Monthly Archives: March 2013

Words and Pictures

In a recent speech, Noam Chomsky addressed the “controversy” about global warming.

There is indeed a controversy: on one side, the overwhelming majority of  scientists, all of the world’s major National Academies of Science, the professional  science journals, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) : all agree that global warming is taking place, that there is a substantial human  component, and that the situation is serious and perhaps dire, and that very soon,  maybe within decades, the world might reach a tipping point where the process  will escalate sharply and will be irreversible, with very severe effects on the   possibility of decent human survival.

It is rare to find such consensus on complex  scientific issues.

A couple of weeks ago, a reader of this blog sent me an “info graphic” she had discovered that illustrates the matter. It’s well worth clicking through and viewing.

The question, of course, is: why is there so much resistance to settled science? I understand opposition by the self-interested, the industries dependent upon fossil fuels. But the anti-science cohort is far larger than the special interest groups, and it extends well beyond denial of global warming. It’s larger than the religious fundamentalists who are still arguing about evolution.

There are some kinds of ignorance–willful or not–that are harmless. Rejection of a reality that can literally destroy us is not one of them.

 

Comments

How Not to Run an Airport

It’s Spring Vacation, and we booked a flight to Santa Fe.

The plane left Indianapolis promptly on time, headed for Dallas-Ft. Worth. It landed a couple of minutes ahead of schedule. And then it sat on the runway for nearly 30 minutes, because–the pilot informed us–the gate was broken. Rather than sending us to an alternate gate, we sat there until they repaired it.

Anyone who has had the misfortune to connect through DFW can attest to the sprawl. We arrived at Concourse C and our connecting flight was departing from B concourse–a distance of at least two miles on foot. The original time between flights was an hour; by the time we deplaned, we had fewer than 30 minutes. We rushed to take the Skylink–the tram that runs between concourse–but as the tram approached, an announcement over the intercom informed us that the train would not be stopping at the B Concourse, due to a “security breach,” and to proceed to other concourses on foot. We had no option but to walk.

My husband is 80, with a heart condition that prevents him from sustained  fast walking. We found one of the handicap-assistance vehicles that drives passengers who are unable to make the trek on foot, but by the time we arrived at our gate, the plane had closed, and our seats had been given to standby customers.

By this time, we were out of both breath and patience. The gate attendant informed us that the next flight to Santa Fe was at four, and full. (It was 9:00 am.) Would we be willing to fly into Albuquerque instead, and take a shuttle to Santa Fe? We agreed. At this point, we were standing at the outermost end of Concourse B; the flight to Albuquerque would be leaving from Concourse D. We could get seat assignments at the gate. Once again, we made the lengthy trek to a different concourse; at least this time, the tram operated.

We settled down in the lounge area of the new gate to wait. When the service counter opened, I went up to get our seat assignments–only to be told that there had been a gate change and the flight would now leave from Concourse A!

I am writing this from the waiting area in Concourse A, where we have been informed that the flight will be “slightly” delayed.

I am not in a good mood. In fact, I am definitely cranky.

I’ve been through DFW many times; it is one of my least favorite airports. Somehow, there’s always a problem. It is inexcusable that a malfunctioning gate is allowed to cause a 30 minute delay–especially at an airport where large numbers of passengers connect to other flights. DFW is a prime example of a place that does not work. It’s badly designed, badly run, and judging from what I’ve seen during my unfortunately extensive tour of the place, rarely cleaned.

At this point, I just hope to make it to Santa Fe. Not an auspicious start….blogging may be haphazard this week.

Comments

Shameful

Forget the arguments about whether water boarding is torture. The Guardian has now uncovered irrefutable evidence of full-scale torture during the Iraq War, conducted by Americans under the direct orders of Donald Rumsfeld. The story also implicates General Petraeus.

The Guardian/BBC Arabic investigation was sparked by the release of classified US military logs on WikiLeaks that detailed hundreds of incidents where US soldiers came across tortured detainees in a network of detention centres run by the police commandos across Iraq. Private Bradley Manning, 25, is facing a prison sentence of up to 20 years after he pleaded guilty to leaking the documents.

Samari claimed that torture was routine in the SPC-controlled detention centres. “I remember a 14-year-old who was tied to one of the library’s columns. And he was tied up, with his legs above his head. Tied up. His whole body was blue because of the impact of the cables with which he had been beaten.”

It was bad enough when we could believe that Abu Ghraib and the like were products of “rogue” behavior. But the Guardian provides evidence that torture was a deliberate policy, an intentional tactic employed by high-ranking Bush Administration officials–the same officials who justified America’s invasion of Iraq by pointing to Sadaam’s use of torture against his own people. The same officials who repeatedly proclaimed America’s moral superiority.

Why do I suspect that the people who routinely pontificate about “American Exceptionalism” will try to excuse and defend the indefensible?

Why is Bradley Manning going to jail for whistle-blowing?

Why have Donald Rumsfeld and his co-conspirators escaped prosecution for war crimes? And what did Dick Cheney know, and when did he know it?

Comments

In the Eye of the Beholder

Someone posted a comment to one of my previous blogs to the effect that taxation is theft. This is a not-uncommon complaint of the far right–that government is using its coercive power to steal the fruits of honest labor from its citizens.

I see a different picture. I see whiners who want to steal from their fellow-citizens–people who accept and use the services provided by government with our tax dollars, but who are indignant at the notion that they should pay their fair share for those services. They drive on streets paved with tax dollars, call on police when assaulted, employ workers educated in our public schools, put their garbage out for pickup, are protected by the National Guard and armed forces…No matter how loudly they complain about “socialism,”  I know of none who refuse to accept their Social Security and Medicare benefits.

Talk about your “makers” and “takers”…People who want the benefits of our public infrastructure but get indignant when asked to pay for those benefits sure seem to me to fall into the “takers” category.

The issue confronting thoughtful citizens is not “how do we avoid paying for what we get?” The issue is “how do we insure that government is operating efficiently and fairly, that it is doing those things that are properly its job and not others?” “How do we ensure that we are paying a fair price for services we really want government to provide?”

Of course, addressing those (much more complicated) questions, and monitoring our governing institutions takes effort and a modicum of civic understanding. Fixing those institutions when they are malfunctioning–or not functioning at all, which seems to be the case now–will require real effort. It’s easier to whine.

Comments

Myths Die Hard

Andrea Neal’s editorial in the Indianapolis Star yesterday was a reminder that evidence is no match for strongly-held beliefs.

Neal seconded Governor Pence’s ill-considered call for a ten percent reduction in Indiana’s income tax. Even the Republicans in the General Assembly have recognized how harmful such a tax cut would be in a state where cities and towns are already strangling, thanks to the even more ill-considered tax caps Mitch Daniels managed to enshrine in the Indiana constitution.  Neal made a familiar argument: lower taxes will lead to more economic growth and more job creation.

This argument sounds logical. Leave businesses with more cash and they’ll spend it to expand and hire. I remember being persuaded by that theory myself when I first became involved in policy and political life. The problem is, the evidence refutes it.

A recent report by the Institute on Taxation and Economic policy confirms previous research. As the Institute reports,

States that levy personal income taxes, including the states with the highest top rates, have seen more economic growth
per capita and less decline in their median income level over the last ten years than the nine states that do not tax income.
As any economist will confirm, the factors facilitating economic growth and job creation are varied; despite the almost religious belief in the supernatural power of tax policy, most studies suggest that tax levels are only one of a large number of factors that influence business decisions. The availability of an educated workforce, a location near suppliers or large customers, the existence of a market for one’s goods or services, cost of living, and the general quality of life  all play a part.
For many employers, the availability of public transportation so that employees can get to their place of work is extremely important; indeed, decent public transportation would do far more for the Indianapolis economy than a tax cut that further erodes public services and the quality of life.
Think about it: how low would taxes need to be before you’d move your business to Mississippi?
Comments