Sunday, May 23, 2010

THE US SENATE, WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR?


The last 14 months of haggling, partisanship, gridlock and stalling over the Obama health care reform bill provided the nation with a primer on how the US Senate can waste time and money as it stymies legislation. (See "Unprecedented obstruction in Congress" April 26, 2010 http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2010/04/senate_obstruction.html). After all that time, the President and his Party finally did get "a bill"...but it was so mauled that many who supported it in Congress could not recognize the final product. The victory for health care touted by the Democrats as "victory" was limited and hollow. As I write this, the Senate is making a repeat performance, this time concerning legislation proposed to reform banks and financial institutions. This takes place as we struggle to pull ourselves out of the Great Recession, a veritable hole which was largely caused by the bank's and the avarice and malfeasance of the great financial houses.

In a recent case of Senatorial haughtiness and abuse of power (February 4, 2010), one Honorable Richard Shelby (R, AL) put a "blanket hold" on all 70 nominations President Obama had sent to the Senate. Shelby--all by himself--held the President and the Nation hostage until the Obama administration decided to move to permit passage of two very costly projects Shelby wants approved in his home state.

Just this last Thursday, (May 13, 2010) with oil still gushing into the Gulf from the twisted and shattered Deepwater Horizon riser pipe, Senator Robert Menendez sought unanimous consent for a bill entitled "Big Oil Bailout Prevention Liability Act of 2010". This proposal would raise the liability cap on oil spills from a meager $75 million (which would not cover the expenses for the first few days of the now month-long Gulf Spill) up to a more reasonable, but still less than what is necessary, $10 billion dollars liability. Its passage would have acted as a deterrent and warning to those who would attempt to drill in risky places. And it would have surely passed. But "Big Oil" needed only one Senator to raise an objection and fend off those who want fair compensation for people affected by the underwater gusher in the Gulf and other disasters in the future. Big Oil found their Senator in Lisa Murkowski. Ironically, Senator Murkowski represents the State of Alaska, the site of what was until now considered the nation's most disastrous oil spill, the Exxon Valdez disaster (See http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/05/13/murkowski-blocks-oil-spill-liability-cap-increase/).

Senator Murkowski stated: “I don’t believe that taking the liability cap from $75 million dollars to $10 billion dollars… isn’t where we need to be right now.” Her unreasoned objection, was all that was necessary to hold the bill up from consideration and end its possibility of being brought up on the floor of the Senate.

Does that kind of obstructionism make sense in a modern state?

Certainly Not!

Overhearing our discussion about the above issue, my grandson asked, "What is the Senate good for, Poppy?" I stammered a bit, mumbling something about "checks and balances", and "its a place where they have time to fully debate complex issues", but that did not seem to wipe the quisssical expression from his face.

Later I thought, L\little "TJ" had a good question:"What is the Senate good for?"

The Senate is the upper house of our bicameral system. The concept of "bicameralism" has a long history. The Founding Fathers appear to have had two paradigms in mind when they established the form of our government. One of the historic threads leads all the way back into first century Rome, the other derived from 18th century Britain.
The "Senate" is derived from late-Republican Rome-- which had a political body called the Senate. Perhaps, we can "blame" our Senate on the writings of Marcus Tulius Cicero (106BC-43BC), a Roman Senator , an orator, attorney, and successful politician who lived and wrote prolifically during the latter days of the Roman Republic. His frequent letters, full of accounts of events and gossip in Rome were written to Atticus, a boyhood friend and confidant. Atticus lived lived in Athens, Greece where the letters survived into modern times, perhaps because they were valuable historic documents so interesting to historians and so well-written. Cicero's musings and historical notes became an integral part of a classical English liberal education, and consequently were well-known by our Founding Fathers.

Marcus Tulius Cicero was a "new man" from the provinces who made good as a talented orator and attorney. His point of view, that of a political outsider, who had finally gained entrance to a special club (the Roman Senate). Cicero tended to emphasize the positive side of the Senate. He took the side of the optimates (the conserative party of that time) and touted the advantages of Roman Republicanism. Perhaps unfortunately for us, Cicero's biased views were adopted as whole cloth by the founders, who failed to see the other side of the coin--how the obstructionism of the ancient Roman Senate was a major factor in the fall of the Republic, to the descent of the state into dictatorship, to a disastrous civil war, and finally into corrupt imperialism of the Augustinian age. Thus, our Senate has as one of its historic roots in a failed political system. Not a good beginning.

The other historic thread leads us back to the English House of Lords. The late 18th century Founders believed with most Englishmen of the time that the "their" political system..comprising (1) a monarch, as head of the state, with limits to its power, (2) the House of Lords (the Lords) , an entity which represented the established church, the nobility and large landowners. and (3) finally the House of Commons, a body elected by the people. The founders, (almost) all English men of wealth, position and culture of the time saw this system as ideal. One in which the political tension between the King (or Queen) and "the Lords" prevented either one acquiring too much power. The popularly elected body, the House of Commons, had the least politcal power. It could voice the concerns of the people, but did not have the power to implement their wishes without the consent of the other two bodies.

The British had a long and turbulent history. There were brief periods of ascendancy of the the people's elected body and times when it was in decline. In the 1640s, at the close of the British Civil War, the government defeated the King and his forces and put the King (Charles I) to death. In 1649, the Commonwealth of England was declared. The House of Lords was reduced to a largely powerless body, with Cromwell and his supporters in the Commons dominating the Government. Then in 1649, the House of Lords was abolished by an Act of Parliament, which declared that "The Commons of England find by too long experience that the House of Lords is useless and dangerous to the people of England.
But in thime it grew back like a recurrent cancer. Finally, the cure came in the early 20th century when the upper house was extirpated after it proved to be so obstructionist that it threatened the economy and survival of the state. As is clear from this history, Great Britain has slowly evolved from a monarchy to a bicameral system and finally, to essentially a unicameral parliamentary government. today it is stable and its government is representative of the people's wishes .

Thus, the two paradigms upon which the US Senate was based were both failures. Both led eventually to a gridlocked government and in one case decline into dictatorship and corruption and in the other to a slow evolution away from bicameralism toward a more modern, equitable and democratic unicameral system.

The parliamentary system of government is now almost a universal in all modern, industrialized western states. All of western Europe and most modern industrial states elsewhere are of this type but the US (nearly alone among modern industrialized states) remains a bicameral republic as does most of south America.


Thus the modern USA struggles along with an antiquated antidemocratic reactionary system--the Senate--that has been repudiated by most modern polities.

So what is it good for? Nothing that I can fathom --except that it grants extrodianry political power to the elite, the wealthy, the powerful and the enfranchised--a group which is well represented elsewhere in our society.

But reforms of the Senate are always being proposed, particularly by those who are either running for a Senate seat or just have just entered the Senate. Somehow at that jucnture they are not corrupted by the perks, hauture and clubbiness.


See (http://bennet.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=3b89b24a-c81e-4d6d-a4ec-0d3f5b91e728)

Some (see Senator Bennet's proposal above) suggest previously proposed nostrums-- such as a Senate salary freeze. Bennest suggests that perhaps the freeze in incrases to the Senate should last until jobs are actually available to the homeless and unemployed. Another proposes a reduction in perks like those of excessive travel on private jets, or expansive health care, and massive offices and mobs of specialized staff. Others want to tinker with the corrupt practices of the Senate such as elimination of anonymous "holds" (Such as that described above by Senator Murchoski--unbelievable ain't it?), restrictions on how long a "hold" can be in effect, others plead for an end to the filibuster, and of course the notorious the sixty vote supermajority. Others wish to tweak the rules such as eliminating the "revolving door" between government service and lobbyist jobs for former outed Senators, or their staff or their wives or family, while other rules would put controls on the amount of money a Senator could accept, and limits as well as the funds Senators could accept from foreign sources (Can you believe that?). These are all worthy of consideration and one wonders how no one has objected more vociferously before this. But these are only moving the deck chairs around on an ocean liner that is heading into shoal waters. The over-all question remains.

Other than acting as a further constraint on our democracy, a bulwark against the legitimate will of the people, and as a salaried body of advocates for large corporations, wealthy individuals and other oligarchs, what is the Senate good for?

My response is similar to the 17th century House of Commons in Britain which found the the House of Lords "useless and dangerous to the people". The US Senate is indeed "useless and dangerous" to the people of the US.

Support a constitutional amendment that would abolish the US Senate. Put all those (with a few exceptions such as my home-state of Vermont-- and perhaps Wisconsin too) dithering blow-hards and bald-headed, multi-term-serving, oatmeal dribblers and time-wasters --out to pasture. Save the people's money, avoid the corruption of a political body up for sale to the highest bidder, prevent duplication of effort, save time, make government more responsive to the needs of the people, eliminate another layer of administration which simply acts to obstruct the people's will. We too can evolve into a real democracy. The Romans failed to curb their Senate and they fell into civil war, chaos, imperialism and final decline. The British evolved into a modern, effective, responsive, unicameral democratic system...we can too.


Get the picture?

rjk

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

"A CASE OF SIMPLE DEDUCTION, WATSON!"

Or was it?

Classic induction proceeds “at once from . . . sense and particulars up to the most general propositions." Francis Bacon


I believe Sherlock Holmes (if Conan Doyle ever really had him state that response to Watson) was wrong. Holmes characteristically made observations and formulated conclusions from those specific experiences and thus probably did not use deductive reasoning (deduction) to arrive at his conclusions--but rather induction.

Tonight, (May 18th 2010) I listened to a program on MSNBC in which the journalist Jonathan Alter, spoke about his new book concerning President Obama's first year. Alter stated that he had interviewed over 200 people for the book which is entitled "The First Year". In response to a question by Joe Scarborough (whom I paraphrase here): "How does the President really 'think', and is he really so abrupt--perhaps sharp tongued-- with his staff as some say?" asked Scarborough. Alter responded that the President was "self confident" and agreed that the President probably most often sees himself as the "smartest guy in the room". As to his reasoning power, Alter stated that Obama tends to think "inductively" while, in comparison, former President Clinton was likely to be more "deductive" of a thinker. What did he mean?

We often get these concepts--induction and deduction confused.
But I suspect Alter was probably correct in his general characterization. Obama is more rational and methodological and Clinton was more emotional--more likely to have a gut rather than a cerebral response. But is that what inductive and deductive actually mean? Let's see.

Aristotle was actually the first to give us the word induction and deduction. His philosophical premise that all knowledge came from sensory experience required a set of terms to explain his process. The concept of empiricism (from the Greek word "ἐμπειρία" (empiria) translates as: "experience". In epistemology (the study of how we "know") empiricism is the theory that states that knowledge arises from our senses. Aristotle(as opposed to his near contemporary, Plato, who espoused the concept of "innate ideas" divorced from experience)emphasized the role of experience and physical observational evidence, especially sensory evidence in the formation of ideas. A fundamental tenet is that a priori knowledge (knowledge independent of experience) such as intuition,dreams,revelation, imaginings are by definition excluded from consideration. Modern science is thus strictly empirical in nature.

Aristotle also was the first to use the term "induction" which in Greek is επαγωγή(epagogi) which translates as variously as "inductance", "induction", or "inference", but it is unlikely that he used it in its present meaning, since he differentiated between "epagogi" or inferential thought and "reasoning" which he termed "σνλλογισμÒς"(syllogismos). Thus, Aristotle considered inductive reasoning only as a preliminary process, a means of moving mentally from some particular concept to universal statements which then could be inserted into a rational thought process or actual human reasoning which he had distilled into the well known syllogistic form from which actual conclusions could be derived. If you accept the premise (below) the conclusion follows necessarily. This Aristotle considered "reasoning".

Such as this syllogism (an example of deductive reasoning):

All Republicans are biased meatheads,
Ralph is a Republican,
Therefore: Ralph is a biased meathead.

A general statement to a specific conclusion. The end product is a logical progression but is it valid? Ahh that is another question all together.

In the Middle Ages, Aristotle's concepts were worked over and modified by others.
There were also significant developments in the Middle East by Arab scholars.

In Europe, Roger Bacon 1214-1294 was a Franciscan monk,philosopher,writer, and scientist who was born in Ilchester, Somersetshire,about 1214 and died at Oxford, perhaps on 11 June, 1294. Bacon joined the Franciscan Order in 1256.

Roger Bacon elaborated on Aristotle's empiricism and use of induction and deduction. He used a method of investigation which he described as a repeating cycle of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and independent verification. He recorded the way he had conducted his experiments in precise detail, perhaps with the idea that others could reproduce and independently test his results. Pope Clement IV (1265) granted Bacon (who was under a general proscription to write for publication) a specific commission to advise him on scientific matters. Within two years Bacon has written three major works(Opus Major, Minor and Tertium)and submitted them to the Pope. In these treatises Bacon discusses the four causes of error: "authority, custom, bias opinion of the unschooled, pretense of knowledge."

InductionBacon also evaluates the four causes of error: "authority, custom, the opinion of the unskilled many, and the concealment of real ignorance by a pretense of knowledge". He distinguishes between speculation and experimental science. Science he states, verifies its conclusions by direct experiment, and thus has the potential to open knowledge of the past and future.

So what we may conclude is that both inductive and deductive reasoning are essential in logical thinking. Inductive reasoning is based on specific observations which can lead to general statements. These generalities (after exhaustive testing) may lead to general rules or laws. Other statements may then be confidently "deduced" from these general laws to specific examples by deductive reasoning.

Inductive reasoning --gathering observations or experience--and generalizing from those experiences are very natural to humans and certainly must have contributed to our ascendancy over unthinking beasts in prehistoric times.

So yes Holmes used inductive reasoning not deductive reasoning.

If as Alter states, Obama tends to think "inductively" (i.e. from specific observations to general) while, in comparison, former President Clinton was likely to be more "deductive" of a thinker (i.e. from general principles or laws to specific details) Was he correct? I think not. More likely he like many of us simply confused the two terms. My impression is that Obama is the more deductive thinker...beginning with general principles and arriving methodically by following an almost syllogistic structure at answers to specific conclusion. While Clinton was the more inductive thinker..beginning with specific observations and experiences and arriving at general conclusions. Who is better....we need them both.




Wednesday, May 12, 2010

OBAMA:MORPHED INTO A BLACK BUSH?

President Obama greeted President Karzai in Washington today (Wednesday, May 12, 2010) for what has been termed a "charm offensive". The plan was to put to rest the recent disagreements between the Karzai regime in Afghanistan and the White House. The argument centers around Karzi's pressuring for peace feelers to the Taliban, while the US would rather keep up the military pressure. I watched the TV broadcast and listened to both men carefully. Karzai sounded like a man who loved his country and was willing to work toward some brighter future with perhaps some elements of the Taliban included in the Afghan government . He answered a question posed by a reporter and took the opportunity to explain and expound on his plan for peace talks with the Taliban. He added that most of them were just "country guys" who are fighting for their clan or their ethnic group and could be lured back to support the Karzai government. Obama seemed ticked off at that. Candidate Obama promised us he would talk to the Iranians ....(but never actually got to it) and encouraged us all by his reasonable arguments in favor of persuasion and dialog, seemed positively turned off by Karzai's sensible plea for a "Peace Jurga" in Afghanistan. Rather, Obama gave the certain impression that he would have to be pulled kicking and screaming, clawing those long thin fingers of his into the thick White House carpets before he would agree to let Karzai talk with the Taliban. His demeanor and speech, though literate, more latinate, and lawyerly, was all too reminiscent (frighteningly so) of Mr George Bush. Also scary was that the much-touted Obama intellect, here it apparently failed since it could not or would not recognize the irony and hypocrisy of statements which made Obama sound so much like Bush-- his supposed political antithesis.

To my ear, his words were "Bush-speak". He countermanded Mr. Karzai with "no talks until we decapitate and degrade the Taliban (there was no mention of the thousands of innocent Afghanistan civilians who happen to live with or near these "targets" who are indiescriminately "degraded" also.). "Furthermore", he added, "the Taliban would have to "lay down their arms" before any talks would be possible." That last was a typical Bush-ploy. Our former president always had his speech writers include a "killer" clause that would obviate any possibility that an opponent would ever acquiesce to his over-the-top requirements for talks. That statement alone revealed just how distasteful Mr. Obama found the idea of peace talks with the Taliban.

Recall how Obama has followed obediently in his predessors steps. From his persistence in the illusion of an all-powerful "imperial presidency", to his failure to close Guantanamo (as he promised), to his military surge in Afghanistan, and the enormous expansion of US military bases there, to his bending over backward to the intransigent Israelis, and refusal to change the inefective, dangersouts Middle East game plan, by refusing to extend an honest "open hand" to the Iranians, to keeping Syria on the terror nation list, for his increase in targeted assassinations in allied Pakistan's tribal areas (using drone attacks which have far surpassed even the Bush presidency's actions there), to his acquiescence with the CIA to illegally target for assasination American citizens abroad (establishing presidential a death penalty with no due process, no jury) he has deonstrated a continuity of past policies which we can rightly interpret is the continuation of the George Bush presidency. Add to this his domestic policies, with its slavish support for Wall Street, big banks and big business, and the Mr Bush's favorite--the oil industry (for whom Obama has opened up the entire east coast for drilling), and finally as did his predessessor who tried to seat Harriet Meyers in the Supreme Court, we find Obama nominating a personal friend, Ms Elena Kagan, a stealth candidate, whose judicial philosphy is a mystery. With all this evidence, one has good reason to conclude that President Obama appears to have silently morphed into a "black Bush" sometime just after assuming office.

Yes the election of President Obama certainly brought change, but perhaps it was only the superficial change of the president's slim build, loquaciousness, (ability to pronounce "nuclear" properly) and as, well those seemingly thoughtful pauses interspersed into his speeches, and---oh, yes, the amount of melanin in his skin.

Might we were asking too much of Mr. Obama? Maybe all he was set to do, was to get a Pulitzer prize, and keep plowing the same furrow as GWB so that he could prove that a black guy could be as "good" as any white guy in the job! Admittedly, not a bad goal, but the citizenry who supported Mr. Obama so eagerly, were hoping he would be a different president, that is, be better than that last white guy. Didn't he get that?

Get the picture?
(I wish Obama would.)

rjk

Monday, May 10, 2010

WHAT IT WAS LIKE IN THE COAL AGE

When I was a boy, in the '50s, I lived during what I called "the coal age". Oil, that black gunky stuff known as petroleum or "rock oil" had been in common use for a hundred years, but coal was still king in Brooklyn. Everyone on our block heated their homes with coal. The end product of coal burning--ash and little sharp nuggets called cinders were everywhere. My grandparents big back yard on 56th Street was surfaced with coal ash and cinders. Piles of cinders were commonly used for fill. I fell into a pile as a child and still carry a bit of cinder in my chin. The cinders in grandma's yard made a good hard surface, though a little crunchy to walk on. After a while a few hardy plants grew up through the cinders, and I recall grandma grew the best and most fragrant lillies of the valley right in the cinders. Tough, metal-ringed ash-barrels, not flimsy garbage cans, were a common sight on the sidewalks, or tucked away in a corner of the back yard or in an alleyway. In those days, there was more ash and less "garbage" since lots of waste was simply burned on the coal fire. The coal age had its advantages for our house pets too. When our dog Queenie was given a bone too big for her present appetite she would simply take it in her teeth and quickly head down the cellar stairs to the coal bin to hide it. Soon we could hear her digging in the coal bin and the coal slide and slump downward as she dug into the base of the pile. I guess few of her buried dog bones were ever recovered. They were often shoveled up with the coal and went right into the boiler. I do wonder though how mom let her walk around the house with those coal dusted feet.

Some kids (me) even got coal in their Christmas stockings!

Our public elementary school was heated with coal and each morning tens of barrels of dusty ash were hauled out of the building's basement as the students lined up to go into class. Mom's kitchen stove was indirectly powered by coal too. The local Brooklyn Union Gas Company (BUGCo) generated coal gas for our stoves (and some house-heating too) by converting a form of coal (coke) into gas and piping it underground throughout the borough. On cold mornings when the air was still the sulfury smell of "coal gas" from their Greenpoint plant seeped through the neighborhood. Mostly it just smelled bad, but some people reacted with headaches and fatigue too. By 1952 the gas company had completed a nearly 2000 mile pipeline from Texas to Brooklyn to carry "natural" gas. That stuff had no smell at all. It represented a danger from explosion if you left a gas jet on or your pilot light went out. So the gas company added a garlic odor to the gas for safety. That old cold gas aroma on still winter nights was just a memory after that.

Most men on our block worked in "the City" and traveled back and forth to work on the BMT train. The electricity to run that train and the other lines in the City was generated by coal. My Dad's transportation was an exception, he used gasoline. He drove a 1949 Plymouth sedan to work. Because of coal and the cheap electricity for transport there were few cars on our block and on any work day, I could look up and down the street and see the curb from 14th Avenue all the way down to 16th....not one parked car.

Late in the summer of the year or early fall, my father would order our year's supply of coal for heating our house in Brooklyn--and making hot water too. The coal we used was the shiny, hard stuff known as hard coal or anthracite. It was delivered to us by the barrel--so many barrels to the ton--and it came crushed into pieces about the size of a walnut. We had no telephone so Dad had to stop in at to Ice and Coal company on Bath Avenue to put the order in. A few days later, a big black truck with hard-rubber tires and a chain drive, its body all sprinkled and dusted with coal dust would roll up to our alleyway. Several big burly black men, wearing coal-stained leather aprons and huge leather gauntlets would exit the truck and pull from the undercarriage a long metal chute, its inner surface polished to a mirror-like gloss by the abrasion of the hard coal. On that day, Dad would open the basement window from within, and the delivery men would slide the chute down into the nearly empty wood-slat coal bins. Then, they would begin the noisy delivery by filling their great wood barrels on the street at the side of the truck and rolling them noisily, with sounds like distant thunder, through the alley to the top of the open chute. The coal, which had been sprayed with water --to cut down on dust-crashed down onto the slick metal chute and slid to a grumbling stop in the gray, coal bin where every now and again some pieces would rattle down the slope and roll across the floor to the base of the boiler where all of it would eventually end up. These great rumblings could be heard throughout the house. Coal dust, notwithstanding the coal being water sprayed, seeped out of the bins and settled everywhere in the house. When you blew your nose in the "coal age" you could always find little black specks in your white handkerchief. It was just normal. Until I was a grown man, I thought those black specks was just a natural human exudate--not the results of the dirt and dust of coal age.

p Dad burned that coal all year in the great steam boiler in the cellar, right across from the wood framed and wood slatted coal bins. Near-by, he kept neat piles of old newspapers and a stack of "starting wood". Starting wood could be anything that burned, cardboard, old furniture, tree trimmings, used dimension lumber, painted wood, furring strips, or old plaster-wall laths. Anything that was wood-like and burnable could be used to start the coal fire. In Brooklyn, wood was scarce, so Dad was constantly on the look-out for good "starting wood". When he brought a pile home in the back seat of our 1949 Plymouth sedan, I often got the job of carring it down to the basement and cutting it up with the hand saw then splitting it with a hatchet into pieces that would fit into the boiler. With some starter wood, Dad would make sure I removed any useful nails, screws, and other hardware that could be salvaged. The salvaged hardware from this wood would go into old mason jars or wood boxes. A favorite box for this purpose was the four by twelve inch "Philly" boxes in which squares of foil-covered Philadelphia Cream Cheese were delivered to local stores. They were neat and strong and Dad eventually made a cabinet in which these boxes served as drawers.

Coal burns hot, but it does not start up too easily. A good hot wood fire is needed to get coal going. Then, near-constant attention was required to keep the fire actually burning. If it went out, there would be no steam heat upstairs, and no hot water for the baths. So my Dad, when passing through a room, would out of habit pause to touch the corner steam pipes or tap the radiator under the window just to be certain their temperature (and the fire in the boiler) were up to snuff. At intervals during a cold day he (or some designee like me) had to add shovels of coal to the top of the glowing bed, adjust the damper to let in more air, and after that, shake the grates violently so that the coal ash at the bottom would settle down into the base of the fire pit--where, of course these gray dusty ashes mixed with unburned coal and stony, vesicular pieces called "cinders"which had to be removed by shovel and dumped into an ash barrel. Now that was a very dusty job!

Coal ash and cinders were a burden on our trash-man's back. Ash was heavy and dusty but it had to be removed and dumped by the City. We didn't know where it wound up, but it was carried off. Some people made use of the ash and cinders around their homes by spreading the stuff around, as we would spread gravel or rock chips today. Cinders would make a good solid road-bed and ash and cinders were found everywhere. As a young child, while playing on an ash and cinder dump in our back yard, I slipped off my tricycle and fell headlong into a pile of sharp-edged cinders. One small sharp piece was driven deep into my soft childhood chin. So even many decades later, I can still see the little scar and feel that little lump of cinder ash under my chin...a memento from a boyhood accident in the coal age.

Each night, from my warm bed, I would hear Dad, go down the creaky cellar stairs, then hear the big iron boiler door squeal open. I would listen as he attached the big metal shaker-handle and rhythmically rattle the grates so the ash would fall through the grate. it was that troublesome ash which would block the air. Dad was very methodical and thorough. Whatever he did he did right. And he took a good long time on that grate. Then I would hear the scrape of the big wide coal shovel as he scooped several loads through the opened boiler door. After that the chain on the damper control would rattle as Dad closed off the amount of air reaching the fire (so it would keep burning through the night) and finally, he would climb back up the creaky cellar stairs and shut the door.

The fire would keep burning at a slow rate all night long. But don't oversleep in the coal age because quite early in the morning the whole process had to be completed again--or the fire would go out! . More shaking, more ashes removed, a thin layer of coal applied to the small bed of burning embers, then the damper opened and more coal added. Finally, upstairs we would hear the nice hot steam rising in the pipes, the heat would expand the metal and strange regular tapping noises would be heard as the pipes complained like ghosts tripping about in the basement of the old house. Soon, I could smell the hot radiator and hear the low whistle of the the steam vent in the big radiator in the living room. That was how it was in the coal age.

If for some reason, perhaps during a particularly cold or windy night the fire might burn too fast and by morning...it was out. Cold! No coal embers. No heat and no hot water. Dad would be furious. Then he had to start a wood fire. Get that wood fire going hot and slowly add the coal until a good bed of embers were formed then more coal could be added and...the fire could be damped again for the day. But that would take some time...and cause a very hectic, chilly morning and a long wait for hot tap water and perhaps no breakfast.

Of course you couldn't leave your house in the winter...for the coal fire would go out and very soon on a cold day the pipes would freeze. A disaster! There was much fear and anxiety in the coal age...and no long winter vacations. So near the end of the fifties, slowly, but surely...the coal trucks were replaced with oil trucks on our block. But our neighbor old Mr and Mrs. Strand....they held on to coal well into the sixties.

Sunday, May 9, 2010

WHEN ENCOUNTERING AN AGGRESSIVE DOG

Thou callest me a dog before thou hast cause. But since I am a dog, beware my fangs.
William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice

In the merry Old England of the Bard's day citizens had to "beware" of a dog's fangs. Even so today. According to the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) data (of 2007) there were more than 72 million dogs in the USA. See: (http://www.avma.org/reference/marketstats/ownership.asp.) For some reason dog bites appear to have risen faster than the dog population. For example, dog ownership rose only 2% over the period 1986-1994 while the rate of reported dog bites rose 36% over the same period.
That trend seems to have continued into the present time. Though most dog bites take place on the dog-owner’s property and most victims are either friends or family of the owner…the rising level of dog ownership and increasing incidence of dog attacks may generate an appropriate wariness of some-- as they walk or jog in an unfamiliar neighborhood.

This author is a known dog lover and owner from a very young age. I have slept with, run-away from home with, walked with, hunted with, trained, duck-hunted with, sailed and fished with, retrieved with and just enjoyed the company over the decades of: Queenie, Smarty, Mollie and Martha, Snuffy, Whitey, Blackie, Kim, Geant, Tim, Masset, Missey, Jeeves, Scrubby, Smurf and most recently-- Milo, a Jack Russel Terrier. I have owned mixed breeds, beagles, a wire-haired terrier, shepherds, pointers, setters, various terriers, a mastiff, and even one one lap dog. I loved them all and learned something about dog behavior from each one of them. I have never owned an aggressive dog, but have encountered them in my travels, during field work, while hunting, walking, or while jogging.

Over the years, I developed a set of general “rules of encounter” which may help reduce a walker or a jogger’s exposure to dog bite and help relieve simple "dog related anxiety" when, as is increasingly possible, one encounters an aggressive dog on one's route.

1. Know your breeds. Remember that dogs have been bred for thousands of years for one purpose or another, so (counter to American ideals and notions of equality) dog-breeding does count! All breeds can bite, and any breed can be trained purposely (or inadvertently) to be aggressive. But recognizing dog breeds and knowing their general psychological characteristics can help avoid an unpleasant encounter. Earlier on this very day, I encountered a lady walking a giant Newfoundland female..she was more a puppy than a full-grown bitch. But she couldn't pass a stranger without wagging her great flag of a tail or offering her great head to you for a petting. She was a dog lover's heaven. Newfoundlands or "Newfies" are big and lovable. They would almost never be expected to act aggressively--or bite. That is the case with most working dog breeds. Aggression would not be a character appropriate for a working dog which must come in contact with many different people, and work alongside other dogs. Aggressive traits were bred-out of these breeds early in their history of development. Owners would simply not breed a dog or bitch which showed these traits. As a consequence work dogs (as noted above) such as Newfoundlands, collies, border collies, sheep dogs, Eskimo dogs, sled dogs and similar breeds are for this reason least likely to be aggressive. For the same reason, most hunting breeds are generally non-aggressive. Beagles, retrievers, pointers, spaniels, setters, hounds, poodles and other similar dogs are generally friendly and not likely to bite.
On the other hand, guard dogs, such as the German Shepherd, Doberman, Rottweiler, Bull Mastiff and American Bulldog and dogs bred for the fight ring, particularly the Pit Bull are predisposed to attack, may have been trained as a guard or attack dogs, or are easily provoked into an attack. If I can, I generally avoid unnecessary contact with these breeds. Observing one of these breeds ahead of me on my walking route, may cause me to cross the street or simply go another way.

2. A Bad Dog Ahead! But some situations arise unforeseen. When you turn a corner and there is a large unleashed dog ahead. Perhaps it begins to act aggressively by approaching you in a threatening way, perhaps it barks and bares its fangs---the first and simplest response may be what I call the “Ellen Nelson Bend”. Ellen was an elderly lady who lived across our Brooklyn, New York alleyway during most of my childhood. She was an avid dog lover who walked her little Pomeranian named “Mitsey”, every morning and evening on our busy, Brooklyn streets. She often encountered dogs larger and more aggressive than her Mitsey. In those days, a few doors away, lived “Fido”, a big noisy shepherd whose owner often carelessly let him out loose onto the street. He pestered neighbors up and down our street.

"Mrs. Nelson," I asked one day chilly fall day as she strolled up our alleyway, with Mitsey in tow, "Did you pass by Mrs. Franza's house?"

"Yes I did," came her reply. As I approached Mitsey seeing me, lolled her tongue and wagged her tail.

"What about her big Shepherd, Fido, he was loose again, I saw him. He scares me every time I pass by."

She stopped and wound up Mitsey's worn leather lead around her fine-leather gloved hand. “Honey, all you have to do is bend over and pretend to pick up a stick or stone. 'Course there isn't anything there on the ground. But they don't know that. Most dogs, they see me reach down that way-- and they just scat.”

She pulled Mitsey along toward her back door, then turned back to me and smiled. "You remember that little trick...honey! Jest you reach for a stone."

I tried it. It was true! Even though there was not a pebble or a stick on the sidewalk, all I had to do was bend over and reach down--and it was always a sure-fire way to get a dog to back down and slink away. I tried it on big old Fido. He backed away every time. I figure there must be some hard-wired reflex in a dog's brain. Perhaps, it derives from its prehistoric encounters with humans. Every ancient canid that saw a human bend down and reach for the ground expected to get pelted with a big rock. Those who raced away escaped to live and breed again, while those who stood there dumbly or came too close were perhaps less likely to survive. That gene must have gotten passed down with time into all our dog breeds.

Of course if you can pick up a nice big throwing pebble, a chunk of concrete or a hefty hunk of wood and skip it down their way...that makes the "Ellen Bend" even that much more effective. But remember, just the act of bending down will do the trick.

3. You Bite Dog (or You Attack Them)! Finally , when you (this is for healthy vigorous adults only) have no other option, as you face an aggressive dog, you may try to turn the tables and change into an aggressor yourself. Remember that most adult humans are quite a bit bigger than the average dog. Dogs are really, more afraid of us than most of us realize. I recall an incident some years ago which illustrates this principle.

At the time, I was jogging regularly through a suburban neighborhood early each morning. My route took me through a development and into a cul-de-sac. Usually I used this court as the halfway point on my route, slowly jogging around the cul-de-sac then turning homeward from there. As I ran into the court this particular morning (I recall it was a holiday weekend), I saw five dogs of several breeds milling around over a tipped-over garbage pail in the driveway near the front of the first house on the court. Apparently, their respective owners had, carelessly let their pets out onto the street to relieve themselves, permitting said pet-owners the luxury of a longer holiday sleep in. As I approached, I evaluated the dog-situation and concluded that since these canids were occupied with the tipped over pail, (their angry barks and yips echoed hollowly out of the garbage container as they fought over choice holiday repast waste morsels) and I had not been bothered by them in the past, it was probably safe to continue on to the end of the court were I normally turned around and began my route back. So ignoring the dog pack, I continued on to the end where I made my turn turned into the last lap of my route.

As I approached the exit, one of the larger dogs, a mix breed, heard my approaching footsteps. He pulled his head out of the tipped over black-plastic container and looked up to see me jogging slowly and steadily toward him. Perhaps he was being protective of the empty tin of sardines he gripped firmly in his teeth. But for whatever reason, as I approached, he dropped the oily tin and growled threateningly. His action raised the alarm with the others, who now pulled themselves out of the pail and away from their feed and looked my way. At this point the dogs seemed to alter from a group of friendly house pets into a dangerous pack of predators. The other dogs looked toward the mixed breed as if to see what he did. He laid his ears back and held his tail straight and low. A line of fur rose up along his spine. He lowered his head and moved toward me as he growled. The angry sound seemed to enrage the others and as they looked toward each other their behavior became more aggressive and their barking louder and more aggressive.

At that point, I was about one hundred feet away from them, with no other good option but to continue past the five dogs to get out of the court. The other dogs, a beagle, a shepherd mix, and a collie among them all turned their attention to me. The Beagle bayed loudly, shaking his head and flopping his long ears. They turned their attention to me--I was the unexpected intruder into "their court"and perhaps they felt they were guarding their garbage hoard--as they began their concerted move in my direction. All I could think of was, that I should not turn and run, even if I did and was fast enough, there were few good places to go, and they would surely catch up with me before long, perhaps on some front porch or in a back yard. Where one or more of them would have more reason to attack an intruder than out here in the open court. So I had no other option.

I unzipped my windbreaker and holding it open with my hands to make myself appear bigger and wider, I lowered my head, flapped my arms like a giant bird and raced toward the dogs screaming and yelling wildly. The pack slowed their advance toward me. They stopped barking. But, I did not relent. Now jumping and howling, like a banshee, I raced directly toward them, pumping my knees up and down and racing up onto the nearest sloping manicured lawn. I had some pleasure thinking that my bizarre vocalizations were loud enough to wake up the sleeping dog-owners in the near-by homes. By the time I was fifty feet away, the dogs had stopped dead in their tracks and appeared as puzzled as dogs could look. When I flapped my arms and jumped up and down again, they lost their nerve, and splitting up, they scattered, this way and that, retreating in haste. The big mix breed that seemed to be acting like the alpha male of the pack paused once when he was a safe distance away to take a quick glance over his shoulder before he disappeared into some thick foliage.

I quickly made the entrance road and was soon on the main road and on my way home. I don't recommend this for method for everyone. But as a last resort it is worth a try.

Get the picture?

rjk

Saturday, May 8, 2010

WHAT IS CRITICAL THINKING?

Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness to believe, but in their readiness to doubt.~ H. L. Mencken

These days one hears so much about "critical thinking". Educators claim that they intend to engender critical thinking in their charges. Colleges and universities assure us that students will graduate from their institutions as “critical thinkers”. Even General David Petraeus has recently indicated one of his goals is to encourage more “critical thinking” in his staff and the troopers in his command. One wonders does he really know what critical thinking is? Military thought processes are by definition the antithesis of critical thinking. The military, properly, strives for control and conformity of thought. All thinking is under control of an authority structure which can not be questioned. Though I wish him well, were the General's plan to succeed, who would follow orders?

So what is this critical thinking which appears to be outwardly desirable to so many? Why is the term so bandied about, but so little is written about what critical thinking actually is?

Socrates, who lived in Athens in the latter part of the 5th century BC (469BC -399 BC) is often credited as the primary founder of western philosophy, and an early advocate (perhaps the first) of critical thinking. Recall Plato's accounts of how Socrates challenged the premises and assumptions of his contemporaries during his philosophizing walks through the Athenian agora. His systematic use of probing questions, termed, “elenchus” in Greek, was his method of encouraging fundamental insight into the discussion, engendering helalthful doubt, and challenging his opponent's premises--as well as Athenian social and policy conventions in general. As is so often the case when one attempts to change deeply-held ideas, Socrates' challenges became too great a threat to the politicaly powerful elite of Athens. Very soon trumped up charges were drafted to bring the philosopher to trial, a sham trial which ended in the philosopher's death.

Socrates may have defined "critical thinking" as a clear analysis of the question coupled with rigorous analysis of the basic premises and assumption upon which conclusions are based. A more modern definition of critical thinking, sees the process as “ a careful, deliberate determination of whether one should accept, reject, or suspend judgment about a claim and the degree of confidence with which one accepts or rejects it.” (See Moore and Parker, Critical Thinking, McGraw Hill, 2007)

Another brief definition states: "Critical thinking is thinking that assesses itself" (Center for Critical Thinking, 1996).

But Mencken’s statement (above), that a civilized man is measured not by how willing he is to believe but "in his (or her) readiness to doubt”, is in my view, one of the most succinct statements relating to critical thinking, at least which I have found.

Expanding on Mencken, in my personal view, critical thinking requires one to doubt. And to be critical. That is to “criticize” both your thoughts and those of others, in light of the available evidence which supports it (or does not). It requires the ability to recognize the existence of unstated and untried assumptions and values and to expose those assumptions to the light of reason, and finally to test the resulting conclusions one arrives at. It always requires one to question authority, to search out and expose their faults, biases, assumptions and means of arriving at their stated conclusions, and finally to critically assess the potential end-result(s) of their claims.

“Critical” thinking means self-criticism too. One must be aware of human weaknesses such as our natural tendency toward egocentrism and sociocentrism which clearly limit and obfuscate logical thinking. One must be alert to one’s own and others inherent prejudice, bias, propaganda, self-deception, distoriention, lies, and misinformation all of which are much too common and widespread in public discourse.

In short, Doubt..doubt doubt...

Even to:
"Doubt thou the stars are fire;
Doubt that the sun doth move;
Doubt truth to be a liar;..."

W. Shakespear, Hamlet

Of course being human, we can not always think critically. We all descend into the tirade, the emotional outburst, the illogical, besotted, ill conceived discourse…and rage, but be sure to be aware of these as exceptions. Be aware that we do not think critically by nature…but also remember that practice makes perfect.

Some interesting quotes concerning critical thinking and related thoughts:

But if thought is to become the possession of many, not the privilege of the few, we must have done with fear. It is fear that holds men back — fear lest their cherished beliefs should prove delusions, fear lest the institutions by which they live should prove harmful, fear lest they themselves should prove less worthy of respect than they have supposed themselves to be.~ Bertrand Russell (Principles of Social Reconstruction)

Any formal attack on ignorance is bound to fail because the masses are always ready to defend their most precious possession – their ignorance.~ Hendrik Van Loon

While others who would limit critical thought state:

Without censorship, things can get terribly confused in the public mind.
~ General William Westmoreland


Get the picture?

rjk

Sunday, May 2, 2010

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BEES?


It was not so long ago, on a woodland walk in Riverhead’s Wildwood State Park a day after a Spring windstorm that we discovered a bee hive in a fallen oak. The wind had snapped off a major limb to expose a deep hollow where wild bees had made their home. Raccoons must have found the hive before us, since only fragments of the comb, still dripping with honey were left adhering to the hollow wall in the deep inner recesses of the tree. Someone among us had a plastic bag and we collected a few pounds of comb, which we ate greedily on our way home. As I recall, none of the sweet sticky stuff was left at the end of the trail. We sucked the wax dry and rolled the gray stuff into balls which we continued to chew like gum as a reminder of our sweet, forest repast.

In those years, honey bees were daily visitors to our garden, and to our orchard buzzing actively and unconcernedly in and out of the apple blossoms, and squirming their long way into the big yellow squash flowers. But beginning about two years ago, at least here on Long Island, or about the summer of 2008, honey bees seemed to disappear (but some say '06 was the beginning year). Instead big black and yellow bumble bees had mostly taken their place in the garden and orchard. Last year, I actually counted only eight honey bees in the flower garden all season. Only eight ! Where in years before they were as common as ants. What happened to the bees?

According to a piece in the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/02/food-fear-mystery-beehives-collapse the disturbing evidence of a decline in honey bee populations began in 2006 when “a phenomenon dubbed colony collapse disorder (CCD) led to the disappearance of hundreds of thousands of colonies. Since then, more than three million colonies in the US and billions of honeybees worldwide have died and scientists are no nearer to knowing what is causing the catastrophic fall in numbers.” In CCD affected hives the bees seem to leave the hive, but do not return to die there, and the hive slowly decreases in size and finally reaching a critical point, collapses totally. In the US, where there are an estimated 2.4 million commercial beehives, more than a third of them have failed to survive this 2009-2010 winter. Furthermore“the number of managed honeybee colonies in the US fell by 33.8% last winter, according to the annual survey by the Apiary Inspectors of America and the US government's Agricultural Research Service (ARS).” Another third lost this year appears to signify that there is a major bee die off taking place before our eyes.

The Guardian states that “The collapse in the global honeybee population is a major threat to crops. It is estimated that a third of everything we eat depends upon honeybee pollination, which means that bees contribute some £26 billion (or nearly $40 billion dollars) to the global economy. “(op cit}

Some of the likely causes of CCD are parasites ( such as the verroa mite), viral and bacterial infections, and pesticides . Some experts cite poor nutrition as a probable cause. Lack of proper nutrition may arise from the way commercial hives are used and transported. The hives are typically trucked form one area of the country to the other and set out in vast agricultural areas often devoted to monoculture. That is huge fields where only one crop, such as rape seed, blueberries, peach farms or apple orchards are planted to the exclusion of other crops. Pesticides are often cited as a sinister cause. In the US, scientists have found 121 different pesticides in samples of bees, wax and pollen, lending credence to the notion that agricultural pesticides (many of which are insidious insecticides) are a key problem. "We believe that some subtle interactions between nutrition, pesticide-exposure and other stressors are converging to kill colonies," said Jeffery Pettis, of the ARS's bee research laboratory” (See Gurdian op cit).
On that score the Guardian piece states: “A global review of honeybee deaths by the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) reported last week that there was no one single cause, but pointed the finger at the "irresponsible use" of pesticides that may damage bee health and make them more susceptible to diseases. Bernard Vallat, the OIE's director-general, warned: "Bees contribute to global food security, and their extinction would represent a terrible biological disaster."

It is important to remember that “flowering plants require insects for pollination. The most effective is the honeybee, which pollinates 90 commercial crops worldwide. As well as most fruits and vegetables – including apples, oranges, strawberries, onions and carrots – they pollinate nuts, sunflowers and oil-seed rape. Coffee, soya beans, clovers – like alfalfa, which is used for cattle feed – and even cotton are all dependent on honeybee pollination to increase yields.”

In the UK alone, honeybee pollination is valued at £200m. Mankind has been managing and transporting bees for centuries to pollinate food and produce honey, nature's natural sweetener and antiseptic. Their extinction would mean not only a colourless, meatless diet of cereals and rice, and cottonless clothes, but a landscape without orchards, allotments and meadows of wildflowers – and the collapse of the food chain that sustains wild birds and animals.” (op cit)

More on this as it develops......
rjk