Thursday, November 22, 2012
2016
Political campaigns are designedly made into emotional orgies which endeavor to distract attention from the real issues involved, and they actually paralyze what slight powers of cerebration man can normally muster.
— James Harvey Robinson, The Human Comedy
Herewith an update on the presidential election of 2016. Although it may seem to some a bit early to focus on such things given the fact that it is less than one month since the last election, news events suggest the next campaign is in full swing. The new season started less than a week following the election.
On November 11, 2012, a piece by Steve Holland published by Reuters had the eye catching headline “2016: Who’s in play?” For those suffering political withdrawal it was like a drink from the fountain of eternal campaigns. It named 6 Republicans who might become candidates with a brief description of their qualities and 5 Democrats with similar descriptions. The named Republicans were Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal and Condoleezza Rice. The Democrats were Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Martin O’Malley, Mark Warner and Andrew Cuomo. With the publication of those 11 names political junkies get an idea of whom they should be tracking during the next four years. Of course, there is still the possibility that an outsider not yet identified will enter the arena but anyone who hasn’t already made his/her intentions known will be at a distinct disadvantage.
In addition to the identification of candidates by Mr. Holland, another indication of presidential intentions can be found by keeping track of who’s going to Iowa. A visit to Iowa by a politician gives a clear indication of the visitor’s interest in things presidential since no one goes to Iowa in November as a tourist. In connection with the 2016 presidential election, the first politician to indicate his interest in being the next president of the United States (rather than simply being identified in the Reuters piece) is Marco Rubio of Florida. Before all the recounting of disputed ballots from the 2012 election had been completed, he packed his suitcase, left sunny Florida and went to Iowa. He said he was going to Iowa to participate in a birthday celebration for Iowa governor Terry Branstad who turned 66. Mr. Rubio carefully explained that his visit had nothing to do with any presidential ambitions. According to Governor Banstead, the event raised more than $600,000, more than the governor said he “had raised before in any single event.” Observers said this was the first chance Mr. Rubio had to “woo” Iowa voters and the governor said he “hit a homerun.” Although it is too soon to anoint him the Republican nominee since the other five may also be planning on heading for Iowa, being the first to make the pilgrimage it certainly gives him a leg up, more especially since he hit a “homerun.”
I would be remiss if I did not address the equally important question of who is likely to be the Democratic candidate out of the five identified above. For the answer to that question we turn to the Buffalo News. Six days after the election the paper made its formal endorsement of Hillary Clinton for president in 2016. And Hillary didn’t even have to go to Iowa. In an editorial published exactly one week after the election the Buffalo News said “it’s not too early to be thinking about who would make an excellent candidate for the presidency in 2016.” Since the editorial was accompanied by a picture of Hillary Clinton it was not necessary to read to the end to figure out of whom the editors were thinking. For the slow of wit, however, the editors made it plain when, after listing all her accomplishments the editorial concluded: “For the country’s sake, and because she clearly is the best candidate, we hope the competing factions in national Democratic politics will coalesce to make her the nominee.” With than endorsement virtually clinching it for Hillary (if the suggested coalescence takes place as one would hope) the country will be spared a divisive and extended campaign on the Democratic side. That will enable the country to focus all its attention on the Republican contest and if Republicans are as tired as the rest of us at the prospect of four more years of campaigning they might decide to reward Marco for his early visit to Iowa by simply agreeing that he will be their candidate.
The only downside to such early selections would be that they deprive us of the opportunity to learn what the positions of the other candidates might have been had they been permitted to participate. Given the lack of substance in the 2012 campaigns and the likelihood of a similar lack in connection with the 2016 election, that is a small price to pay for political silence.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Soldiers, Sex and E-mails
Amoebas at the start
Were not complex;
They tore themselves apart
And started sex.
— Arthur Guiterman, Sex
It is good it all came to light just after the elections were over. The media would really not have had the time to simultaneously give the election and sex the extensive coverage they richly deserve. Elections are, of course, happily behind us and we can focus all our attention on sex.
When last we examined the subject of sex and public faces, we were enjoying the explanations of Messr. Strauss Kahn and his lawyer about Mr. Strauss Kahn’s attendance at assorted sex parties in France and elsewhere. In explaining that he didn’t realize there were prostitutes in attendance at those gala events Mr. Strauss Kahn explained that he often arrived late when attendees were no longer fully clothed. His lawyer further explained that “At these parties, people were not necessarily dressed, and I defy you to tell the difference between a naked prostitute and any other naked woman.” Apparently in France, at least, prostitutes wear distinctive markings on their clothing that enable the casual observer-participant to know in what line of work they are engaged. We have now learned that the pleasures of the flesh enjoyed by Mr. Strauss Kahn have not been strangers to France’s former Minister of Justice, Rachida Dati.
Three days after the U.S. election an Associated Press report described in some detail the love life of Rachida Dati. While serving as Justice Minister she gave birth to a daughter and is now suing to force Dominique Desseigne, a multimillionaire businessman to submit to a paternity test. He is resisting her efforts and a hearing will be held in December to determine whether or not he can be forced to comply. The French paper Le Monde reported that at the same time she was seeing Desseigne, Ms. Dati was involved with a number of other suitors. In response to those stories Ms. Dati said, appropriately: I have a complicated private life.” She went on to say: “What bothers them about me? That I have a life. .. that I’m a free woman.” She is of course right and she and Messr. Straus Kahn demonstrate that we in the U.S. are excessively up tight about such matters.
The same day we learned of Ms. Dati’s affair we learned that David Petraeus was resigning as director of the CIA because of an affair he had carried on with his biographer, Paula Broadwell. That came to light because Ms. Broadwell had sent e mails to Jill Kelley, a woman in Tampa Florida telling her to mind her public manners and stay away from General Petraeus. Those e mails caused Jill Kelley such discomfort that she reported them to an FBI agent who was also such a good social friend that he had, some months earlier, sent her e mails of himself shirtless. He caused an investigation into the e mails (not the ones he sent) to be conducted.
A few days later it was disclosed that Ms. Kelley, herself someone star struck by stars on uniforms, had exchanged 30,000 pages of e mails with General John Allen, the general who replaced General Petraeus in Afghanistan and who had been nominated to be the NATO Supreme Allied Commander for Europe. That seems like an awful lot of pages and some wondered whether they bespoke a relationship that was more than literary. (That very same day it was announced , Lockheed Martin’s incoming chief executive was to be its outgoing chief executive without having spent so much as one day on the job since his new position was not to begin until January 1. His resignation was effective on November 9, the day it was disclosed that he had had what was described as an “improper relationship” with a subordinate. Although the word “improper” was not defined, someone familiar with the company said he had been in a long-standing relationship with a female employee who is no longer with the company.) What the United States lacks is perspective. We used to have it.
The day after General Petraeus resigned from the CIA the New York Times reported that he was not the first CIA director to engage in conduct that didn’t involve spying. Allen Dulles, who was its director in the 1950s and ‘60s, had, what was described by his sister, as “at least a hundred” affairs. Although many of them preceded his tenure as director of the CIA he enjoyed at least a few while serving in that capacity. They included, according to the NYT, Clare Booth Luce and Queen Frederika of Greece. In those days no one cared. They didn’t care because it didn’t make any difference. It still doesn’t make any difference. It just give journalists something to write about and famous figures an opportunity to express contrition for the human condition.
The French have much better attitudes about sex than do we. They also have much better food.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Soothsayers, Science and Skeptics
Religious feeling is as much a verity as any other part of human consciousness; and against it, on the subjective side, the waves of science beat in vain.
—John Tyndall, Science and Man (1863)
2012 has been a tough year for science. It took a direct hit in Italy, escaped, temporarily, in North Carolina and had a minor set back in Virginia. It was an especially tough time for scientific soothsayers in Italy and North Carolina. In Italy they’re off to prison and in North Carolina they’re muzzled.
Italy proves that soothsaying can be as hazardous as the perils it predicts. In that country the fate of six soothsayers and one government official was decided by a judge on October 22, 2012, four hours following the conclusion of a 13-month trial. The case pertained to the failure of the 7 men to accurately predict the April 6, 2009 earthquake in L’Aquila in central Italy.
Six days before the L’Aquila earthquake struck, Italy’s National Commission for the Forecast and Prevention of Major Risks held a meeting in L’Aquila at which the 7 men were in attendance. Ernest Boschi, the former head of the National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology, and one of the men convicted in the trial, was asked if the tremors that had been occurring in L’Aquila during the preceding several months presaged an earthquake similar to the 1703 earthquake that had devastated the town. In response to the question Dr. Boschi said: “It is unlikely that an earthquake like the one in 1703 could occur in the short term, but the possibility cannot be totally excluded.” That meeting and comments made by the scientists reassured an anxious public and evacuation plans were abandoned. Dr. Boschi was right to say the possibility could not be excluded. The earthquake came 6 days later, measured 5.8 on the Richter scale and resulted in 300 deaths, 1500 people injured, 80,000 made homeless and extensive property damage. Following their trial and conviction the seven men were sentenced to six years in prison and ordered to pay 7.8 million Euros. The case is now on appeal.
Long before that case was decided, North Carolina began considering what could properly be called a Scientific Soothsayer Protection Act known as House Bill 819. When first introduced, and until amended in July 2012, it outlawed soothsaying in determining future sea level rises although the goal had nothing to do with protecting scientists from lawsuits in case they got it wrong.
When scientists begin projecting what the sea level will be along the North Carolina coast by 2100, the Coastal Resources Commission of North Carolina issued a report that was based on computer models and came up with the troubling projection that the state should plan for a rise in the sea level of 39 inches by 2100, a rise considerably greater than what would have been projected based solely on extrapolating from the rise that had taken place since the beginning of the 20th Century. The projection alarmed (a) developers who feared those projections would imperil development on the coast and (b) legislators who don’t believe in global warming. Accordingly, a bill was introduced entitled “Sea-level policy restrictions; calculation of rate of sea level rise.” The act said, among other things, that no “State agency, board, commission, institution, or other public entity thereof shall adopt any rule, policy, or planning guideline addressing sea-level rise, unless authorized to do so under this Article.” The article banned the named entities from considering the possibility that climate change might accelerate sea level rise saying the rates of rise could only be based on historical data post 1900. In July the legislature succumbed to ridicule. The language was changed. The reference to “calculation of rate of sea-level rise” was removed from the title and instead of an outright ban on using science to calculate sea level rise, the state regulatory agencies were not permitted to “define rates of sea-level change for regulatory purposes prior to July 1, 2016.” It further provides that in 2015 the Commission “Shall compare the determination of sea level based on historical calculations versus predictive models.” That apparently levels the playing field between science and history.
Virginia is our third example. It commissioned a $50,000 study- to examine the question of sea level rise. It did not want the study to become controversial, however, so in commissioning the study it avoided using words that are inflammatory. The request for the study does not refer to “climate change” or “sea level rise” because says Chris Stolle, the sponsor of the study, those are “liberal code words.” He said that “sea level rise” is a “left-wing term’ that conjures up animosities on the right.” Mr. Stolle is also quoted as saying the jury is still out on whether or not humans have an impact on global warming. Instead of using the offensive words the legislature’s request refers to “coastal resiliency,” “recurrent flooding,” and “increased flooding risk.” Those are words filled with meaning for victims of Hurricane Sandy in New York and New Jersey.
Outside observers may think Virginia and North Carolina are a bit of a backwater. They’re probably right. However, no scientists in either state have been sentenced to prison for their scientific endeavors. Yet.