Like the oil gushing out of the Gulf of Mexico, the Obama Administration continues on the course of the last administration, sputtering and spouting, the viscous slime from the past is unable to be altered or abated as it poisons, suffocates and kills those who come in contact with it. The problems of gushing oil and drifting unchanging domestic and foreign affairs can to a large degree be related back to Bush era policies of imperialism, greed, single-minded devotion to business interests, deregulation, imperialism and the evisceration of even minimal environmental review. The Obama Administration inherited the policies, but appears helpless to alter them or their outcomes as it continues to drift on the current, taking the nation in the same general direction, as if the former defeated and delegitimized oil-smeared former captain remained somehow tethered to the helm, and the new captain is without the strength, determination, or will to pry the tiller from the old man’s oily grasp.
We had great hopes back in January 22, 2009 when CNN reported on a key promise made by Obama during the election which epitomized the hopw for real change-- the closing of the ill- conceived, infamous Guantanamo Bay Prison. “Promising to return America to the "moral high ground" in the war on terrorism, President Obama issued three executive orders Thursday to demonstrate a clean break from the Bush administration, including one requiring that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility be closed within a year. The president said he was issuing the order to close the facility in order to "restore the standards of due process and the core constitutional values that have made this country great even in the midst of war, even in dealing with terrorism."
What happened to restoring our core values and standards of due process?
Nothing much.
By June 25, 2010, the NY Times was reporting that closing Guantanamo and keeping the prison closing pledge has drifted out of the President’s agenda. In a piece entitled “Closing Guantanamo Fades as a Priority” The Times states “Stymied by political opposition and focused on competing priorities, the Obama administration has sidelined efforts to close the Guantánamo prison, making it unlikely that President Obama will fulfill his promise to close it before his term ends in 2013. When the White House acknowledged last year that it would miss Mr. Obama’s initial January 2010 deadline for shutting the prison, it also declared that the detainees would eventually be moved to one in Illinois. But impediments to that plan have mounted in Congress, and the administration is doing little to alter events.” See: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/26/us/politics/26gitmo.html.
Senator Carl Levin, Democrat Chair of the Senate’s Armed Services Committee adds:“There is a lot of inertia” against closing the prison, “and the administration is not putting a lot of energy behind their position that I can see,” said Levin. He added that “the odds are that it will still be open” by the next presidential inauguration.
Though we have since learned that the costs of keeping Guantanamo open, obtained from a new Defense Department study of the costs of the facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, show that taxpayers spent more than $2 billion on the prison between 2002 and 2009. Administration officials argue that the cost of operations and personnel could be cut roughly in half – to about $150 million a year – if detainees were instead housed at an Illinois prison. But reason and savings (even in these desperate times) appear not to change many minds. See http://documents.nytimes.com/current-costs-at-guantanamo
So as Tomdispatch reminds us in http://www.tomdispatch.com, closing Guantanamo is just one of the obvious factors that indicate how little things have really changed, “It would have been hard to do then” states Dispatch. But it is even more so now, with the Gulf gushing oil, the economy teetering into a possible second dip, the market behaving uncertainly about its wish to be a bear or a bull, and Obama’s approval ratings dropping like a stone (down to 38% among Independents), as well as a summer heat-wave fogging Congressional minds even more than they are usually.
So what has changed? We do have a black president and a lovely black first family. That is a good form of change. But other than that, and some well-spoken sentiments and oratory from the talented and intelligent Obama, Washington has not changed much since Bush left. Oddly, as if to underscore the lack of change, our nation again suffers with a disaster off the coast of Louisiana—though this time it is worse—with effects both on shore and in the deep waters of the Gulf. On foreign policy, the war in Afghanistan is looking much like it was under Bush---but now with more troops and more fatalities. An examination of who is mostly conducting the War in Afghanistan appears to be not much different had Senator John McCain won. In Iraq that disastrous ill-conceived and conducted invasion and civil war is thankfully slowly atrophying, but at a pace set by its chief designers and avid supporters---of the last administration. No change there. We still have a Bush-style warrior Secretary of State in our inconsequential and ineffective Ms Clinton. We continue to be burdened by Bush holdovers such as Mr. Gates, the Bush era Secretary of Defense, and also National Security Advisor Mr. James Jones who is a close friend of John McCain. So not surprisingly, we are still bogged down in an unending and unsuccessful war in Afghanistan. That gusher has not been “top killed”.
Just to understand how far off course we are, mark this on your navigation chart. In recent testimony concerning our reason for being in Afghanistan Mr. Leon Panetta, Head of the CIA indicated that there are perhaps “50 to 100 Al Qaida in that nation” for which we taxpayers have spent a nearly $300 billion dollars to apprehend and/or neutralize. That is $3 billion dollars for each turbaned head! We are either very inefficient or we are spending these hundreds of billions for some other reason. My old friend Tony would always say…”Check out where the money goes!”
Finally, we have some agencies (I think here of Blackwater or Xe of Bagdhad fame and its recent shameful 200 million dollar Pentagon contract) which are in the war business and operate to see it sustained and expanded. For example our expanding CIA Drone War in bordering Pakistan. The agency continues to generate new Taliban and al Qaida sympathizers with their ill-informed and poorly aimed drone-attacks, often resulting in numerous “collateral” civilian deaths. The spill goes on.
So when are we going to plug that leak Mr. Obama?
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Thursday, June 3, 2010
END CIA DRONE ATTACKS
"How now? A rat? Dead, for a ducat, dead!" Shakespeare
The UN Human Rights Organization has issued a report, under the direction of Philip Alston (Alston is an Australian by birth and a prominent international law scholar and human rights advocate. He is currently the John Norton Pomeroy Professor of Law at New York University School of Law and UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions. The report is critical of the US CIA program of Predator drone attacks which have killed nearly 1400 Pakistanis in the Tribal Areas of northwestern Pakistan. See: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/14session/A.HRC.14.24.Add6.pdf
Note that the Predator Drone is an unmanned, high-flying, silent, hovering, small plane which carries a TV camera and is armed with powerful rockets.
Since 2004, President Obama has increased the use of drone attacks and has come under increasing criticism for his actions. According to the Christian Science Monitor (CSM) President Obama has given his permission "some 135 attacks in northwestern Pakistan … since 2004 which have killed between 944 and 1,398 individuals, about 30 percent of whom were "non-militants," according to the New American Foundation, which derived its numbers from media reports.” (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2010/0603/US-defends-unmanned-drone-attacks-after-harsh-UN-report).
The not-so-secret campaign, perhaps used by Obama as a cudgel to defend his unsteady command of the CIA and his own military, and to satisfy the bloodthirsty Republican opposition, has been spoken of openly in Washington. Indeed, Obama himself has referenced the "secret program" in public when he made an inappropriate joke about the use of drones in a well-reported crack to a journalist at a recent White House Correspondent’s Dinner, stating with his characteristic broad smile: “You will never see it coming”. After which everyone in attendance laughed heartily, casually ignoring the four or five hundred unfortunate Pakistani civilians who were mistakenly targeted, or happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and "did not see it coming" either. To make matters worse (a too common occurrence in this Administration) Mr Obama has notoriously added an American citizen to his Predator drone “execution list". Recently, the New York Times (and other outlets) revealed that the Moslem Iman, Anwar al-Awlaki, who was born and raised in New Mexico, but now resides in Yemen has been targeted by Obama for extrajudicial execution...This is a Moslem Imam, and an American citizen(See:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html.) Al-Awlaki resides in Yemen and is not in or remotely near an American battleground. He has been implicated indirectly in the Fort Hood massacre and in the Christmas "underwear" bomber plot. Though, as an American citizen does he not have the presumption of innocence until proven guilty by a court of law? No one has proof of his guilt, no one has even interviewed this man. The Obamanians are too willing to take the law into their own hands. In their willingness to execute this citizen outside of the law they threaten us all and make a mockery of our Constitutional rights.
This UN report should make Administration insiders and the President think more carefully about extrajudicial executions. How would they like it if China or Russia took up the same habit? Though, in fact it has been going on for some while..routinely practiced by Israel which nonchalantly eliminates its various foes this way. But the USA is not Israel!!
The Alston report questions the legality of the actions and the “play-station” mentality of the CIA agents who—sitting far from the battlefield in front of a console in a cushy air-conditioned module somewhere in a secret Nevada location…press a button and kill, kill, kill! These men and women who exterminate others from afar are not military personnel and as such have no military immunity (Such immunity is reasonable considering that on the battlefield combatants are more or less equal-- in their intent to harm or neutralize each other—and their equal exposure to dismemberment and death). But this is not so with the CIA's drone “play-station-joy-stick jockey” who presses a button to make a "kill" thousands of miles away safely sitting in front of a console--there is no exposure to retaliation or harm---thus making the act of distant killing--- a simple case of state sanctioned murder --the unlawful killing of another human being without just cause or excuse.
The CSM piece quotes Jane Mayer, (from The New Yorker) who wrote "that the appeal of drones has increased as public support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has waned: “It’s easy to understand the appeal of a “push-button” approach to fighting Al Qaeda, but the embrace of the Predator program has occurred with remarkably little public discussion, given that it represents a radically new and geographically unbounded use of state-sanctioned lethal force. And, because of the C.I.A. program’s secrecy, there is no visible system of accountability in place, despite the fact that the agency has killed many civilians inside a politically fragile, nuclear-armed country with which the U.S. is not at war.”
The CSM piece also quotes Micah Zenko, who states” that insurgents appear to be adapting to drone attacks and their usefulness may be waning. But he also argues that drone attacks remain an "essential tool for killing terrorists" even if their use should be more carefully scrutinized.”
Zenko’s chilling statement that drones are “an essential tool for killing terrorists” sounds familiar. I have heard that or similar sentiments used by the neocons in the last Bush Administration. That is the crux of the matter. Zenko’s assumption that the target is indeed a ”terrorist”. How do we know they are terrorists? What is the proof? Who makes the decision? Sine there is no legal decison--these are called “extrajudicial” executions. They are outside of any legal framework.
The CSM piece states that “targeted Taliban and Al Qaeda insurgents in northwest Pakistan have responded to the increasing efficiency of the drone strikes by developing standard defensive tactics. [They've begun] killing suspected informants who provide intelligence, destroying communication towers that can better intercept satellite and cell phone signals; they've dispersed into smaller cells; they've moved into heavily populated areas where it is very unlikely that the United States will attempt strikes. So they've adapted defensive strategies in response...” The battle goes on.
Alston concludes that these “operators” (when and if they become known to appropriate authority) could be held accountable by the states in which the killings took place, or here in the USA where applicable laws apply. Such an outcome would serve well the interests of justice---and humanity.
Get the picture?
rjk
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)