Showing posts with label Rick Salutin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rick Salutin. Show all posts

Wednesday, 22 February 2012

Bloco dos Desvairados, Ash Wednesday.

"Where is the courage in these rooms?" Anjali Appadurai.
Up, Down, Appendices, Postscript.

Bloco da Ansiedade.Bloco da Ansiedade.Bloco dos Desvairados sounds like a perfect festival for PNGs - a rallying point for the praeterite.

Literally, 'The Bewildered Parade' - or sort of - 'bloco' means a musical group, such as Ilê Ayê mentioned here recently, but really it is more than that. There are banners and bonecas/dolls/puppets, so there is someone who takes care of the props, and though the group of people who get together do so informally, the same people seem to show up year after year.

Origami with a $1,000 bill.There is a half-formal structure to the desfile/parade/procession: a period of concentração/gathering/practicing often lasting several hours, followed by the saída/departure which begins the parade itself. In the case of the Bloco da Ansiedade in Rio (my favourite) the parade goes nowhere - moves a few city blocks south on Teixeira de Melo from Praça General Osório and stalls permanently in total disorganization on the beach (map) until, eventually, everyone goes home, drunk and soaked in Floco Loco.

As for this Bloco dos Desvairados I have no idea - it is in São Paulo; maybe it began in São Luiz do Paraitinga, about half way between Rio and Sao Paulo (see map); can't say - I came across it in the subject line of a spam email - it exists but I can't find any pictures anywhere.

I posted something about Carnaval before, quite a while ago, in which I wrote:
We have a cosmos which increasingly appears to consist of both matter and anti-matter. Though you can't exactly see anti-matter, it seems to be there eh? Society and culture, on the other hand, increasingly appear to consist only of 'matter' - materialism, exclusive humanism, excarnated incarnations, rationality gone wild (if you will permit such a phrase :-) Taylor talks about a balance between structured culture and unstructured moments such as Carnival - and suggests that this balance is essential, and not just as some kind of safety-valve either.

The distinctions natural/supernatural and immanent/transcendent are equivalent for Taylor. (This was a major step for me because somewhere along the line I got a different idea of what 'immanent' meant.) The supernatural and the transcendent are being done away with, clear enough.

Echoes of, or maybe just a hint of, trickster gods, coyote ... as ... necessary for the health of the community ... or ... given what I know of global climate change as a function of instrumentalism and 'externalities', would that be for the health and continued existence of the species itself maybe?

I've seen the future brother, it is murder.
Re-reading it after a few years have passed I am wondering ... who (the fuck) was the guy who wrote that?!

Grubbing around looking for information on the Bloco dos Desvairados turned up a few things (as digging in a compost heap often does).

From a poster for Anthropofagia, featuring music by Bloco dos Desvairados.Alek Wek with a similar hair style.Antropofagia by Tarsila do Amaral, 1929.Next thing you know I have discovered Tarsila do Amaral and her lover Oswald de Andrade and his famous (in Brasil, and among a few of the upper class, and at the time) Manifesto Antropófago / Cannibal Manifesto, in English & Português. Cannibalism! Wowzers!

This was all going to be a holocaust meditation ... but the Toronto Public Library has still not delivered Modernity and the Holocaust by Zygmunt Bauman, and won't, until sometime in March (they say when pressed), so ... though when it finally does show up I will likely have both editions - 1989 & 2000 - in hand and side-by-each for the purposes of comparison.

In preparation I found Rick Salutin's The Autobiography of an Idea: Rethinking the Holocaust in light of 9/11, my mentor, and my dad from December 2007; and several dependent clauses - Torture and the new normal also by Rick Salutin from October 2005; and, The Eggs Speak Up by Hannah Arendt from the early 50's.

A subject more fitting for Lent-in-full-sail anyway, maybe; or for Easter itself (and no resurrection likely this year).

From Lester Brown and his colleagues at Earth Policy Institute comes this qualified & approximately good news: Global Economy Expanded More Slowly than Expected in 2011:
The global economy grew 3.8 percent in 2011, a drop from 5.2 percent in 2010. Economists had anticipated a slowdown, but this was even less growth than expected, thanks to the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, unrest in oil-producing countries, the debt crisis in Europe, and a stagnating recovery in the United States. As richer economies struggle to recover from the financial crisis of 2008–09, poorer countries are facing high food prices and rising youth unemployment. Meanwhile, growing income inequality and environmental disruption are challenging conventional notions of economic health.

The total value of goods and services produced worldwide in 2011 was $77.2 trillion, twice as much as 20 years ago. The global economy expanded by an average of 4 percent each year in the decade leading up to the 2008 slowdown and the 2009 contraction. Industrial economies typically grew by about 3 percent annually in the 10 years before the recession but only 1.6 percent in 2011. Developing economies, which grew by an average of roughly 6 percent annually in the decade before the recession, grew by 6.2 percent last year.
Too many words, I know (see 'knuckleheads' below) ...

The short version: economic growth is slowing in the so called 'developed' world; not quickly enough, and not in the develop-ing world where it is accelerating instead, but ...

Ron Plain.Ron Plain spoke at UofT last week: Dream Catcher? Where the Industrial Nightmares Fall.

I came across Ron when I discovered 'two girls for every boy' in Aamjiwnaang a few years ago; and I was lucky enough to meet him at another event the next year - so it was no trouble to trek out to see him again, more like an honour. The phrase "with a clarity that will motivate the most moderate of social activist" in his abstact even made me vaguely hopeful.

Ada Lockridge.Of course Ron faces not just the death of a culture, of a civilization, but a personal death, his own - confirmed (for himself at least) by looming statistical averages. It was not mentioned in his presentation but I overheard him say that he has moved his family out of Aamjiwnaang - for obvious reasons.

He and his colleague Ada Lockridge have been/are being excised from the very organizations they initiated apparently - all part and parcel of the four D's says Ron, though I think there are more than four D-words that apply.

Here they are following a court session a few weeks ago: Eco Justice video.

I left when he was finished - there was no space for conversation as the 'co-ordinators' hustled him away - wishing he would have given me a clue about what to do? I'm sure the clues were there, abounding - I just did not pick up on them, as usual, for some reason which I cannot fathom. And as I rode the streetcar home I thought, "At least he does not have to face it alone."

Enbridge Line 9 Reversal.Enbridge Line 9 Reversal.Enbridge Line 9 Reversal.One of the things he talks about is the Enbridge Line 9 Reversal and the NEB evaluation. The trick with maps is to concentrate and struggle a bit to envision, imagine, what every one of the schematic lines represents in human terms. Here's another one, and another.

University of Toronto knuckleheads ... There are two (count 'em, two) co-ordinators present from the University of Toronto Centre for Environment, and a technician, all paid-for one presumes; and yet after almost an hour of fucking about they can not get the overhead projector to properly project Ron's presentation, nor is there a mic for the question and answer session following. Doh!?
Bungling Incompetent DUNDERHEADS!
It ranks with turning the lights out on Jim Hansen when he spoke at that august institution in 2010.

Occupy Toronto knuckleheads ... One of the bright lights of Occupy Toronto, Ruckus-trained Dave Vasey, is present as well - apparently as barker for an 'activist' meeting over at OISE an hour or so later - but he cannot remember what room it is in, stammers out several contradictory numbers, and mumbles off into the sunset in his artistically ripped-at-the-knee jeans with his Apple laptop under his arm.

And the 'official website' is more of the same.
Useless TWATS!

Spin Cycle:
#1 Tammy Samede vs Anita Anand of BBC.
Tammy Samede.Tammy Samede.Anita Anand.Tammy Samede is the single person named in the Occupy London eviction lawsuit with the City of London Corporation. Having read 'An Occupy protester's story: an idea cannot be evicted' (below) and having watched and listened to her carefully (clip from 'Sunday Politics London' with Anita Anand), she is now, to me, the epitome of the best of the Occupy movement.

She certainly shines beside our Anita, who seems to me a mindless media barracuda most closely resembling Margaret Hamilton as the Wicked Witch of the West in that famous old film. Apologies for the quality of the screen grab; the original video is here on the BBC.

The trial proceeds today (Wednesday) and I will post the outcome next time.

#2 Anjali Appadurai vs Amy Goodman of Democracy Now.
Anjali Appadurai.Anjali Appadurai.Everyone already knows what Amy Goodman looks like right?

If you think I am posting pictures of Anjali Appadurai because she happens to be young and georgeous you are mistaken (if understandably so).

Here, watch and listen to her speech: UNFCCC Plenary December 9th and read the transcript below; and here, an interview in Durban, apparently about a week previously; and read some of what she has to say: Media Messaging: The silent, subtle art of loudmouthing the innocent.

It irks me that this speech was hijacked and 'branded' by Democracy Now so the performance was fractured and diluted - 'sucked off' into the energy drain of a mediocre middle-aged slag - so (anger is good for something) I clipped her speech from the UNFCCC webcast site [item: 2011-12-09 10:00 GMT+2 Conference of the Parties (COP), 9th meeting; Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP), 9th meeting; Joint High-level Segment UNFCCC Plenary Baobab], and posted it simple & entire & unedited on YouTube (above); apologies for the small difficulty with the aspect ratio which I am not skilled enough to overcome.

She is smart, thoughtful, insightful, frightened, courageous, eloquent ... admirable. Good on her!

(Not that she is a 'fully realized being' er none'a that guff either y'unnerstan' - at 21 years old! - I was certainly not that filled in at 21 ... but about as naïve ... 'nuf said.)

#3 American Parochialism.
"The most palpable legacy of the WikiLeaks campaign for transparency is that the U.S. government is more secretive than ever," says a blowhard American pundit, and has it right if you replace 'the U.S. government is' with 'all governments everywhere are'.

#4 Still Shilling Growth.
Paul Krugman in the NYT, Pain Without Gain:
Last week the European Commission confirmed what everyone suspected: the economies it surveys are shrinking, not growing. It’s not an official recession yet, but the only real question is how deep the downturn will be. ... For all America’s troubles, its gross domestic product has finally surpassed its pre-crisis peak.
BAH (FUCKIN') HUMBUG (¿!¿)

Simple is good.
Simple Simon went to look
If plums grew on a thistle;
He pricked his fingers very much,
Which made poor Simon whistle.
Apologies for all the bold red CAPs gentle reader and for repeated descents to that favourite anglo-saxon expletive (Slothrop's spell) ... Yes, I am angry, frustrated; and yes, I know these states are defined as sins in the new age fol-de-rol ideology of positive thinking ... I am doing what I can do and I am sorry it is not enough.

I am truely bewildered. I would fly away to São Paulo on the last of my stash and join with the Bloco dos Desvairados but it is over already for this year.

Be well.

Postscript:

Family Day / Fête de la famille.A quasi-statutory holiday in k-k-Canada, Fête de la famille, aka Louis Riel Day (which is a tiny smidgen closer maybe to properly marking the beginning of Lent - but no cigar).

A-and as usual, Gable's cartoons contain the proper elements, but disguised somehow to obscure the full message - but what do I know? Stupid old fuckin' hippie.

Tracking has been finally turned off, Site Meter has been removed and the accounts deleted. For what that's worth.
Down.

Appendices:

1. An Occupy protester's story: 'an idea cannot be evicted', Patrick Kingsley, 12 February 2012.
2. Anjali Appadurai Transcript, Anjali Appadurai, December 9 2011.


An Occupy protester's story: 'an idea cannot be evicted', Patrick Kingsley, 12 February 2012.

Tammy Samede arrived at St Paul's last October as the protests began. Angry at police treatment, she has been there ever since

Tammy Samede at St Paul's, with three of her visiting children.

Flanked by a QC and a crowd of protesters, 33-year-old Tammy Samede strode from the Royal Courts of Justice last month and addressed a crowd of microphones and cameras. "An idea cannot be evicted," said Samede. "This is not the end."

A judge had just ordered the Occupy London activists to leave their camp outside St Paul's Cathedral. But she was defiant: the occupation would launch an appeal.

Standing next to Samede, Matthew Varnham was close to tears. "She was speaking in front of the world's press, and she was on fire," said Varnham, 22, a recent law graduate and fellow occupier. "Knowing her backstory, it was incredible."

Samede first arrived at St Paul's one Saturday morning last October. There were few other people around, so she sat on the cathedral steps, and waited. What she was waiting for, she did not really know. She had been following Occupy Wall Street, then only a few weeks old. Through Facebook, she had heard something similar might happen that day in London. But there was little sign of anyone else, and for a while Samede thought she might have wasted the train ticket from Crawley, west Sussex.

That she was even there was slightly surprising. She had never been particularly political. She found it difficult talking in group situations, and had low self-esteem. The only protests she had attended were about child abuse.

From the age of three, and until her late teens, Samede had suffered sexual, physical and emotional abuse. Leicester-born, she left school at 16, got a job as a care worker, got married, and had four children – now aged nine, eight, seven and four. Six years ago, she started having flashbacks about her childhood. Then she started blacking out. Soon she was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, and spent eight months in a psychiatric hospital. In the years following her discharge, she separated from her husband, and lost custody of her children. She struggled to find work because of her medical history. She saw her kids every Saturday and the local mental health team every fortnight. A friend gave her informal work looking after her ailing mother. But last summer the mother was sent first to hospital, and then a care home, and Samede was again left without much to do.

On 15 October, she travelled to the capital with nothing but a handbag. "I got here about 11am," Samede said, "and I thought: 'Oh, there's not many people here. This isn't going to happen.' So I sat on the steps and had a smoke. And then all of a sudden I looked up and the place was swarming with people."

Police blocked them from entering the Stock Exchange, so the thousand-strong crowd sat on the nearby steps of St Paul's and held an impromptu meeting – or, in Occupy parlance, a general assembly. They used the obscure hand signals employed by seasoned activists. Samede did not understand what many of them meant, but she was intrigued enough to stay until the police kettled the crowd. In the melee, she was thrown down the steps by riot police. "I thought: 'What the hell is this?' All I could see was a group of people sitting down to have a conversation." Angry, she resolved to stay. "Apart from six nights away, I've been here ever since."

She had no tent or sleeping bag, so Samede spent that first night outside on the steps. When the sun rose, a man in a dog collar was pottering about, drinking from a mug. As a Christian, Samede felt comfortable approaching him. "I said: 'Morning, father. You're not happy about this, are you?' And he turned around and said: 'Actually, I don't mind you protesting. But I don't like the police on the church steps.' Then he asked me to hold his mug, and he walked over to the police. And they left." The man was Giles Fraser, and he and Samede have been friends ever since.

In the first week, Samede lacked confidence. She would stand at the side of the many meetings, and simply listen. "I didn't know anything about the 1% and the 99%, but over the next few days I learnt about it. And I learnt about the banking system."

Initially, she busied herself with practical things, like the kitchen, and the "tranquillity" team, a night-time patrol group aimed at keeping the peace and warding off invasive journalists. "I remember one night, we saw this journalist with a camera, unzipping people's tents and shining a light inside. He was looking for empty tents. And we said: 'A tent is a home. If there's a female in there, and a bloke just opens a tent, it's a bit much.'"

Gradually, Samede made friends: "Now, when I get up in the morning, I've had about 10 hugs by the time I've got to the loo" – and she started speaking up. "I wouldn't have spoken in public to two people let alone a crowd of hundreds. But now if I've got something to say, I'll say it." She soon grew to understand the hand signals. "They're like a second language now. I've even got my kids doing it."

She joined working groups: the church liaison group; the sanitation group. "I even joined the economics group for a while, but it was a bit above my head." For the first time in her life, Samede felt like she belonged. "When you come from an abusive background, you forget that you have a voice. It's beaten out of you as a kid. But Occupy gave it back to me." Not everyone initially agreed. After she started missing her therapy sessions, her psychologist rang her, alarmed.

At the end of October, the cathedral chapter tried to evict the occupiers. They quickly made a U-turn, but it was enough to disgust Samede. "That building over there," she said, pointing at the church. "That museum, that business – it's nothing to do with my Christian faith. I once said to the dean: 'I've been in the cathedral for communion, and you blessed me. And yet when I'm outside as an occupier, you reject me.' So what I've learned is that organised religion is not for me. If I want to find God, I don't need to go in there."

Instead, she spent Christmas in the camp. Instead of midnight mass, the occupiers had a drink on Millennium bridge. For Christmas dinner, they set up tables in one of the larger marquee tents, and everyone helped with the cooking. "For me, it was how Christmas should be," Samede said. "It wasn't commercial. No one was stressed out about getting the latest iPod. It was about sharing. I loved it. A proper, dysfunctional family Christmas."

Towards the end of 2011, Samede made a decision that would change her life. She agreed to be the single "named defendant" in eviction proceedings instigated by the City of London. Because the occupiers would have otherwise been collectively liable for legal costs of hundreds of thousands of pounds, Samede volunteered to take on the liability alone. The case is now called "City of London v Samede".

While the corporation later promised not to pursue her for costs, the decision had more negative consequences. After reading about Samede's involvement in the case, her employment officers argued she was no longer actively seeking work, so they cut off her benefits. As a result, she stopped paying rent, and soon her flat will be repossessed.

It was, nevertheless, the making of her. She, and the camp, lost their eviction fight, and they may well lose their appeal on Monday. But things are coming together. After her speech outside court, she got a call from her mental health team. "At first, I thought: 'Oh here we go'. But instead they said: 'We've seen you on the TV. We watched your speech. And we're signing you off because clearly you don't need us any more.'"

Then, last week, social services called. For the first time in two years, she was granted overnight access to her children, and so the five of them spent last weekend in a youth hostel near the camp. "It's not that the camp's not safe for children," said Samede. "But I don't trust the city bankers. When they get drunk, they kick the tents."

Samede hopes her story will inspire other people who have suffered from mental health issues. "I spent time in a mental hospital, but I also took on the City of London. So I hope that it shows people going through the mental health system that, yes, it may be really hard right now. But never feel that it isn't going to change."

She has lost her home, but gained others – literally (Varnham has offered to put her up if the camp is evicted) and metaphorically: "I'm 33 years old," said Samede last Friday. "I'm living in a tent. I have a couple of changes of clothing. And I'm the happiest I've ever been in my life."


Anjali Appadurai Transcript, Anjali Appadurai, December 9 2011.

I speak for more than half the world’s population. We are the silent majority. You’ve given us a seat in this hall, but our interests are not on the table. What does it take to get a stake in this game? Lobbyists? Corporate influence? Money? You’ve been negotiating all my life. In that time, you’ve failed to meet pledges, you’ve missed targets, and you’ve broken promises. But you’ve heard this all before.

We’re in Africa, home to communities on the front line of climate change. The world’s poorest countries need funding for adaptation now. The Horn of Africa and those nearby in KwaMashu needed it yesterday. But as 2012 dawns, our Green Climate Fund remains empty. The International Energy Agency tells us we have five years until the window to avoid irreversible climate change closes. The science tells us that we have five years maximum. You’re saying, "Give us 10."

The most stark betrayal of your generation’s responsibility to ours is that you call this "ambition." Where is the courage in these rooms? Now is not the time for incremental action. In the long run, these will be seen as the defining moments of an era in which narrow self-interest prevailed over science, reason and common compassion.

There is real ambition in this room, but it’s been dismissed as radical, deemed not politically possible. Stand with Africa. Long-term thinking is not radical. What’s radical is to completely alter the planet’s climate, to betray the future of my generation, and to condemn millions to death by climate change. What’s radical is to write off the fact that change is within our reach. 2011 was the year in which the silent majority found their voice, the year when the bottom shook the top. 2011 was the year when the radical became reality.

Common, but differentiated, and historical responsibility are not up for debate. Respect the foundational principles of this convention. Respect the integral values of humanity. Respect the future of your descendants. Mandela said, "It always seems impossible, until it’s done."

So, distinguished delegates and governments around the world, governments of the developed world, deep cuts now.

Get it done.


Mic check! / Mic check!
Equity now! / Equity now!
You’ve run out of excuses! / You’ve run out of excuses!
We’re running out of time! / We’re running out of time!

GET IT DONE! / GET IT DONE!
GET IT DONE! / GET IT DONE!
GET IT DONE! / GET IT DONE!



Chairman: Thank you, Miss Appadurai; who was speaking on behalf of half of the world’s population, I think she said at the beginning. And on a purely personal note I wonder why we let not speak half of the world’s population first in this conference, but only last.


Down.

Friday, 6 January 2012

They must be thinking they'll thread the needle.

(A-and win the Trifecta!)
Up, Down, Appendices, One more thing (or so).

Five Stars!Peter F. Sale - Our Dying Planet: An Ecologist's View of the Crisis We Face from University of California Press; with an excerpt: Chapter 1 (including the story of the Newfoundland cod fishery).

Our Dying Planet: An Ecologist's View of the Crisis We Face.Peter F. Sale.At Amazon.ca, Amazon US, and at Abe's. (Still not at the Toronto Public Library?)

A review of 'Our Dying Planet' in The Independent, September 11 2011; and, a November 29 2011 audio interview (40 minutes) with Michael Stone on KVMR Nevada.

Watch his schedule for upcoming events. More links in the previous post.

You raise up your head and you ask, “Is this where it is?” and somebody points to you and says, “It’s his,” and you say, “What’s mine?” and somebody else says, “Well, what is?” and you say, “Oh my God, am I here all alone?”

Reality Check #1: A researcher, or a scientist, or several teams of researchers & scientists ... someone ... takes the H5N1 bird-flu virus - now called 'A(H5N1)'? - and plays with it; and the next thing you know, we have:
"Biosecurity advisers to the American government, which paid for the research, have urged that full details not be published for fear that terrorists could make use of them. The World Health Organization warned Friday that while such studies were important, they could have deadly consequences."
     (NYT recently here & here)
So ... where are these 'security advisers' when it comes to the likes of Not-Lord Monckton & Nigel Lawson Baron of Blaby? Why are these purveyors of pernicious information not threatened with prevention?

Deadly consequences you say? Peter Sale guesstimates a balanced population for earth at about 3 billion. Is not the fate of the other 4-6 billion important enough for the security experts?


(A few more details on H5N1 from Gwynne Dyer: ... and creation of a deadly flu, December 26 2011.)
Reality Check #2: In a New Year's Day rant, Paul Krugman does 'the little black dress' of spiels for growth (a patter with pearls):
First, families have to pay back their debt. Governments don’t — all they need to do is ensure that debt grows more slowly than their tax base. The debt from World War II was never repaid; it just became increasingly irrelevant as the U.S. economy grew, and with it the income subject to taxation.
     (NYT recently below)
So ... it's not 'debt' at all then (if we believe the OED which stresses 'obligation to pay or render') and we need another word for whatever it is. What shall we call it? Let's stop calling it 'debt' because that is (understandably) confusing.

A-and what about the interest? The dragon Oroborus is eating its own tail. Interest, presumably compound, nicely represents the necessary acceleration in its rate of eating. If it eats quickly enough won't mouth meet anus eventually? This seems such a fitting image for current circumstances ... Waidaminit! Wasn't there a porno/horror flick with that plot recently? Is that it Paul?Th-th-th that's all folks.

Or ... it's the end of a Looney Tunes and Porky Pig is saying "Th-th-th that's all folks," and vanishing into a black hole (with a flush).

Rick Salutin: Politics as Entertainment video.Rick Salutin's rant: A minute and a bit - or the original (if you want to watch the ad). Amusing that a glitch at The Star silenced the ad for me - otherwise good production values were evident; and Noam Chomsky can't match him on understated sarcasm.

(Interesting ... I grabbed this video - poor quality, hand held - and posted it on YouTube so I could link to it here; and the next thing I find is an 'official' copy on YouTube from The Star with no ads, go figgure?! So I have now thrown away my copy - good for The Star.)

I spend a fair amout of time trying to imagine what people like Stephen Harper and Peter Kent (and Not-Lord Monckton & Nigel Lawson Baron of Blaby & Bjørn Lomborg & ...) can possibly be thinking.   (?)

Where can they be 'coming from'? Oh I know: it's greed, it's venality, it's habit, even it's fear, false pride, ignorance, stupidity; but none of these quite satisfy. For me it's like trying to imagine what drives a kiddie-diddler.

And once in a while I get a clue:

Back in the day I was hard up for cash in Peterborough - and with dependents.

First try was as a nude model at the local art school - 15 bucks an hour sounded good (for that time). I was worried that I might get an erection which would be embarassing. What I found was that I got chilled - the room was cool. But the woman running the show knew how to do things and called a break about the time I began to shiver. A skinny girl came over. I knew her by sight because she had out-bid me at an auction the week before on a cardboard box full of sheet music and records - the auctioneer called him 'Bobbie Dye-lon' - she went to $10 and I couldn't go $11, didn't have it. Anyway, she came over during the break and said, "You know that line in Leopard-Skin Pillbox Hat?" and I said, "Which one?" and she said, "I'd like to jump on it sometime." I was only saved because it so happened that I did not understand this idiom at the time.

Eventually, after a long and bitter struggle with the Chief of Police (over my long hair) I got a taxi licence and began to drive for City Cabs. It made $15 an hour look like a fortune.

One night - I had the big Merc, a full-sized car with all the fins which was the boss's personal ride most of the time - there was a bus, and a stale yellow light, and another car slowing for the light, and I tried to slide through between the car and the bus to run the yellow. Just about made it - didn't. The bus got me on the passenger side and about turned the taxi up on its side. Missed the other car - it stopped and then turned right around the front of the bus and went on. The bus backed up and the taxi came back to earth. Surprisingly the damage was not severe - passenger door & rocker panel completely crunched, that was it. Cops came - I got a ticket for something; the car was driveable so I went on back to the stand.

The next day the boss and I went up to the wrecker and got a door and put it in; pulled & beat at the rocker panel; sprayed on some primer to keep it from rusting. The door was a different colour but you couldn't really see the rocker panel and at the end of the day the car was OK. He got it repainted later that week.

All he said to me about it was: "Never pays to try and thread the needle - better just to take it slow and steady." He didn't even try to make me pay for it. That could have been difficult since I was just making it from one week to the next and the ticket alone about did me in - I guess he knew that. He was a 7th Day Adventist - I don't know if that had anything to do with it. A kind man. An adult. I never forgot him.

Ai Ai AI! These old-farts and their fricking stories!

Anyway, that's what I was wondering about this week. Stephen Harper & Peter Kent must know what is coming and they must be thinking if they can just gun that big Merc they'll thread the needle, slide through and deal with reducing CO2 emissions later-on another day. And maybe there are just enough back-seat sycophants around to make 'em feel OK with it. And the scientists are too measured by half - personally despairing but publicly equivocal except for a very few. And the environmentalists are so shrill an' lame an' all ...

Hell of a risk; deadly risk for so much and so many. Not even a risk; rapidly becoming a dead certainty:

WE HAVE UNTIL 2015 TO GET THIS UNDER CONTROL.
FOUR YEARS.

WHAT CAN WE DO?

(Is there anyone out there?     Anyone at all?)

How perverse is it?

I keep coming back to Paul (not Krugman, the other one) and his coals in Romans 12; not quite corresponding with a proper notion of what loving your enemies might mean. Twisted. Or ... There was a vision someone had in a bar one time of "God loving snakes!" but I can't know how true it was.

Or ... is all of this a fit of pique? In bold & CAPS an' all but substantively nothing more than bourgeois hand-wringing? A carry-on of childhood temper tantrums & 8-fold moxie transcendence morphed into a way to total self-destruction? Now that would be perverse, wouldn't it eh?      It's a possibility.

I like the term 'doom-monger', 'doomer' even moreso.

As a kid the 'weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth' of the whoremongers in the Old Testament got my attention. Given that iron-mongers sell, I thought whoremongers must be pimps. This made the moral clear & kept things safe & simple until the OED gave it away - a monger is a trader, trade could be buying or selling, maybe just kibbitzing in the marketplace - Uh Oh!

Eventually of course I met some whores - bound to happen - and that turned the whole thing on its head when they didn't: rob me, carry foul diseases, gibber with satanic glee, try to steal my kidneys - or not all of 'em at least. Could be I was lucky and clever enough to be chosen by gooders - who treated me kindly, laughed at my jokes, took me home to meet their kids; and continue truer friends to me (long after the money ran out) than, say, the bourgeois women I married. (All estimations of character being based upon qualities proven over time; and estimations being all we have.)

Curmudgeon can be imagined to have a derivation running through corn-monger (or not, see below) making it a Daily Double. And now ... doom-monger, doomer: someone who thinks the lemming-meisters are driving us towards the cliff and that the cliff is not far off. Whoopee! It's a monger Trifecta!

Yee-haw! Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump here we come! Yep. That sounds like it - or close enough for the girls I go with.

If anyone has a clue, the merest whisper of a rumour of a clue, a tiny hint, the wildest speculation around what to do about all of this I sincerely wish they would run it past me.

Be well gentle reader.


(Simply wrong according to the OED: The occurrence in Holland's Livy, 1600, of cornmudgin has led to a suggestion that this was the original form, with the meaning ‘concealer or hoarder of corn’, mudgin being associated with Middle English much-en, mich-en to pilfer, steal, or muchier, Norman form of Old French mucier, musser to conceal, hide away. But examination of the evidence shows that curmudgeon was in use a quarter of a century before Holland's date, and that cornmudgin is apparently merely a nonce-word of Holland's, a play upon corn and curmudgeon. The suggestion that the first syllable is cur, the dog, is perhaps worthy of note; but that of Dr. Johnson's ‘unknown correspondent’, coeur méchant for French méchant coeur, ‘evil or malicious heart’, is noticeable only as an ingenious specimen of pre-scientific etymology.
Wishful thinking on my part: Some may refer to certain species of evangelist and other rapture-seekers as 'doomers' but as time goes on and the language evolves these scurrilous definitions will be abandoned.)

One more thing: (or at least several, definitely)

Ahh, I see I forgot about Murphy the last time ... Oh well.

Five complicated stories:

1) A robbery (for cash & painkillers but they don't say which one) reported in the NYT with private guns everywhere ends with the robber & an interloper dead.

Barack Obama & Richard Cordray & onlooker.2) The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, in the NYT here & here: Obama, Elizabeth Warren (now a senate candidate), Richard Cordray. I like the expression on the guy clapping.

3) Tyler Brûlé - Mister Zeitgeist (in the NYT). A great idea, ideas, a small private fortune - except ... A 50's childhood so unconscious that we didn't even learn to hate gays - howJack Gerard, CEO of API. could we hate what didn't exist? And by the time they tried it on us it was too late for hate. But the 'except' stays.

4) More of Barack and the Keystone Trolls (it is definitely 'and' not 'vs.'): "Oil chief issues threat" says the Guardian. I guess it's a line of scrimmage metaphor but who watches football well enough to understand all of this shite?

Yvo de Boer, Durban COP17.5) If anyone has despaired it might well be Yvo de Boer; and yet he just keeps on putting his best foot forward (see below). A 1%-er who is pulling his weight.

I don't believe for a minute he thinks Durban was any kind of success. 'Breakthrough' could be a tactful slip of the tongue - preceded by one of his patented Dutch pauses.

A-and, a very long story:

I got interested in the Frade (pronounced 'fraud-ge') FPSO when it was looking like I would have to leave Brasil. I can't remember what the draw was - a rotating turret? And later on I gathered some information on it here.

Then I noticed that Brazil is having ructions with Chevron over a spill involving Frade to the tune of $20 billion; which led to a Guardian article on the $18 billion Chevron/Texaco/Equador judgement: Chevron accused of racism as it fights Ecuador pollution ruling with a picture of a guy I recognized, Pablo Fajardo.

"Racism?" I thought? Seems an odd accusation (not that it isn't true). And a bell went off - hadn't I already posted his story somewhere? I was sure I had researched Pablo Fajardo before - sure enough, back in my October 2009 archive I found some photographs & the Vanity Fair article but no evidence that I did anything with it. A few posts tagged 'Equador' showed me that I didn't even know how to spell it - Ecuador doh! But an hour or more searching line-by-line for traces led nowhere. Google is so undependable at searching - supposed to be their raison d'être too.

Oh well; you have to laugh, it's all so funny.

So, here's a very good article from May 2007 on the situation: Jungle Law by William Langewiesche; a good short video 60 Minutes - Amazon Crude (15 minutes) that aired May 1 2009 and definitely turned up the heat; a full-length movie in theatres September 2009, Crude (downloadable at Demonoid); a-and a few interesting personalities:

Steven Donziger.

Richard Cabrera.

Silvia Garrigo, Chevron lawyer.Silvia Garrigo, Chevron lawyer.Silvia Garrigo, Chevron lawyer.Silvia Garrigo, Chevron lawyer.Silvia Garrigo, a Chevron lawyer and 'Corporate Responsibility' person. I have known women with that shape of face who were not terriers - and if you watch the 60 Minutes clip carefully you will see that she is not tall. Here's something she said in 2011:
"Guided by The Chevron Way, which is anchored in getting results the right way—ethically and with integrity—our unyielding goal is to show that we can lead in providing safe and reliable supplies of energy and providing tangible and sustainable benefits to the communities in which we operate."
     (Corporate Responsibility at Chevron, final sentence)
David O'Reilly, Chairman and CEO of Chevron during some of the period of the struggle.

Ibsen's Peer Gynt (pronounced 'pair hoont') falls down in despair but then, at the last possible moment, the great Boyg disappears in a fizzle just like The Wicked Witch of the West saying, "He was too strong. There were women behind him."

And if it so happens they're women who were once upon a time in the game ... so be it, no problem.


Appendices:

1. Nobody Understands Debt, Paul Krugman, January 1 2012.

2. Ex-UN climate chief says business should get ready for low-carbon world, Fiona Harvey, Thursday 5 January 2012.



Nobody Understands Debt, Paul Krugman, January 1 2012.

In 2011, as in 2010, America was in a technical recovery but continued to suffer from disastrously high unemployment. And through most of 2011, as in 2010, almost all the conversation in Washington was about something else: the allegedly urgent issue of reducing the budget deficit.

This misplaced focus said a lot about our political culture, in particular about how disconnected Congress is from the suffering of ordinary Americans. But it also revealed something else: when people in D.C. talk about deficits and debt, by and large they have no idea what they’re talking about — and the people who talk the most understand the least.

Perhaps most obviously, the economic “experts” on whom much of Congress relies have been repeatedly, utterly wrong about the short-run effects of budget deficits. People who get their economic analysis from the likes of the Heritage Foundation have been waiting ever since President Obama took office for budget deficits to send interest rates soaring. Any day now!

And while they’ve been waiting, those rates have dropped to historical lows. You might think that this would make politicians question their choice of experts — that is, you might think that if you didn’t know anything about our postmodern, fact-free politics.

But Washington isn’t just confused about the short run; it’s also confused about the long run. For while debt can be a problem, the way our politicians and pundits think about debt is all wrong, and exaggerates the problem’s size.

Deficit-worriers portray a future in which we’re impoverished by the need to pay back money we’ve been borrowing. They see America as being like a family that took out too large a mortgage, and will have a hard time making the monthly payments.

This is, however, a really bad analogy in at least two ways.

First, families have to pay back their debt. Governments don’t — all they need to do is ensure that debt grows more slowly than their tax base. The debt from World War II was never repaid; it just became increasingly irrelevant as the U.S. economy grew, and with it the income subject to taxation.

Second — and this is the point almost nobody seems to get — an over-borrowed family owes money to someone else; U.S. debt is, to a large extent, money we owe to ourselves.

This was clearly true of the debt incurred to win World War II. Taxpayers were on the hook for a debt that was significantly bigger, as a percentage of G.D.P., than debt today; but that debt was also owned by taxpayers, such as all the people who bought savings bonds. So the debt didn’t make postwar America poorer. In particular, the debt didn’t prevent the postwar generation from experiencing the biggest rise in incomes and living standards in our nation’s history.

But isn’t this time different? Not as much as you think.

It’s true that foreigners now hold large claims on the United States, including a fair amount of government debt. But every dollar’s worth of foreign claims on America is matched by 89 cents’ worth of U.S. claims on foreigners. And because foreigners tend to put their U.S. investments into safe, low-yield assets, America actually earns more from its assets abroad than it pays to foreign investors. If your image is of a nation that’s already deep in hock to the Chinese, you’ve been misinformed. Nor are we heading rapidly in that direction.

Now, the fact that federal debt isn’t at all like a mortgage on America’s future doesn’t mean that the debt is harmless. Taxes must be levied to pay the interest, and you don’t have to be a right-wing ideologue to concede that taxes impose some cost on the economy, if nothing else by causing a diversion of resources away from productive activities into tax avoidance and evasion. But these costs are a lot less dramatic than the analogy with an overindebted family might suggest.

And that’s why nations with stable, responsible governments — that is, governments that are willing to impose modestly higher taxes when the situation warrants it — have historically been able to live with much higher levels of debt than today’s conventional wisdom would lead you to believe. Britain, in particular, has had debt exceeding 100 percent of G.D.P. for 81 of the last 170 years. When Keynes was writing about the need to spend your way out of a depression, Britain was deeper in debt than any advanced nation today, with the exception of Japan.

Of course, America, with its rabidly antitax conservative movement, may not have a government that is responsible in this sense. But in that case the fault lies not in our debt, but in ourselves.

So yes, debt matters. But right now, other things matter more. We need more, not less, government spending to get us out of our unemployment trap. And the wrongheaded, ill-informed obsession with debt is standing in the way.


Ex-UN climate chief says business should get ready for low-carbon world, Fiona Harvey, Thursday 5 January 2012.

Last month's Durban climate talks have given a strong signal that governments are serious about tackling global warming

Businesses should be putting plans in place this year to prepare for a low-carbon economy, having been given a strong signal from the latest climate change negotiations that governments are serious about tackling global warming, according to the former United Nations climate chief.

Yvo de Boer said the message from the Durban climate talks in December, which ended with a dramatic last-minute deal to forge a new legally binding climate agreement, was that businesses ought to press ahead with moves towards operating in a low-carbon world. He said that businesses should interpret the talks as a "clear signal that the international community is committed to taking the climate change agenda forward, that market-based mechanisms [such as carbon trading] will continue and that there will be clear reporting guidelines" on carbon dioxide emissions, which will affect companies.

De Boer, now special adviser on climate change to KPMG, was the architect of the Copenhagen climate summit of 2009, at which countries made voluntary commitments to cut their emissions by 2020. Many countries, green campaigners and businesses complained that the system of voluntary commitments did not provide the certainty needed to spur the development of a low-carbon economy across the globe.

The breakthrough at the Durban climate conference was that all countries, developed and developing, agreed to start work on a new worldwide agreement, to be signed in 2015, that would stipulate legally binding – not voluntary – emissions cuts to kick in from 2020.

De Boer told the Guardian that moves to create a global legally binding agreement were good for businesses. He said business leaders had stressed to him that they needed greater certainty from politicians, in order to make the right decisions to stay prosperous in the future. Only a global, legally binding agreement on the climate could provide the sort of guarantee that generates a wave of investment in greener technologies, and meaningful efforts to cut greenhouse gases. Such an agreement would also help to ensure there was a level playing field across in terms of business regulation – and this too would work to the advantage of companies, which could be reassured that their rivals were facing the same constraints.

He said that it was a "mistake" to think, as some people have argued, that a "bottom-up" approach – whereby countries and industry would make voluntary commitments to cut emissions – would be sufficient to reduce emissions by the drastic amounts needed in order to keep temperature rises within relatively safe levels.

His views are broadly shared by Lord (Nicholas) Stern, author of the landmark 2006 Stern review of the economics of climate change. Stern told the Guardian that the efforts of many businesses and nations so far to cut emissions would not have happened without the impetus given by the international negotiating process.

However, some close observers of the talks, including the UK's former chief scientific adviser Sir David King, take an opposing view, arguing that the annual climate talks that have been running for nearly two decades have borne little fruit and that nations should focus instead on a series of voluntary, non-binding pledges and on encouraging industry to cut emissions.

Stern also warned that the current pledges on greenhouse gas emissions from governments around the world would not be sufficient to stave off dangerous climate change, and must be strengthened.The Durban agreement was snatched at the last minute after the talks, which were supposed to end at teatime on 9 December, carried on through two more nights into the early hours of Sunday morning. A last-ditch compromise among the European Union, India and China over the wording of how a new agreement should be described – the words "legally binding" were replaced by "an agreed outcome with legal force" – enabled the talks to end in consensus.

"Slowly but surely, like it or not, the world is moving forward on climate change, with business now able to seriously calculate the implications of a low- carbon economy," De Boer said. "The meeting in Durban was its usual roller coaster ride, ending with a surprise commitment to continue the Kyoto Protocol, along with a raft of other climate change agreements. While the outcome has signalled a breakthrough for a political consensus on climate change, the outcome for business is only just becoming clear."

He said the agreement at Durban to continue with the Kyoto protocol beyond 2012, when its current provisions expire, would also have a big effect on many companies. "Business can be confident that market-based mechanisms such as the clean development mechanism [under which carbon credits are issued and sold] will continue," he said.

The clean development mechanism has generated billions of dollars in investment in low-carbon technologies around the world since it came into force in 2005, but in the last two years the investment pipeline has all but dried up, because of the uncertainty surrounding the future of the Kyoto protocol.

De Boer said the "Durban platform", the name given to the deal reached there to negotiate a new legal agreement, showed that "an international agreement for global action on climate change is within our reach and should therefore be considered within every forward looking business strategy".

He said: "With a pinch of luck, by 2015 [when the new agreement should be signed] the current economic crisis will be behind us, creating a more benign climate for governments to make commitments the world needs in order to tackle climate change effectively and business needs to survive and prosper."

But he warned that the science of climate change was becoming clearer, making it more obvious that our current efforts to cut emissions have been insufficient, and that much more needs to be done. "Our concrete actions have not taken us anywhere near where we need to be to keep temperature rises below 2ºC [which scientists regard as the limit of safety]," he said.

De Boer stressed the key role for business in tackling global warming, for instance through investments geared to cutting emissions in the developing world. At Durban, countries agreed most of the terms by which money can start to be released under the "green climate fund", under which $100bn a year in financing should flow from the rich to the poor world by 2020. "Prior to the conference it was unclear what role business would play in the fund; the worry was that the private sector would be sidelined," he said. "Thankfully, Durban saw confirmation that the fund will have a facility to fund private sector initiatives. It will seek actively to promote business involvement and catalyse further public and private money."

De Boer said this should mean more public-private partnerships in developing nations working on green growth, which should create jobs, alleviate poverty and improve infrastructure as well as tackling climate change.


Down.

Sunday, 20 March 2011

threes ...

... ree ree ree ree, ree ree ree ree.
Up, Down, Appendices, Postscript.

UN 'Stern Rebuke'A Better WorldMy God! What's Happening To Me!?Brian Gable's cartoons appear regularly in the Globe - one of the few remaining high points there.

I found the Trussels at Politics Daily. They are from Texas: Robert Trussell, a theater critic for the Kansas City Star, from Kingsville; and his wife, Donna, a journalist who grew up in Dallas.

So ... Texans. The last cartoon is telling. Their caricature of Obama is interesting - I like those Betty Boop lips; but what gets my attention are the (three) issues that concern them: 1. End the wars, 2. Redistribute wealth, and 3. Close Guantanamo.

Attack!Seems a strange selection ... (?) ... must be something to do with Texas.

Then there is this Liberal 'attack' ad. "DECEIT, ABUSE, CONTEMPT," they say.

There is no doubt at all about the deceit and contempt. But it leaves me wondering just exactly what constitutes abuse to a cringeing dog? To do with the Liberals wanting to see things in threes maybe? Some strange k-k-Canadian k-k-Cabbala sensibility? Is that it?

L'AfuaL'AfuaL'AfuaPhotos of L'Afua by Sylvie Blum.

I posted these pictures last week - and then at the last moment took them down. What I said (I could be wrong but I don't think an assault will take L'Afua entirely unprepared. Woe betide any who might try it.) didn't seem right ... murky.

L'AfuaL'AfuaL'AfuaSo I clipped them out, but after a week of thinking about it ... I still don't have much to say beyond that.

There is nothing pornographic here, just because she is naked. She is admirable: strong, self-posessed, powerful, expressive, fearless ... a better example for 10 year-old girls such as Maria Aragon (maybe?) than some Lady Gaga zero. I would say so, for my daughter and grand-daughters at least.

Who can say? No certainty here. Nothing left but images plucked from the Internet and wild guesses.

AnonymousAnonymousAnonymousI will spare you the hand-wringing over the human victims of this tragedy - in their tens and hundreds of thousands. Just consider that it is snowing in Japan these days ...

Radiation HazardIn the NYT they call it a 'Dearth of Candor' ... a smattering of political history, a hint of capitalist command & control, bureaucratic structures failing under stress.

Germany has immediately hit the pause button. The United States, UK, Canada, and Ontario have immediately begun weaseling. K-k-Canadians are so forthright & candid, you have to love them for it ... up pops this Globe editorial, seconded by no less than George Monbiot, presenting the self-interested bourgeois view in all of its gorgeous & egregious splendour. So we know exactly what they are thinking; or, since it's not thinking (obviously), exactly what they think they are thinking. The NYT editorial is more reserved, but is running down the same track - to be clear, that would be the 'to hell in a handbasket' track. You can hear the ghost of Gaia, James Lovelock, applauding. Even Gwynne Dyer is ditto-ing - admitting the intractable waste problem and then calling reservations about nuclear power 'superstition'. And here I thought Gwynne Dyer was a smart guy - I guess the fatness I saw when he shared the stage with Elizabeth May was what it looked like - fat.

Why do I say 'obviously' above? Simple. Because no one has any clear idea of what to do with the waste (after fifty and more years thinking about it). Doh!?

Oluwatoyin Pyne.Oluwatoyin Pyne.Oluwatoyin Pyne.This model, anonymous [not, Oluwatoyin Pyne] too, but with a ring in her nose, is presented by Kwesi Abbensetts. What does she think about it all I wonder?

But really, most of us know next to diddley-squat nothing. I cannot make sense of millisieverts (mSv) and millisieverts per hour and Grays (Gy) and Roentgens (R, rem) and the rest, or the subtle differences between Iodine-131 and Cesium-137, or where the Plutonium-238 thru 244 goes, or where the steel goes when they get around to decommissioning - India one presumes, for dilution and recycling, or maybe into bullets (to replace spent Uranium, is that it?).

Lookout Popeye!Radiation levels in Tokyo are 20 times 'normal' background. What does that mean? Radiation levels in Lake Ontario are double what they were 10 (?) years ago. What does that mean?

At first it was the Japanese bureaucrats & industrialists & politicians who were saying nothing about what they probably did not know anyway; now it is the Americans with their more-or-less accurate spy-plane & satellite data who are not saying much.

Japanese spinach is increasingly radioactive apparently - Lookout Popeye!

Ted GruetznerTed GruetznerTed GruetznerOh and here's Ted Gruetzner of Ontario Power Generation (OPG) who tells us there is no reason for concern, none at all, none whatsoever, over the swimming pool-full of Tritium laced water they accidentally dumped into Lake Ontario this week (last week?). And they're so sorry they waited so long to tell us. By my count this kind of 'accident' happens once or twice every year - every day according to some reports.

Don TerryDon TerryDon TerryAnd this is Don Terry, another spokesman for OPG, saying about the same ... "There's no problem here ev'ree-budee, nope nope nope. Please put down the weapons, clear the area, and return to your houses."

You can catch their act here at CTV, and on YouTube.

How can anyone believe a word these people say? What planet do they inhabit? What fucking language is it that are they speaking?

There is a reason that 'twit' and 'Twitter' have the samme root.Smug Spineless & Supercilious Twits!
Dipshit Mealy-Mouthed Weasels!

(dipshit and mealy-mouthed are in the OED in case you don't know what these words mean)

And yet another unit enters the fray; what is a Becquerel (Bq)? And how many of them per litre am I getting in my drinking water?

Wikipedia tells me "Naturally occurring tritium is extremely rare on Earth, where trace amounts are formed by the interaction of the atmosphere with cosmic rays." So how then did we get to have an 'acceptable' level of release of Tritium other than damn well zero? How does the 'acceptable limit' get to be 7,000 bequerels when there used to be just about absolutely no Tritium in the water at all?
Doh!? ... Doh¡¿   WTF?

When the shit hits the fan they will all just say it was "an unprecedented sequence of natural events" - God did it.

A-and the last word on nuclear risks goes to The Onion.

Brett Gundlock, PrisonersBrett Gundlock, PrisonersBrett Gundlock, PrisonersBrett Gundlock made portraits of twenty of the G20 prisoners arrested last summer. Ten of them are displayed at the Communication Art Gallery, a tiny room near the corner of Bathurst and Harbord streets in Toronto watched over by a pleasant & articulate young woman - worth a visit.

About a thousand people were plucked off the streets of this city last summer, almost every last one of them entirely innocent. They were dragged to a (temporary?) concentration camp by thugs disguised as police officers. Eight months ago, nine months ago, and Bill Blair, mein scheisse kopf führer Chief of Police, still has damn-all nothing to say about it ... here's a question for y'all: Just how long does gestation take in k-k-Canada?

Catarina Efigénia Sabino EufémiaCatarina Efigénia Sabino EufémiaCatarina Efigénia Sabino EufémiaCatarina Efigénia Sabino Eufémia was murdered by police in 1954. Who cares? It was a long time ago. The son of a bitch who did it, a lieutenant no less, was never tried.

I am left wondering ... if all of it simply means nothing at all. I can't find a way yet to walk around Suzuki's remark that we have been at it for fifty years and things are getting worse.

Whatever.

I watched V For Vendetta again. I didn't get it the first time, nor this time neither; it is not intended to be 'gotten' maybe, if indeed anything is intended. How skinny is Natalie Portman at all? But I bet she is a plump little butterball baleboste by the time she is 60.

"If he will not other wayes confesse, the gentle tortures are to be first usid unto him, & sic per gradus ad ima tenditur," (King James I, referring to Guy Fawkes, November 1605) and "A penny for the Old Guy," (T.S. Eliot, The Hollow Men, 1925, referring to god knows what.)

This poem has been posted here before, but since it seems to require 15 minutes or so to find using the state-of-the-art search tools provided ... here it is again:

Nothing has been broken
        though one of the links of the chain
is a blue butterfly

Here he was attacked
        They smiled as they came and retired
baffled with blue dust

The banks so familiar with metal
        they made for the wings
The thick vaults fluttered

The pretty girls advanced
        their fingers cupped
They bled from the mouth as though struck

The jury asked for pity
        and touched and were electrocuted
by the blue antennae

A thrust at any link
        might have brought him down
but each of you aimed at the blue butterfly
 Nada se partiu
        ainda que um dos elos da corrente
fosse uma borboleta azul

Aqui o cercaram
        Sorriam ao chegar e em retirada
confundidos pela poeira azul

Mesmo os bancos tão íntimos do metal
        que usaram nas asas
suas espessas arcadas estremeceram

Lindas jovens avançavam
        seus dedos como ventosas
Suas bocas sangravam como se estivessem feridas

O júri pedia clemencia
        tocava e era eletrocutado
pelas antenas azuis

Um ataque em qualquer elo
        poderia tê-lo abatido
mas cada um de vocês mirava a borboleta azul

Hiroshi WatanabeHiroshi WatanabeAretha FranklinI have posted the tensegrity photograph once or twice before too - it turns out to have been taken by Hiroshi Watanabe (here), and a copy of the contact print showed up as well. Taken in Parque El Arbolito, Quito, Ecuador. Here is another photo of the structure.

ree ree ree ree, ree ree ree ree :-)Aretha is still the queen of soul; and if you listen carefully you will hear the "ree ree ree ree, ree ree ree ree" there in the background, not in triplets ... ok.

Be well gentle reader.

Postscript:

There is news from Brasil (here and here) ... but it will have to wait.

Globe Begone!Globe Begone!In the meantime, the New York Times is getting ready to charge for access: $15/month by the looks of it. A watershed moment. I think I will pay the price.

The Globe and Mail has sunk so low, particularly on the science-related issues that matter most to me; renewable energy, climate change, nuclear energy; and while the NYT may very well be no less bourgeois in its collective sensibility ... they do seem to be capable of moderating comments effectively. I wonder how they do it?

Globe Begone!Globe Begone!Time and well past time for the Globe to take down this masthead: "The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures." Junius.

This is not a sudden decision; arbitrary maybe but not sudden. I stopped subscribing several years ago - when they fired Edward Greenspon. And I have noted the departures of such stalwarts as Rick Salutin and more-or-less humble citizens such as Alan Burke.

They should lose the masthead; but in the same way that I always viewed Richard Nixon as a perfectly fitting President for the United States, a kind of epitome, I think they should keep the sobriquet k-k-"Canada's National Newspaper" - I'll give Phillip Crawley & John Stackhouse just exactly that much.


Appendices:

1. Dearth of Candor From Japan’s Leadership, Hiroko Tabuchi & Ken Belson & Norimitsu Onishi, March 16 2011.


2. The nuclear risk merits actions, but not global shutdowns, Globe Editorial, March 14 2011.


3. Japan nuclear crisis should not carry weight in atomic energy debate, George Monbiot, March 16 2011.


4. Nuclear Energy Advocates Insist U.S. Reactors Completely Safe Unless Something Bad Happens, The Onion, March 17 2011.


5. Early Questions After Japan, NYT Editorial, March 17 2011.


6. Nuclear power debate amid Japan crisis ruled by superstition, Gwynne Dyer, March 17 2011.




Dearth of Candor From Japan’s Leadership, Hiroko Tabuchi & Ken Belson & Norimitsu Onishi, March 16 2011.

TOKYO — With all the euphemistic language on display from officials handling Japan’s nuclear crisis, one commodity has been in short supply: information.

When an explosion shook one of many stricken reactors at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant on Saturday, power company officials initially offered a typically opaque, and understated, explanation.

“A big sound and white smoke” were recorded near Reactor No. 1, the plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power, announced in a curt memo. The matter “was under investigation,” it added.

Foreign nuclear experts, the Japanese press and an increasingly angry and rattled Japanese public are frustrated by government and power company officials’ failure to communicate clearly and promptly about the nuclear crisis. Pointing to conflicting reports, ambiguous language and a constant refusal to confirm the most basic facts, they suspect officials of withholding or fudging crucial information about the risks posed by the ravaged Daiichi plant.

The sound and white smoke on Saturday turned out to be the first in a series of explosions that set off a desperate struggle to bring four reactors under control after their cooling systems were knocked out by the earthquake and tsunami.

Evasive news conferences followed uninformative briefings as the crisis intensified over the past five days. Never has postwar Japan needed strong, assertive leadership more — and never has its weak, rudderless system of governing been so clearly exposed. With earthquake, tsunami and nuclear crisis striking in rapid, bewildering succession, Japan’s leaders need skills they are not trained to have: rallying the public, improvising solutions and cooperating with powerful bureaucracies.

“Japan has never experienced such a serious test,” said Takeshi Sasaki, a political scientist at Gakushuin University. “At the same time, there is a leadership vacuum.”

Politicians are almost completely reliant on Tokyo Electric Power, which is known as Tepco, for information, and have been left to report what they are told, often in unconvincing fashion.

In a telling outburst, the prime minister, Naoto Kan, berated power company officials for not informing the government of two explosions at the plant early Tuesday morning.

“What in the world is going on?” Mr. Kan said in front of journalists, complaining that he saw television reports of the explosions before he had heard about them from the power company. He was speaking at the inauguration of a central response center of government ministers and Tepco executives that he set up and pointedly said he would command.

The chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency said late Tuesday in a press conference in Vienna that his agency was struggling to get timely information from Japan about its failing reactors, which has resulted in agency misstatements.

“I am asking the Japanese counterparts to further strengthen, to facilitate, communication,” said the agency’s chief, Yukiya Amano. A diplomat in Vienna familiar with the agency’s operations echoed those sentiments.

“It’s so frustrating to try to get good information” from the Japanese, the diplomat said, speaking on the condition of anonymity so as not to antagonize officials there.

The less-than-straight talk is rooted in a conflict-averse culture that avoids direct references to unpleasantness. Until recently, it was standard practice not to tell cancer patients about their diagnoses, ostensibly to protect them from distress. Even Emperor Hirohito, when he spoke to his subjects for the first time to mark Japan’s surrender in World War II, spoke circumspectly, asking Japanese to “endure the unendurable.”

There are also political considerations. In the only nation that has endured an atomic bomb attack, acute sensitivity about radiation sickness may be motivating public officials to try to contain panic — and to perform political damage control. Left-leaning news outlets have long been skeptical of nuclear power and of its backers, and the mutual mistrust led power companies and their regulators to tightly control the flow of information about nuclear operations so as not to inflame a spectrum of opponents that includes pacifists and environmentalists.

“It’s a Catch-22,” said Kuni Yogo, a former nuclear power planner at Japan’s Science and Technology Agency. He said that the government and Tepco “try to disclose only what they think is necessary, while the media, which has an antinuclear tendency, acts hysterically, which leads the government and Tepco to not offer more information.”

The Japanese government has also decided to limit the flow of information to the public about the reactors, having concluded that too many briefings will distract Tepco from its task of bringing the reactors under control, said a senior nuclear industry executive.

At a Tepco briefing on Wednesday, tempers ran high among reporters. Their questions focused on the plumes of steam seen rising from Daiichi’s Reactor No. 3, but there were few answers.

“We cannot confirm,” an official insisted. “It is impossible for me to say anything at this point,” another said. And as always, there was an effusive apology: “We are so sorry for causing you bother.”

“There are too many things you cannot confirm!” one frustrated reporter replied in an unusually strong tone that perhaps signaled that ritual apologies had no place in a nuclear crisis.

Yukio Edano, the outspoken chief cabinet secretary, has been one voice of relative clarity. But at times, he has seemed unable to make sense of the fast-evolving crisis. And even he has spoken too ambiguously for foreign news media.

On Wednesday, Mr. Edano told a press conference that radiation levels had spiked because of smoke billowing from Reactor No. 3 at Fukushima Daiichi, and that all staff members would be temporarily moved “to a safe place.” When he did not elaborate, some foreign reporters, perhaps further confused by the English translator from NHK, the national broadcaster, interpreted his remarks as meaning that Tepco staff members were leaving the plant.

From CNN to The Associated Press to Al Jazeera, panicky headlines shouted that the Fukushima Daiichi plant was being abandoned, in stark contrast to the calm maintained by Japanese media, perhaps better at navigating the nuances of the vague comments.

After checking with nuclear regulators and Tepco itself, it emerged that the plant’s staff members had briefly taken cover indoors within the plant, but had in no way abandoned it.

The close links between politicians and business executives have further complicated the management of the nuclear crisis.

Powerful bureaucrats retire to better-paid jobs in the very industries they once oversaw, in a practice known as “amakudari.” Perhaps no sector had closer relations with regulators than the country’s utilities; regulators and the regulated worked hand in hand to promote nuclear energy, since both were keen to reduce Japan’s heavy reliance on fossil fuels.

Postwar Japan flourished under a system in which political leaders left much of the nation’s foreign policy to the United States and domestic affairs to powerful bureaucrats. Prominent companies operated with an extensive reach into personal lives; their executives were admired for their roles as corporate citizens.

But over the past decade or so, the bureaucrats’ authority has been greatly reduced, and corporations have lost both power and swagger as the economy has floundered.

Yet no strong political class has emerged to take their place. Four prime ministers have come and gone in less than four years; most political analysts had already written off the fifth, Mr. Kan, even before the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster.

Two years ago, Mr. Kan’s Japan Democratic Party swept out the virtual one-party rule of the Liberal Democratic Party, which had dominated Japanese political life for 50 years.

But the lack of continuity and inexperience in governing have hobbled Mr. Kan’s party. The only long-serving group within the government is the bureaucracy, which has been, at a minimum, mistrustful of the party.

“It’s not in their DNA to work with anybody other than the Liberal Democrats,” said Noriko Hama, an economist at Doshisha University.

Neither Mr. Kan nor the bureaucracy has had a hand in planning the rolling residential blackouts in the Tokyo region; the responsibility has been left to Tepco. Unlike the orderly blackouts in the 1970s, the current ones have been carried out with little warning, heightening the public anxiety and highlighting the lack of a trusted leader capable of sharing information about the scope of the disaster and the potential threats to people’s well-being.

“The mistrust of the government and Tepco was already there before the crisis, and people are even angrier now because of the inaccurate information they’re getting,” said Susumu Hirakawa, a professor of psychology at Taisho University.

But the absence of a galvanizing voice is also the result of the longstanding rivalries between bureaucrats and politicians, and between various ministries that tend to operate as fiefdoms.

“There’s a clear lack of command authority in the current government in Tokyo,” said Ronald Morse, who has worked in the Defense, Energy and State Departments in the United States and in two government ministries in Japan. “The magnitude of it becomes obvious at a time like this.”


The nuclear risk merits actions, but not global shutdowns, Globe Editorial, March 14 2011.

Practically alone among nations, the people of Japan know firsthand the terrible consequences of splitting the atom. As they grieve the thousands dead and the destroyed communities from another, natural, disaster, there are new concerns about nuclear energy – this time, from explosions and partial meltdowns at two of Japan’s nuclear power stations after Friday’s earthquake and tsunami. The situation at the Fukushima reactors is serious, even dire, but it ought not to sound the death knell of nuclear power, or delay the construction of new nuclear facilities.

With little hydroelectric capacity, depleted coal reserves, a still nascent wind and solar industry, a small land area and considerable energy needs, nuclear power makes a lot of sense for Japan. It can usually deliver on its promise of affordable, emissions-light energy to power 25 to 30 per cent of Japan’s electricity needs.

No energy source is perfect, and today it is easy to forget that extracting energy from other sources is demonstrably dangerous in the short run (witness the worldwide death toll, in the thousands annually, from explosions in coal mines and at oil and gas facilities), and, due to global warming exacerbated by the burning of fossil fuels, in the long run.

Even at Fukushima, Japan’s structural engineering skill was on display; it was the tsunami, and not the earthquake, that caused the most damage. But two critical planning oversights – the failure to provide for sufficient back-up power on- and off-site, and the placing of back-up power too close to the shoreline – appear to have contributed to the partial meltdown. Human error, in combination with the rare extremity of Friday’s events, is causing Japan’s nuclear crisis.

But it is important to note that, so far, nothing has happened that could not have been predicted. There are few “unknown unknowns” or unforeseeable risks; indeed, we know the deadly, pervasive risk of the spread of radioactive material, and that awareness is driving the massive containment effort. We just need to account for those risks better.

So rather than forsake nuclear power altogether, all nuclear nations should re-evaluate the risks most germane to their facilities. The situation in Japan is still terrifying and fluid. But it is a good time to recognize that nuclear power is neither a saviour nor an anathema, as proclaimed by competing evangelists. It is a necessary energy source, though not without great risks – and those risks come from both natural and human sources.


Japan nuclear crisis should not carry weight in atomic energy debate, George Monbiot, March 16 2011.

Nuclear power remains far safer than coal. The awful events in Fukushima must not spook governments considering atomic energy

The nuclear disaster unfolding in Japan is bad enough; the nuclear disaster unfolding in China could be even worse.

"What disaster?", you may ask. The decision taken today by the Chinese government to suspend approval of new atomic power plants. If this suspension were to become permanent, the power those plants would have produced is likely to be replaced by burning coal. While nuclear causes calamities when it goes wrong, coal causes calamities when it goes right, and coal goes right a lot more often than nuclear goes wrong. The only safe coal-fired plant is one which has broken down past the point of repair.

Before I go any further, and I'm misinterpreted for the thousandth time, let me spell out once again what my position is. I have not gone nuclear. But, as long as the following four conditions are met, I will no longer oppose atomic energy.

1. Its total emissions – from mine to dump – are taken into account, and demonstrate that it is a genuinely low-carbon option,


2. We know exactly how and where the waste is to be buried,


3. We know how much this will cost and who will pay,


4. There is a legal guarantee that no civil nuclear materials will be diverted for military purposes.




To these I'll belatedly add a fifth, which should have been there all along: no plants should be built in fault zones, on tsunami-prone coasts, on eroding seashores or those likely to be inundated before the plant has been decommissioned or any other places which are geologically unsafe. This should have been so obvious that it didn't need spelling out. But we discover, yet again, that the blindingly obvious is no guarantee that a policy won't be adopted.

I despise and fear the nuclear industry as much as any other green: all experience hath shown that, in most countries, the companies running it are a corner-cutting bunch of scumbags, whose business originated as a by-product of nuclear weapons manufacture. But, sound as the roots of the anti-nuclear movement are, we cannot allow historical sentiment to shield us from the bigger picture. Even when nuclear power plants go horribly wrong, they do less damage to the planet and its people than coal-burning stations operating normally.

Coal, the most carbon-dense of fossil fuels, is the primary driver of human-caused climate change. If its combustion is not curtailed, it could kill millions of times more people than nuclear power plants have done so far. Yes, I really do mean millions. The Chernobyl meltdown was hideous and traumatic. The official death toll so far appears to be 43 – 28 workers in the initial few months then a further 15 civilians by 2005. Totally unacceptable, of course; but a tiny fraction of the deaths for which climate change is likely to be responsible, through its damage to the food supply, its contribution to the spread of infectious diseases and its degradation of the quality of life for many of the world's poorest people.

Coal also causes plenty of other environmental damage, far worse than the side effects of nuclear power production: from mountaintop removal to acid rain and heavy metal pollution. An article in Scientific American points out that the fly ash produced by a coal-burning power plant "carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy".

Of course it's not a straight fight between coal and nuclear. There are plenty of other ways of producing electricity, and I continue to place appropriate renewables above nuclear power in my list of priorities. We must also make all possible efforts to reduce consumption. But we'll still need to generate electricity, and not all renewable sources are appropriate everywhere. While producing solar power makes perfect sense in north Africa, in the UK, by comparison to both wind and nuclear, it's a waste of money and resources. Abandoning nuclear power as an option narrows our choices just when we need to be thinking as broadly as possible.

Several writers for the Guardian have made what I believe is an unjustifiable leap. A disaster has occurred in a plant that was appallingly sited in an earthquake zone; therefore, they argue, all nuclear power programmes should be abandoned everywhere. It looks to me as if they are jumping on this disaster as support for a pre-existing position they hold for other reasons. Were we to follow their advice, we would rule out a low-carbon source of energy, which could help us tackle the gravest threat the world now faces. That does neither the people nor the places of the world any favours.


Nuclear Energy Advocates Insist U.S. Reactors Completely Safe Unless Something Bad Happens, The Onion, March 17 2011.

WASHINGTON — Responding to the ongoing nuclear crisis in Japan, officials from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission sought Thursday to reassure nervous Americans that U.S. reactors were 100 percent safe and posed absolutely no threat to the public health as long as no unforeseeable system failure or sudden accident were to occur. "With the advanced safeguards we have in place, the nuclear facilities in this country could never, ever become a danger like those in Japan, unless our generators malfunctioned in an unexpected yet catastrophic manner, causing the fuel rods to melt down," said NRC chairman Gregory Jaczko, insisting that nuclear power remained a clean, harmless energy source that could only lead to disaster if events were to unfold in the exact same way they did in Japan, or in a number of other terrifying and totally plausible scenarios that have taken place since the 1950s. "When you consider all of our backup cooling processes, containment vessels, and contingency plans, you realize that, barring the fact that all of those safety measures could be wiped away in an instant by a natural disaster or electrical error, our reactors are indestructible." Jaczko added that U.S. nuclear power plants were also completely guarded against any and all terrorist attacks, except those no one could have predicted.


Early Questions After Japan, NYT Editorial, March 17 2011.

As Japan’s nuclear crisis unfolds, nations around the world are looking at the safety of their nuclear reactors — as they should. But most are also waiting until all the facts are in before deciding whether or how to change their nuclear plans. The Obama administration has vowed to learn from the Japanese experience and incorporate new safety approaches if needed.

That makes sense to us — so long as there is rigorous follow-through. The operator of the stricken plant, the Tokyo Electric Power Company, and the Japanese government have been disturbingly opaque about what is happening at the Fukushima Daiichi complex and about efforts to prevent a meltdown and the potential public threat.

That has deepened anxieties in Japan and around the world and led the United States government to take the extraordinary step of announcing that the damage to at least one of the crippled reactors may be far worse than Tokyo had admitted — and urging Americans there to move further away from the official safety perimeter.

Still, enough is known to begin raising questions about our own nuclear operations. We hope regulators and industry leaders are equally forthcoming about this country’s vulnerabilities and challenges.

One of the first questions is whether current evacuation plans are robust enough. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires plant operators to alert the public within a 10-mile radius if a dangerous plume of radioactivity will be heading their way, and local officials decide whether to order an evacuation. The American Embassy in Japan, based on advice from Washington regulators, has told Americans there to evacuate to a radius of about 50 miles from the Fukushima plant.

Why wouldn’t a worst-case accident here merit the same caution? The difficulty, of course, is that some plants — including Indian Point north of New York City — are within 50 miles of millions of people. Regulators will need to clarify this discrepancy or start coming up with more ambitious evacuation plans.

Regulators need to immediately review their safety analyses of two California plants, which, like the Fukushima plant, are located on the coast and near geological faults and might theoretically face the double calamity of an earthquake and tsunami.

The type of reactors used at the Fukushima plant — made by the General Electric Company, they are known as Mark 1 boiling-water reactors — have long been known to have weak containment systems. In Japan, they appear to have been ruptured by explosions of escaping hydrogen. American regulators will need to determine whether similar reactors in this country are vulnerable and whether modifications in newer versions have made them sufficiently safe.

The stricken Japanese complex housed six reactors in close proximity; explosions, fires and radiation spread damage among four of them and has made rescue efforts harder. Regulators will need to look at whether American nuclear plants with multiple reactors are vulnerable to the same cascading effects. In recent days, a new danger has emerged in the spent fuel pools adjacent to the reactors. At least one has apparently lost its cooling water and another is cracked and possibly losing water. If the fuel catches fire, it could spew radiation over a large area. Regulators here may need to expedite the removal of some spent fuel from pools to dry storage in casks.

So far, the all-important lesson would seem to be: have sufficient emergency power at hand to keep cooling water circulating in the reactors to prevent a meltdown.

The Japanese reactors seem to have survived one of the most powerful earthquakes ever recorded without major structural damage. The crisis developed because the plant lost electrical power from the grid and the tsunami knocked out its backup diesel generators. American regulators must ensure that all nuclear plants have enough mobile generators or other backup power in place if their first two lines of defense are disabled.


Nuclear power debate amid Japan crisis ruled by superstition, Gwynne Dyer, March 17 2011.

Suppose that a giant hydro dam had crumbled under the impact of the biggest earthquake in a century and sent a wave of water racing down some valley in northern Japan. Imagine that whole villages and towns had been swept away, and that 10,000 people were killed — an even worse death toll than that caused by the tsunami that hit the coastal towns.

Would there be a great outcry worldwide, demanding that reservoirs be drained and hydro dams shut down? Of course not. Do you think we are superstitious savages? We are educated, civilized people, and we understand the way that risk works.

Okay, another thought experiment. Suppose that three big nuclear power reactors were damaged in that same monster earthquake, leading to concerns about a meltdown and a massive release of radiation—a new Chernobyl. Everybody within a 20-kilometre radius of the plant was evacuated, but in the end there were only minor leakages of radiation, and nobody was killed.

Well, that was a pretty convincing demonstration of the safety of nuclear power, wasn’t it? Well, wasn’t it? You there in the loincloth, with the bone through your nose. Why are you looking so frightened? Is something wrong?

In Germany, tens of thousands of protesters demonstrated against nuclear power last Saturday (March 12), and Chancellor Angela Merkel suspended her policy of extending the life of the country’s nuclear power stations until 2036. She conceded that, following events in Japan, it was not possible to “go back to business as usual”, meaning that she may return to the original plan to close down all 17 of Germany’s nuclear power plants by 2020.

In Britain, energy secretary Chris Huhne took a more measured approach: “As Europe seeks to remove carbon based fuels from its economy, there is a long term debate about finding the right mix between nuclear energy and energy generated from renewable sources....The events of the last few days haven’t done the nuclear industry any favours.” I wouldn’t invest in the promised new generation of nuclear power plants in Britain either.

And in the United States, Congressmen Henry Waxman and Ed Markey (Democratic), who cosponsored the 2009 climate bill, called for hearings into the safety and preparedness of America’s nuclear plants, 23 of which have similar designs to the stricken Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan.

The alleged “nuclear renaissance” of the past few years was always a bit of a mirage so far as the West was concerned. China and India have big plans for nuclear energy, with dozens of reactors under construction and many more planned. In the United States, by contrast, there was no realistic expectation that more than four to six new reactors would be built in the next decade even before the current excitements.

The objections to a wider use of nuclear power in the United States are mostly rational. Safety worries are a much smaller obstacle than concerns about cost and time: nuclear plants are enormously expensive, and they take the better part of a decade to license and build. Huge cost overruns are normal, and government aid, in the form of loan guarantees and insurance coverage for catastrophic accidents, is almost always necessary.

The cost of wind and solar power is steadily dropping, and the price of natural gas, the least noxious fossil-fuel alternative to nuclear power, has been in free fall. There is no need for a public debate in the United States on the desirability of more nuclear power: just let the market decide. In Europe, however, there is a real debate, and the wrong side is winning it.

The European debate has focussed on shutting down existing nuclear generating capacity, not installing more of it. The German and Swedish governments may be forced by public opinion to revive the former policy of phasing out all their nuclear power plants in the near future, even though that means postponing the shut-down of highly polluting coal-fired power plants. Other European governments face similar pressures.

It’s a bad bargain. Hundreds of miners die every year digging the coal out of the ground, and hundreds of thousands of other people die annually from respiratory diseases caused by the pollution created by burning it. In the long run, hundreds of millions may die from the global warming that is driven in large part by greenhouse emissions from coal-fired power plants. Yet people worry more about nuclear power.

It’s the same sort of mistaken assessment of risk that caused millions of Americans to drive long distances instead of flying in the months just after 9/11. There were several thousand excess road deaths, while nobody died in the airplanes that had been avoided as too dangerous. Risks should be assessed rationally, not emotionally.

And here’s the funny thing. So long as the problems at Fukushima Daiichi do not kill large numbers of people, the Japanese will not turn against nuclear power, which currently provides over 30 percent of their electricity and is scheduled to expand to 40 percent. Their islands get hit by more big earthquakes than anywhere else on Earth, and the typhoons roar in regularly off the Pacific. They understand about risk.


Down