The first thing we did: we said we’ve got to have a level playing field here — where people can’t get cheated, and people can’t get tricked. That meant that we put some good, tough regulations in. We built the SEC, to make sure that we were not going to have people getting cheated on Wall Street. We had FDIC insurance which made it safe to put money in banks. Glass-Steagall said banking should be boring, if you want to take risks, you’ve got to go somewhere else to do it. We wanted a level playing field– that was key.
The second thing we did: we invested in building a future for our people. We did it in multiple places.
In education: Think about it, coming out of the Great Depression, all the different places, what did a grateful nation say to returning GI’s? We will help you get an education. In the 1950’s and 1960’s America said, we’re going to help young people who can’t afford to go to college, by giving them subsidized loans so that they’ll be able to get an education. We poured money into our state universities, so that every kid who worked hard, who played by the rules, would have an opportunity to get an education. Why? Because we believed that if our kids had a better education, they could build a stronger, brighter future for themselves.
Infrastructure: We made huge investments in infrastructure, in roads and bridges and power grids. We built the interstate highway system. Why did we do those things? We did it because we didn’t know who was going to have the next great business idea, we didn’t know who was going to have a clever way to take a small business and turn it into something big, but we were pretty darn sure they were going to need electricity. We were pretty sure they were going to need roads and bridges to get their goods to market. We were pretty sure they were going to need opportunities to have good workers, and workers who could get to them, so we all invested in that infrastructure, so that those who had the great business ideas could build those businesses here in America, build those jobs in America and we would have a brighter, stronger future for all of us.
Research: The third big investment we made, and it was a huge investment, one that had such vision as a country, we invested in research. Just think about that, we did this. We invested in medical research, in scientific research, in engineering research, in chemical research. We invested in research because we believed that if we built this giant pipeline of ideas, our children would have opportunities that we couldn’t even dream of.
So we made these investments as a country. We said, we’re going to have tough rules in place, a level playing field, and then we’re going to invest in building the future, and here’s the deal, it worked. It worked for half a century. You take a look at the numbers, and GDP just keeps going up year, over year, over year, but here’s the key, at the same time median family income, that family right in the middle, income just kept going up the same. In other words, as our country got richer, our families got richer, and as our families got richer, our country got richer.
Conservatives fire the cops on Wall Street and cut public investment.
And then starting in the 1980s, the story changed. The Republicans argued for a new way to build the economy. First proposal: fire the cops, not the cops on Main Street, the cops on Wall Street. Now they called it deregulation but the impact was exactly the same. Cut the regulations, cut the oversight, and turn the biggest financial institutions loose. Let them make money any way they want. And then second, cut taxes for those at the top and when you’ve cut them all you can, cut them again. So how do you pay for that? Well, pay for it by cutting funding for just about everything the federal government does to invest in opportunity for the next generation. Cut education, commerce, energy, highways, NIH, Natural Resources Management, cut it all.
The Republicans have a pretty simple philosophy. They say that if those at the top have more, more power for Wall Street players to do whatever they want, and more money from tax cuts, then somehow they can be counted on to build an economy for everyone else.
Well, we tried it, for thirty years, and it didn’t work. In fact, the consequences were nearly catastrophic, we found out what happens in 2008 [when] we fire the Wall Street cops the whole economy nearly blows up. The financial collapse of 2008 got its start with predatory mortgages, that weren’t sold by community banks and credit unions, they were sold by fly by night mortgage brokers who had almost zero federal oversight and then the big banks looked over, saw the profit potential and they wanted it bad. So they jumped in and sold millions of these terrible mortgages while the bank regulators just looked the other way.
Now, they had cute names and they had ugly names, but mostly those terrible mortgages were like little grenades with the pins already pulled out. No one knew when they would explode but they were definitely going to blow up at some point. With no effective regulations in place, huge financial institutions bought up those mortgages by the millions and then packaged them into huge boxes, boxes of grenades with the pins already pulled out, and then they sold those boxes off to pension funds and other investors who were looking for a safe place to put their money.
When the mortgages blew up, the devastation was staggering. We need to remind ourselves of these numbers every single day. The crash of 2008 destroyed 8 trillion dollars in the stock market, 6 trillion dollars in the housing market, 8.7 million people lost their jobs, and five million families lost their homes in foreclosure.
A new rules world isn’t a level playing field. Those families didn’t stand a chance, and neither did the building contractors or retailers, or start-up businesses that also got wiped out in a crash that they didn’t cause.
Accountability for the largest financial institutions on Wall Street is the bedrock for a strong economy. Hard-working families and honest businesses cannot survive in a world where the rules don’t keep the marketplace honest.
The Republicans also said, “cut investments in the future,” and look at the results.
First, education investments are crucial. We need a work force that is well-educated and well-trained, and we need to make that happen without bankrupting families. Education is good for the individual who gets it, improving his or her lifetime chances, but education is also good for our economy, good for building a robust economy and attracting high-paying jobs here at home.
But right now we are on target for a serious shortage of college graduates. By 2020, that’s six years, by 2020, we’ll have five million jobs that require post-high school education and no one to fill them, and instead of making college more affordable and accessible, we’re crushing kids under student loan debt.
Adjusted for inflation, costs at state schools are up nearly three hundred and fifty percent in a single generation. If we want our kids to start a life without carrying a thousand-pound rock of debt on their backs, and if we want our businesses to have a competitive workplace, then we must make sure that education is affordable. Can I have an amen on that? We just have to do this
Second, infrastructure investments. Everyone understands the importance of roads and bridges, and mass transit, and an efficient power grid, and high-speed Internet connections. Infrastructure is about creating good jobs in the short run, good construction jobs, and in the long run, it’s about creating the environment for more good jobs, plowing the field so that businesses can grow those jobs here at home. But right now we live in a world where China invests nine percent of its GDP in infrastructure, Europe is at five percent, the US– 2.4 percent and looking to cut. Think of it this way: China is building a competitive advantage for its businesses, while here in America we’re looking for ways to cut our basic investments.
Third, invest in scientific and medical research. Research provides the ideas and innovation that power our economy. Federal R&D is the basis. I just made a very short list here that I could do off the top of my head, for the internet, for GPS, for nanotechnology, for flu vaccines, it’s the basis.
For every dollar spent at NIH, for example, there’s an economic pop of two dollars and 21 cents in the private sector, and in the long run it’s that giant pipeline of ideas and all those smart scientists and entrepreneurs who use that research to make this economy soar, but since the 1960s this country has slashed the investment in federal R&D, as a percentage of GDP, by more than 50 percent. Surely no one believes that we build a more competitive, more innovative country by shrinking the pipeline of ideas.
Our country is headed in the wrong direction, the American dream is slipping out of reach, and we, you and I, may be the first generation in American history to see our kids do worse than we did. This cannot be the legacy we leave for our children and for our grandchildren. We must fight back with everything we have.
The game is rigged, but we know how to fix it. We know what to do.
We tested the Republican ideas and they failed, they failed spectacularly, there’s no denying that fact. We know the importance accountability on Wall Street, the benefits of having a better educated workforce, the advantages that come from investments in high-speed rail and in medical research. And here’s the second piece of really good news: we know what to do, and the American people get it. They are ready.
———
Because everyone’s talking about Election Day, I want to summarize some polling research from that day. There’s a survey of voters who showed up to vote in the midterm elections in 11 battleground states. Now remember these are the people, who in 10 of the 11 states, in the survey, sent Republicans to the Senate. Here’s what they said:
● 80 percent of all those voting said both parties are doing too much to help Wall Street,
● 75 percent said invest more money in education, from Pre-K through college,
● 66 percent said close corporate tax loopholes to make investments in infrastructure or reduce the deficit,
● 62 percent said raise the minimum wage,
● 61 percent said increase Social Security taxes and increase benefits, and
● 62 percent said the Republicans don’t have a plan to help the economy.
People across this country get it. Sure, there’s a lot of work to be done and there is a long way to go before Democrats can reclaim the right to say that we’re fighting for America’s working people, that we’re fighting to build a future not just for some of our children, but for all of our children. No we’re not there yet, but don’t forget the good news: our agenda is America’s agenda.
For me, this is personal, I grew up in a family that was hanging onto its place in the middle class by its fingernails, and like a lot of families, we hit some really tough patches. When my dad had a heart attack, we had a long stretch with no money coming in, the bills piled up, we lost the family station wagon and we were right on the edge of losing our home. When the time came there was no money to send me to college, but I got a chance. A commuter college that cost 50 dollars a semester, and it opened a million doors for me.
So there it is. I am the daughter of a janitor and a mom who worked a minimum wage job at Sears, and today I’m a United States Senator.Sure, I worked hard, but I succeeded because I grew up in an America that was investing in kids like me. I believe in that America, I believe that we can build that America for every one of our kids but I know we’re going to have to fight for it, so we better get ready.
Back to Sen Warren’s May 22, 2014 address to CAF’s New Populism conference (the link takes you to a video and transcript):
This is a fight over economics, over privilege, over power. But deep down, this is a fight over values. Conservatives and their powerful friends will continue to be guided by their age-old principle: “I’ve got mine, the rest of you are on your own.”
But we’re guided by principle, too. It’s a simple idea: We all do better when we work together and invest in our future.
We know that the economy grows when hard-working families have the opportunity to improve their lives. We know that the country gets stronger when we invest in helping people succeed. We know that our lives improve when we care for our neighbors and help build a future not just for some of our kids – but for all of our kids.
These are progressive values. These are America’s values.
These values are what we’re willing to fight for:
We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we’re willing to fight for it.
We believe no one should work full-time and live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage – and we’re willing to fight for it.
We believe people should retire with dignity, and that means strengthening Social Security – and we’re willing to fight for it.
We believe that a kid should have a chance to go to college without getting crushed by debt – and we’re willing to fight for it.
We believe workers have a right to come together, to bargain together and to rebuild America’s middle class – and we’re willing to fight for it.
We believe in equal pay for equal work – and we’re willing to fight for it.
We believe equal means equal, and that’s true in the workplace and in marriage, true for all our families – and we’re winning that fight right now.
We – the people – (USED TO-jk) decide the future of this country.
These are our shared values. And we are willing to fight for them.
This is our fight!

Author Says a Whole Culture—Not a Single 'Homer'—Wrote 'Iliad,''Odyssey'

$
0
0
Battling the Sirens

The Iliad and The Odyssey were epic poems passed down orally by bards long before they were written down.

Author Says a Whole Culture—Not a Single 'Homer'—Wrote 'Iliad,' 'Odyssey'

"It's a mistake to think of Homer as a person," says the author of Why Homer Matters.

Simon Worrall
PUBLISHED JANUARY 4, 2015
The Iliad and The Odyssey are two of the key works of Western civilization. But almost nothing is known about their author and the date and manner of their creation. In Why Homer Matters, historian and award-winning author Adam Nicolson suggests that Homer be thought of not as a person but as a tradition and that the works attributed to him go back a thousand years earlier than generally believed.
A photo of the cover of Why Homer Matters by Adam Nicholson.
Speaking from his home in England, Nicolson describes how being caught in a storm at sea inspired his passion for Homer, how the oral bards of the Scottish Hebrides may hold the key to understanding Homer's works, and why smartphones are connecting us to ancient oral traditions in new and surprising ways.
Your book begins with a storm at sea.
About ten years ago, I set off sailing with a friend of mine. We wanted a big adventure, so we decided to sail up the west coast of the British Isles, the exposed Atlantic coast, visiting various remote islands along the way. I had thrown into my luggage a copy of The Odyssey, translated by Robert Fagles, having never really looked at Homer for about 25 years.
We had a rough time. Our instruments broke, and it had been a big hike from Cornwall. Lying in my bunk tied up next to a quay in southwest Ireland, I opened this book and found myself confronted with what felt like the truth—like somebody was telling me what it was like to be alive on Earth, in the figure of Odysseus.
Odysseus is the great metaphor for all of our lives: struggling with storms, coming across incredibly seductive nymphs, finding himself trapped between impossible choices. I suddenly thought, This is talking to me in a way I would never have guessed before.
A photo of a mosaic scene from Homer's Odyssey
This third-century mosaic from the Roman city of Thugga, in Tunisia, shows how Ulysses, bound to the mast of his ship, hears the song of the sirens—and survives.
PHOTOGRAPH BY KPZFOTO, ALAMY
Seven locations have been given as Homer's birthplace. It's said he was blind. Samuel Butler, the 19th-century satirist, wrote an entire book trying to prove he was actually a she. Do we know anything factual about Homer?
I think it's a mistake to think of Homer as a person. Homer is an "it." A tradition. An entire culture coming up with ever more refined and ever more understanding ways of telling stories that are important to it. Homer is essentially shared.
Today we have an author obsession—we want to know biography all the time. But Homer has no biography. The Iliad and The Odyssey are like Viking longships. Nobody knows who made them, no name is attached to them, there's no written design or drawings. They're simply the evolved beauty of long and careful tradition.
There are even doubts about when they were composed. The usual date is about 800 B.C. You believe the tradition began much earlier than that. Make your case.
My claim is that the poems, especially The Iliad, have their beginnings around 2000 B.C.—about 1,000 or 1,200 years earlier than most people say Homer existed. The reason I say that has two strands to it. One is that there are large elements of the Homeric stories, particularly The Iliad, that are shared among the Indo-European world as a whole, all the way from north India through Greece to Germanic and Icelandic stories. There are deep elements in Homer that have nothing to do with Greece or the Aegean.
The second thing is that the situation in The Iliad is very clearly not one in which two deeply civilized nations are opposed to each other. The civilized nation in The Iliad is Troy. It's a well-set-up, organized city, where women lead very dignified lives.
Outside Troy is this camp of wild barbarians—the Greeks. The Greeks are Homer's barbarians. The atmosphere in the Greek camp is like gang life in the more difficult parts of modern industrialized cities. All ideas of rule and law and love count for nothing. The only thing that makes sense is revenge and self-assertion.
And that picture of the Greeks doesn't make sense any later than about 1800 to 1700 B.C. After that, the Greeks had arrived in the Mediterranean and started to create a civil society. Before that, they were essentially tribes from the steppes between the Black Sea and the Caspian—nomadic, male-dominated, violent.
That's the essential drama of Homer: this beautiful city trying to defend itself against these increasingly lawless, violent warriors outside. That's what The Iliad is about.
A photo of Adam Nicholson in The Hebrides on a sailing trip
Adam Nicolson set sail with a friend up the west coast of Britain, carrying a copy of The Odyssey. "We had a rough time," he says. Reading The Odyssey was "like somebody was telling me what it was like to be alive on Earth."
PHOTOGRAPH BY KEO FILMS
Bernard Knox, the renowned Homer scholar, says that 3,000 years haven't changed the human condition. We're still lovers and victims of violence, and as long as we are, Homer will be read as the truest interpretation of humankind. Can we love Homer without loving violence?
I think Homer does not love violence in the end. Homer dramatizes violence as one of the aspects of the human condition, but he doesn't celebrate it. It's a grave misunderstanding to think that Homer is about how beautiful the violent warrior is.
The key to that comes at the end of The Iliad. You've had these terrible scenes where Achilles, the great Greek warrior, has killed Hector, the prince of Troy, and tied him to the back of his chariot and dragged him round the walls of Troy with his whole family looking down from the ramparts. It's not some elegant funeral procession. It's a hectic, brutal moment, and we can only read that with horror in our minds. Michael Longley, the great Irish poet, calls The Iliad "an ocean of sadness." I think that's exactly what it is.
You say these are essentially authorless works. Are there any manuscripts? Tell us about Venetus A.
Homer's works were orally transmitted and orally performed poems, ever changing in the mouths of the different people who learned them and told them again. The Iliad survived for hundreds, if not thousands, of years as a spoken poem and was eventually written down, around 700 to 750 B.C. But no manuscripts survive from that time.
The earliest that survive were found rolled up under the heads of mummified Greek Egyptians in the Egyptian deserts from about 150 to 200 B.C. But they're just fragments, not the whole Iliad. The oldest complete Iliad is a manuscript found in the doge's library in Venice. A French scholar discovered it at the end of the 18th century, which is why it's called the Venetus A. It had come to Venice from Constantinople-Byzantium, where it had probably been made in about A.D. 900, thousands and thousands of years after the poems had first been composed.
More importantly, it contained all kinds of marginal notes, the so-called scholia, which had been made by the great editors of The Iliad in the Greek city of Alexandria sometime between the first century B.C. and the first century A.D. So what you have in Venetus A is not only the text of The Iliad but also what these ancient commentators thought about it.
One of the exciting things that emerge from that is that in the early days it seems there was no such thing as a single Iliad, no one fixed text, but this wild and variable tradition of the stories, with many different versions in different parts of the Mediterranean, endlessly interacting with itself, like a braided stream in the mountains. That's a very exciting idea for me—that texts are not fixed, unitary objects but like the mental bloodstream of a whole people.
You say Homer tells us who we are. There's not much in it for women, though, is there? Does your wife like Homer?
[Laughs] She can't stand him! And for me, it wasn't easy to spend a few years writing a book about Homer, because it basically shuts you out from the female world. There are wonderful women in Homer, like Odysseus's queen, Penelope. The word Homer uses for her means her prime quality is her wise governance—that she knows how to organize things and maintain the state for 20 years while Odysseus is away. He deeply admires women like that.
On the other hand, in the Greek camp, after chariot races, prizes are given. You either get a slave girl or a couple of oxen. So there's no doubt that the Homeric world is not one in which, on the whole, women are hugely empowered.
A photo of artwork of Homer
In "The Apotheosis of Homer" (1827), on display in the Louvre, in Paris, the bard is crowned as immortal. At his feet are figures representing The Iliad (red) and The Odyssey (green). Around him, paying homage, are some of the greats of Western art and literature, including the Greek epic poet Pindar (in white, holding a lyre) and Sophocles (proffering a scroll).
PHOTOGRAPH BY ART MEDIA, PRINT COLLECTOR/GETTY
You write that "a man is his ancestry." As well as being the author Adam Nicolson, you're also the 5th Baron Carnock. To what extent has your noble ancestry shaped your love for Homer?
I don't love Homer because it's about warriors striding the world in a manly, baronial way. I love Homer because Homer dramatizes the shared human condition of struggle and competitiveness and pain. The incredible honesty and courage with which Homer looks at those aspects of life is what makes it exciting. And the only reason I have that title, which I never use by the way, is because my great grandfather was a civil servant and ended up head of a British government department. In those days they gave people peerages for that kind of thing. I'm not from some ancient, knightly world. I'm from a professional world. It's just a weird chance of history.
[Laughs] I'm glad we've put that one to rest. Tell us about the poets of the Scottish Hebrides and how they may hold the key to the composition of Homer's work.
We have a modern assumption that something only has meaning if it's written down. But the literate world is minimal compared to the depths of human history. We're essentially oral. And in a funny way the modern, electronic communicative world is making orality take on a new significance.
In traditional societies, the person who can learn and perform the stories has been treasured. That's true not only in the European world but across Africa and the Americas too. We've only got a few fragments of that left. And one of those fragmentary remains is in Gaelic Scotland, where certain families still preserve storytelling traditions that draw on ancient roots. Some of these bards have dazzling capacities of memory. They can remember stories that last hours and hours, nearly word-perfect. Some of them have been recorded over a period of 20 years, and they've told the same story in almost the same words.
Most of us can't remember a single phone number nowadays, because they're all in the phone memory. Yet buried deep in us is this ability to remember important things. And one of the things about poetry and the rhythmic, heightened language of poetry is that it makes it easy to remember. You can sing a story more easily than you can tell it.
You traveled to many of the sites associated with Homer for your research. Tell us about some of the high five moments.
In my mind this book is called Homer By Easy Jet [laughs]. It's fantastic the way you can fly off to different spots, very cheaply, like the Trojan plain, in the northwest corner of Turkey, where the Dardanelles comes out of the Sea of Marmara.
It's still astonishingly like Homer describes it. There's this incredible Bronze Age tumulus where Achilles is buried, with a white, limestone cap, which makes it visible from the sea. It was visited by all sorts of people: Xerxes, Alexander the Great, and the Romans, like Mark Antony. They all went there to pay homage to Achilles. But today almost nobody visits it—so it's as if you're discovering it for yourself.
How did writing this book change your life?
In a way it made me grow up. Homer's look at the truly bad aspects of life, in The Iliad especially, is a deeply sobering thing. And he doesn't hold out any kind of consolation. There's no heaven waiting for the warriors when they're killed, most of them in the most horrible way. They all go down to Hades.
But the point Homer wants to make is that in this world of difficulty and suffering, the really beautiful thing is love—that despite the realities of violence, love is a possibility.
22 comments
Livefyre

Davi Eisenberg
Davi Eisenberg
Why is NatGeo and Nicolson acting as if this is news? That The Iliad and The Odyssey were not written by one man is taken as very likely by many Homeric scholars. If he was a real person, which some other scholars still believe, and something happened at Troy around 1175 BC, then that is the outside date for most of the work (whether or not there is a general Indo-European basis to it). Herodotus suggested Homer lived some 400 years before him. The date Nicolson gives for it being written down is also the general convention (I have most often read 675-725 BC, but they are all estimates, of course). And, that makes sense because the Greeks did not start writing in their new Phoenician derived alphabet until the 8th century BC.

I can't find anything in this article that is not a a conventionally held scholarly belief, at least by many scholars. It is fine that Nicolson writes another book on it and that NatGeo an article on him, but they should give some credit to those who came before them. I literally could have given this interview and I am not a classicist.

Finally! America Shows Some Gumption: Gov. Brown Breaks Ground On Bullet Train

$
0
0

The bullet train groundbreaking ceremony in Fresno was largely symbolic
The state has acquired about one-fifth of the parcels needed for the initial 29-mile bullet train segment
On a vacant lot in a depressed industrial area of Fresno, Gov. Jerry Brown and other California leaders on Tuesday marked the beginning of construction of the nation's first bullet train and one of its most ambitious public works projects ever.
Conceived in Brown's first terms as governor a generation ago, the $68-billion line that is supposed to connect the state's major population centers has finally reached a stage where heavy construction equipment and thousands of workers are ready to begin raising bridges, building underpasses and preparing miles of track bed.
The carefully choreographed ceremony at the site of a future Fresno station marked a historic milestone for the project, which remains unpopular with many Californians and has had to overcome decades of political wrangling, engineering challenges and legal hurdles.

The groundbreaking, which took place next to a late 1800s Southern Pacific train depot that will be incorporated into the project, was largely symbolic.
The actual start of major construction may be weeks or months away, as engineering work progresses and the state continues a slow process of acquiring land for the bullet train route. Thus far, the state has acquired about one-fifth of the parcels needed for the initial 29-mile segment scheduled to be completed by Oct. 1, 2017.
Brown urged Californians to discount the project's many critics, saying that naysayers also warned against other major public works investments in the state water project and the Golden Gate Bridge, now both seen as essential pieces of infrastructure.
He compared the bullet train, which he has made a signature legacy project, to construction of the great cathedrals of Europe, which took generations.





"The high-speed rail links us from the past to the future; from the south to Fresno and the north," Brown said. "This is truly a California project, bringing us together today."
Speaking to dozens of union members, contractors and federal, state and local politicians, the governor acknowledged that he, like many opponents, once had misgivings about the state's ability to secure the money needed to finish the project.
"I wasn't sure where we were going to get the rest of the money," Brown said in a 12-minute address, one of his longest speeches focusing on the controversial project. "Don't worry about it. We are going to get it."
As a long-term investment in California's future and in the context of the state's massive economy, Brown said the bullet train "is not expensive."
Proponents maintain that the project will dramatically improve California's transportation system, spur economic growth, improve chronically poor air quality in the Central Valley, reduce greenhouse gases and help save the state's agriculture industry.




Critics including Bay Area homeowners, Central Valley farmers and Republican leaders who control the federal purse strings in both houses of Congress dispute those claims.
While on stage Tuesday, Brown and other speakers had to contend with protesters from the Central Valley tea party, who yelled from behind a nearby chain-link fence in a vain attempt to disrupt the ceremony. State GOP leaders said they weren't invited to the ceremony and the public was not allowed inside a perimeter guarded by more than a dozen state police.
The Obama administration has championed the project and committed $3.2 billion in construction funds. Heads of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Railroad Administration appeared at the event to deliver brief speeches.
More than a dozen construction workers in hard hats and their union leaders, who provided political support for the project, surrounded the governor as he talked about the importance of putting people to work.





Robbie Hunter, director of the state's council of building trade unions, said in a speech that the event marked the start of the "greatest infrastructure project, not only in the history of California, but the nation." Hunter said the project would create 66,000 jobs over the next 16 years and would be "built once, built right, in the least amount of time and at the lowest bid."
The groundbreaking came two years after state officials first promised to begin construction. Under federal law, about $2 billion of grants and $2 billion of matching state funds must be spent by the end of September 2017. That means an average of $3 million to $4 million of work will need to be completed every calendar day to avoid forfeiting unused federal money.
Already, the rail agency has been tearing down old plants, nightclubs and motels in preparation for the start of construction. The new station in Fresno will occupy several city blocks that are being cleared. Steel and other debris from an abandoned Del Monte canning plant have yet to be cleared. A seed and agricultural supply facility, also abandoned, is scheduled to be torn down soon.
Fresno city officials said the new bullet train station, two blocks from a $16-million development of the Fulton Street pedestrian mall, would be a key part of Mayor Ashley Swearengin's plan to revitalize the downtown.
The initial phase of rail line construction involves a section of route between Madera and the south end of Fresno's downtown, under a $1-billion contract awarded to Sylmar-based builder Tutor Perini Corp. The first major piece of new construction, which may not begin until April, will be a bridge spanning the Fresno River.
High-Speed Rail Authority board Chairman Dan Richard said the project is renewing the spirit that helped build California. The state is entering "a period of sustained construction on the nation's first high-speed rail system — for the next five years in the Central Valley and for a decade after that across California," he said.
That investment "will forever improve the way Californians commute, travel, and live," he said.
The initial segment includes bridges over two rivers, a lengthy trench through much of Fresno and a freeway underpass. The underpass is among the most technically challenging parts of the first phase. A concrete tunnel will be constructed in a giant pit and then pushed into place by giant hydraulic jacks. The procedure, which is known in the construction industry as a jacked box, has seldom been used in the U.S.
The project has roughly $26 billion in potential state and federal funding over the next 14 years, about half of the amount needed to complete the line from San Francisco to Los Angeles.
Proponents say that they foresee a number of ways to raise additional money, including selling advertising space on the system, and they expect private companies to make significant investments once an initial portion of the system is operating in about 2022.

Habit: A Great Insight By Samuel Johnson

$
0
0

Alan: To what extent is warfare an unwitting habit and not the necessity we presume?

"Bush's Toxic Legacy In Iraq"

Christian "Just War Principles" Established c. 500 A.D. Vs. America's "just war" Tradition

Major General Smedley Butler: Do Wars Really Defend America’s Freedom?

"Politics And Economics: The 101 Courses You Wish You Had"


"Why of course the people don't want war... Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought along to do the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." Hermann Goering, Adolf Hitler's Deputy Chief and Luftwaffe Commander, at the Nuremberg trials, 1946.

Leonardo Da Vinci On Conservatives' Inability To Approve Less Than Perfection

$
0
0

American "conservatives" are blinded by the light.

"You can't have a light without a dark to stick it in." 
Arlo Guthrie

"The terrible thing about our time is precisely the ease with which theories can be put into practice.  The more perfect, the more idealistic the theories, the more dreadful is their realization.  We are at last beginning to rediscover what perhaps men knew better in very ancient times, in primitive times before utopias were thought of: that liberty is bound up with imperfection, and that limitations, imperfections, errors are not only unavoidable but also salutary. The best is not the ideal.  Where what is theoretically best is imposed on everyone as the norm, then there is no longer any room even to be good.  The best, imposed as a norm, becomes evil.”  
"Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander,” by Trappist monk, Father Thomas Merton

More Merton Quotes

Holy Hotties Buy Lap Dances For Jesus

$
0
0


Alan: The following excerpt expresses keen insight.

Excerpt:"Veitch said strippers and porn stars don't have to quit their jobs before entering a church. She said, "Do we ask gluttons to stop eating too much before they come to church?" She added, "sin is sin.""

Holy Hotties buy lap dances for Jesus


She's a self-proclaimed Holy Hottie. Ex-stripper Heather Veitch still works the topless bars, but not as a dancer. She works for Jesus now, you see.

On her frequent trips to strip clubs, she even pays for lap dances, so she can get up close and personal with the girls, to talk about God.

Vietch, a 31-year-old married mother of two, is a co-founder with two other women, Tanya and Lori, of her own ministry, J.C.'s Girls Girls Girls.

A former Las Vegas stripper, when Veitch became a Christian she started sharing her faith with her former co-workers.

Her ministry's website features glamour shots of Veitch and her two partners, taken by a porn director. The website “almost” looks like a porn site; some of the shots of the three women are quite provocative, but they appear clothed, some shots showing a bit of cleavage, some shots in very tight T-shirts with the JC's Girls Girls Girls logo imprinted.

They attend porn conventions, where they pass out Bibles wrapped in T-shirts that read Holy Hottie.

The 1,700-member Sandals Church of Riverside, California, a Southern Baptist Convention congregation, has donated $50,000 to the JC's Girls Girls Girls ministry.

In addition to visiting strip clubs and porn conventions, the ministry operates Matthew's House in Riverside, a ministry for sex industry workers and those “addicted to pornography.”

Veitch said strippers and porn stars don't have to quit their jobs before entering a church. She said, "Do we ask gluttons to stop eating too much before they come to church?" She added, "sin is sin."

Photos: Heather, Lori and Tanya, in that order.


 |  | 


Leonardo Da Vinci: "American Conservatives, Blinded By The Light"

$
0
0

American "conservatives" are blinded by the light.

***


"You can't have a light without a dark to stick it in." 
Arlo Guthrie

***

"The terrible thing about our time is precisely the ease with which theories can be put into practice.  The more perfect, the more idealistic the theories, the more dreadful is their realization.  We are at last beginning to rediscover what perhaps men knew better in very ancient times, in primitive times before utopias were thought of: that liberty is bound up with imperfection, and that limitations, imperfections, errors are not only unavoidable but also salutary. The best is not the ideal.  Where what is theoretically best is imposed on everyone as the norm, then there is no longer any room even to be good.  The best, imposed as a norm, becomes evil.”  
"Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander,” by Trappist monk, Father Thomas Merton

More Merton Quotes
Viewing all 30150 articles
Browse latest View live