Beyond Techno-triumphalism
In late May I visited Denton, Texas for the 17^th International Conference of the Society for Philosophy and Technology. Speaking on a panel about “The Future of Philosophy and Technology,” I offered the following views.

# # # # # # #

Philosophy of Technology in a New Key

By: Langdon Winner

Whatever its particular ideas, claims, arguments, theories, and schools of thought, much of modern philosophy of technology has played its compositions within a particular key signature.

For want of a better term, I would call it the key of Techno-triumphalism. Its familiar themes are progress, advance, conquest, improvement, revolution, prosperity, growth, development, democratization, and two new favorites -- innovation and sustainability.

Over many decades much of the discussion among philosophers has focused upon ways to somehow modify the grand trajectory of triumphalist thought, to correct it when it veered off course.

If only we could move the project at little this way or that way, understand and interpret it more intelligently, then things would be fine. Let’s include ordinary people in decision making. Let’s emphasize the environment in our schemes for improvement. Let’s recognize the voices and contributions of women, of people in developing countries and of others who have traditionally been marginalized.

But the underlying, largely unquestioned, conviction has been that our path surely leads onward and upward. More scientific knowledge along with enhanced philosophical clarity will surely produce better technologies, greater prosperity, and improved prospects for human well-being. Such are the lyrics in classic songs sung in the key of Techno-triumphalism. Unfortunately, these days, the melody sounds discordant, while the words increasingly lack conviction.

The grand chorus among today’s universities, tech parks and entrepreneurs is “Celebrate! We’re doing innovation!” But if one looks closely, “innovation” is primarily a label for processes and products useful to the world’s wealthy few and as money pumps for global corporations. No longer can the great majority of human beings on the planet expect to benefit much, although within the neoliberal refrain, some of the wealth may eventually “trickle down.”

Even within the terms of the most optimistic triumphalist projections, current trends are not all that favorable. Some recent analyses of present technical and economic trends take note of an obvious fact – that the 21^st century so far has not been a period of world-altering material improvements, but instead an era of technological of stagnation and triviality. (Need I mention flat screen TVs, iPads, Viagra, and other signature products of our era?)

And whatever happened to prosperity from the bubbling cauldrons of nanotech? Where are all those phenomenal high tech industries that were supposed to generate high paying jobs for our children, replacing work lost to global outsourcing?

Along with their fellow citizens, today’s philosophers of technology are reluctant to admit that the great festival of the twentieth century (especially in the U.S.A.) – with the automobile, suburb, hyper-consumerism, and the frantic consumption of fossil fuels – is winding down. The era of peak petroleum has probably already arrived and there are simply no good, readily available, cheap substitutes in energy supply. And since our food supply rests squarely on petroleum, this foreshadows continuing crises in supply and cost of food. One can add to this the growing recognition of peak water and peak availability of wide a range of natural resources.

As ominous signs about energy and other material needs accumulate, our leaders in business, government and the academy staunchly refuse to face our predicament squarely, preferring to repeat the beguiling triumphalist tunes of the 19^th and 20^th centuries.

Perhaps even more significant in the long term is the advent of rapid, possibly irreversible, anthropogenic climate change bringing monster storms, devastating droughts, melting glaciers, rising seas, massive floods, and other disasters.

The good news is that in a bold move to address the problem, the U.S. House of Representatives recently voted on the proposition “climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for public health and welfare.” The resolution lost 240 to 184.

Reflected in this breathtaking vote is an attitude shared by many of the world’s political and business leaders and, alas, quietly shared by many philosophers – a state of complacent denial.

Perhaps the coming “singularity” will save us. Or maybe an unexpected miracle from the research and development labs will confront the combined crises of energy, climate, world hunger, and social unrest, dispatching these maladies with a wave of a magic wand.

My modest suggestion is that a central project for philosophers of technology in the years ahead is to achieve a clear, rational, and hopeful view of human prospects beyond Techno-triumphalism.

There is not enough time today to spell out what this project would entail.

Certainly it would include an awareness of the sweeping consequences of peak energy and climate change. To my way of thinking, it would also involve frank recognition that the core belief of contemporary civilization – that technological development brings economic prosperity, the sure pathway to universal human well-being – is now an exhausted, largely discredited myth.

A realization of this kind need not be occasion for despair. It is clear that humanity must somehow live more lightly on planet Earth, a challenge that necessarily moves questions of social justice to the forefront of concern.

Can the inquiries of philosophers and the anthems of world societies be written in a new key signature?

Strike up the band.

A Conceptual Map of the Real Democracy Now! demonstrations in Spain

While it helps to have a Spanish dictionary at hand, the basic landscape is clear: contemporary events, deeper histories, national and international organizations, actions, and the interweaving of the Net and political life. The map is included in a web site announcing a radio broadcast for Sunday, May 22, linking the various sites of protest around Spain.

Here's the web page:
http://www.unalineasobreelmar.net/2011/05/21/rueda-de-corresponsales-acampadas/

Live video of the Puerta del Sol encampment:
http://www.soltv.tv/soltv2/index.html

While the U.S. media has take little notice of these events (too busy worrying about important matters like Arnold Schwarzenegger's illegitimate child), the BBC lead story this afternoon was a report on widespread demonstrations in Spain and their significance for the upcoming elections.

Photo from the Real Democracy Now! movement in Madrid

Manifesto of the Real Democracy Now (¡Democracia Real YA!) movement

Here's the English translation of a Manifesto issued by the movement of unemployed young people and other citizens that is rocking Spain at present. Its points could apply to the U.S.A. and elsewhere, in my view.

Manifesto

We are ordinary people. We are like you: people, who get up every morning to study, work or find a job, people who have family and friends. People, who work hard every day to provide a better future for those around us.
Some of us consider ourselves progressive, others conservative. Some of us are believers, some not. Some of us have clearly defined ideologies, others are apolitical, but we are all concerned and angry about the political, economic, and social outlook which we see around us: corruption among politicians, businessmen, bankers, leaving us helpless, without a voice.
This situation has become normal, a daily suffering, without hope. But if we join forces, we can change it. It’s time to change things, time to build a better society together. Therefore, we strongly argue that:
The priorities of any advanced society must be equality, progress, solidarity, freedom of culture, sustainability and development, welfare and people’s happiness.
These are inalienable truths that we should abide by in our society: the right to housing, employment, culture, health, education, political participation, free personal development, and consumer rights for a healthy and happy life.
The current status of our government and economic system does not take care of these rights, and in many ways is an obstacle to human progress.
Democracy belongs to the people (demos = people, krátos = government) which means that government is made of every one of us. However, in Spain most of the political class does not even listen to us. Politicians should be bringing our voice to the institutions, facilitating the political participation of citizens through direct channels that provide the greatest benefit to the wider society, not to get rich and prosper at our expense, attending only to the dictatorship of major economic powers and holding them in power through a bipartidism headed by the immovable acronym PP & PSOE.
Lust for power and its accumulation in only a few; create inequality, tension and injustice, which leads to violence, which we reject. The obsolete and unnatural economic model fuels the social machinery in a growing spiral that consumes itself by enriching a few and sends into poverty the rest. Until the collapse.
The will and purpose of the current system is the accumulation of money, not regarding efficiency and the welfare of society. Wasting resources, destroying the planet, creating unemployment and unhappy consumers.
Citizens are the gears of a machine designed to enrich a minority which does not regard our needs. We are anonymous, but without us none of this would exist, because we move the world.
If as a society we learn to not trust our future to an abstract economy, which never returns benefits for the most, we can eliminate the abuse that we are all suffering.
We need an ethical revolution. Instead of placing money above human beings, we shall put it back to our service. We are people, not products. I am not a product of what I buy, why I buy and who I buy from.
For all of the above, I am outraged.
I think I can change it.
I think I can help.
I know that together we can.I think I can help.

I know that together we can.

* * * * * *
http://democraciarealya.es/

Nuclear power plant troubles in Japan: three perspectives

A plausible analysis of the immediate predicament at the Japanese nuclear power plants is this (from the LA Times):

“Backup generators powering the pumps at the first five disabled reactors failed almost immediately after the earthquake, apparently inactivated by exposure to seawater from the tsunami that swept through the seaside plants. The facilities had to rely on backup batteries that last up to eight hours until additional batteries and generators could be brought in.
Although the company has released no details about the sixth reactor, it appears the diesel generators there worked for a couple of days before they too finally gave out.”

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-japan-quake-sixth-reactor-20110313,0,3146984.story

A broader overview comes from academics like Charles Perrow who study “normal accidents.” A series of unexpected technical or natural mishaps along with human misjudgments lead to a cascade of events leading to catastrophe. Better engineering and planning can help avoid such outcomes, but never completely.

In my view, Aeschylus described the basic situation 2,500 years ago. In “Prometheus Bound,” Prometheus explains his crime against the gods:

Prometheus: I caused mortals to cease foreseeing doom.
Chorus: What curse did you provide them with against that sickness?
Prometheus: I placed in them blind hopes.
Chorus: That was the great gift you gave to men.
Prometheus: Besides this, I gave them fire.
Chorus: And do creatures of a day now possess bright-faced fire?
Prometheus: Yes, and from it they shall learn many crafts.
Chorus: These are the charges on which –
Prometheus: Zeus tortures me and gives me no respite.

America's Soviet-style TV


I downloaded the app for Al Jazeera on my Android phone and it works fine. Just now there was an intelligent discussion comparing the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt.

When I was a kid and TV was just coming to our little town, there was an ad showing a Soviet soldier smash a radio with an axe. "Radio Free Europe compels them to admit the truth!" a voice loudly proclaimed.

Something about the contrast between Al Jazeera and the US network and cable news reminds me of that spot. "TV Al Jazeera compels them to admit there's a world beyond Washington and Hollywood gossip!"

The extent of decline in U.S. television coverage of world events is, by now, absolutely shocking. The idea that the networks can quickly parachute in news anchors like Brian Williams to tell us what's happening is just another symptom of a deep disorientation in American mass media.

Then again, what does Al Jazeera have to say about Lindsay Lohan's latest troubles?

- Langdon

Great Movie: No Puedo Vivir Sin Ti

A film that I suggested for the Film Columbia festival, “No Puedo Vivir Sin Ti” (“I Can’t Live Without You”), will be shown next week. Despite its Spanish title, the movie is from Taiwan, the story of an impoverished dock worker who tries to provide for his young daughter after the break up of his marriage. I saw a rough cut of the film during a visit to Taipei last December and was deeply moved by it. The writer/star/producer, Wen-Pin Chen, gave me a DVD copy that I passed on to the Chatham Film Club. Wen-Pin will fly in, stay with us and be there for the showing -- Saturday, Oct. 24, 7:30 p.m. at Morris Memorial – to answer questions.

A tender story about love and its troubles, the movie also offers a striking portrait of layers of social and political inequality. It’s Taiwan’s submission to the Academy Awards this year.

Here’s the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRV2-qK8p8w

- Langdon

Thoughts on the Nobel Peace Prize for Barack Obama

The award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama came as a shock to many people, especially in the U.S. “But what has he accomplished?” the TV pundits complained. “It’s just too soon for him to be recognized in this way!” Much of the grumbling, in my view, badly misunderstands what the prize is all about and what it has become in recent years.

The story is long and complicated, but one turning point stands out. For many decades after its founding in the early 20^th century, the Peace Prize Committee gave the award to presidents, prime ministers, diplomats, and official international organizations. It was basically a way to recognize notable achievements in peace negotiations, including treaties, service to the U.N. and the like. Then, in 1973 the committee gave the prize to Henry Kissinger (of all people!) and also to Le Doc To for their efforts to end the Vietnam War. Whatever the opinion of this decision may have been around the world, it brought a fire storm of criticism in Norway because many people there regarded Kissinger as a war criminal for his policies of U.S. bombing in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam.

The ensuing shake-up in the Peace Prize Committee gave it a new a tone and focus. If you look at the list persons and organizations that have won the Peace Prize since the Kissinger debacle, you’ll see an emphasis upon human rights and environmental activists along with humanitarians, often those whose work has become a major irritant to authoritarian political regimes. Yes, there are still prizes for heads of state and diplomats who’ve taken significant steps to lessen tensions and resolve conflicts within the community of nations. But the general thrust of the prize has been to recognize voices and strategies that promise long term improvement in human relationships and prospects for a healthy biosphere.

In that light, the Peace Prize is unlike those given in the sciences and literature. The accomplishment need not be evident in any tangible form. What is valued is the spirit of a body of work that moves the world in positive, humane directions. According to the criteria that govern the selection, the prize should be given to a person who has done the most to promote world peace during the previous year. This time the Committee’s statement simply affirms that Barack Obama deserves recognition “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." I don’t think there can be much quarrel with that judgment.

My own understanding of these matters stems from conversations with my friend and colleague, Norwegian historian Francis Sejersted, my host at a University of Oslo research center in the early 1990s and who was at the time Chair of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee. While he couldn’t discuss any specific deliberations about prize winners, he was fairly open about the general processes and sentiments that surround the operation. For example, he was greatly amused by the costly but ultimately futile public relations campaigns that try to promote particular candidates for the prize. “You’d be amazed at the stacks of materials that arrive at our door each day.” About Henry Kissinger he noted that the atmosphere of protest about the award evidently prevented him from coming to Oslo to receive it or to give the customary Nobel prize winner’s address. “But he did cash the check!” Sejersted said with a wink.

Over lunch one day I decide to poke fun at Francis about the direction and character of some of the recent decisions. “So let me see if I understand the process. You five guys in the Peace Prize Committee sit in a little room in downtown Oslo and ask: ‘OK, which nasty, brutal dictatorial regime shall we knock off this year?’ That’s how it works, right?”

Sejersted smiled and told me a story. “After the announcement of an award to a human rights advocate in South Asia, the president of the country in question asked angrily: ‘What difference does it make that a little group of Norwegians decide to give somebody a prize?’”

“He was perfectly right, of course” Francis agreed. “It shouldn’t make any difference that a group of people from a little country like Norway gives a prize!” Then he chuckled and said, “But is does make a difference. And the interesting thing is…no one knows why."

- Langdon Winner

Global citizens deliberate and vote on Global Warming policies

(from the organization's web page)

"On September 26, 2009, World Wide Views on Global Warming (WWViews) organized the first-ever, globe-encompassing democratic deliberation in world history. WWViews enabled roughly 4,400 citizens citizens from 38 countries all over the world to define and communicate their positions on issues central to the UN Climate Change negotiations (COP15), which take place in Copenhagen from December 7 – 18, 2009.

The main objective of WWViews is to give a broad sample of citizens from across the Earth the opportunity to influence global climate policy. An overarching purpose is to set a groundbreaking precedent by demonstrating that political decision-making processes on a global scale benefit when everyday people participate."

I observed the process at the meeting in Boston on Saturday. It was very well organized and exhilarating to behold. The results of all sessions can be found here, presented in ways that make comparisons across countries and regions very easy.

My initial impression of some of the results will, I hope, go up on the "experts blog. Meanwhile, here they are:

The meeting I observed in Boston was a far better example of citizen engagement than the Congressional town hall meeting on health care that I attended this summer. The World Wide Views model of public deliberation is a good one and should be used in a wide variety of issues that concern the global community of nations. While people’s views are fully expressed and respected, the meeting format does not allow obnoxious venting and grandstanding. [Sorry, Fox News.]

The results showed a very strong expression of concern about global warming. There was an overwhelming sense of urgency for achieving a strong climate agreement. In addition there was a pungent message that politicians in all nations must heed the deal made in Copenhagen this December and see that its provisions are put to work in practice.

Perhaps the strongest result was that 89% participants affirmed that short term reductions of carbon emissions in developing countries be reduced by 25-40%. This will come as a shock to world leaders who are aiming at targets much lower than that in the immediate future.

At the same time within the aggregate results, there were some themes that I found moderately worrisome.

A total of 43% of participants world wide seemed to say that a rise of 2 degrees Centigrade or higher is actually permissible. Reading the same figures, however, it’s also true that 89% of participants overall said that no more than 2 degrees increase would be acceptable. [Is the glass half empty or half full?]

2. Another unsettling feature was that among some national groups, raising the price of fossil fuels was not uniformly popular. Some 32% of U.S. participants said no price rise was desirable. Evidently, many Americans want the Age of Happy Motoring to continue. A substantial number people in the groups from Austria, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Russia, Spain, and UK were also opposed to price hikes on fossil fuels.

3. Finally, I was interested in the data from question 2.4 about whether punitive sanctions should be applied. In the combined groups from the U.S.A., 29% said there should be no sanctions or only symbolic ones. This may be a residual expression of the feeling that rules and penalties made in international treaties don’t really apply to the United States. In contrast, some groups from countries in which democratic institutions are relatively feeble voted very strongly in favor of strategies of punishment.

That’s my first pass through this very interesting collection of data. I invite your thoughts on the matter. Send them to me by email: winner@rpi.edu

Right wing intimidation at healthcare town meetings

Widespread attempts by Teabagger healthcare reform protestors to completely disrupt the congressional town hall meetings raise an interesting question. What kinds of conduct are appropriate at public meetings when intense disagreements and angry feelings arise?

Actually, I did a lot of shouting at speakers from the audience during my student days, including government spokesmen who'd come to campus to justify the Vietnam War. I recall one such meeting, perhaps 1966 or so, when William Bundy of the South Asia desk at the State Department spoke at U.C. Berkeley and was greeted by loud shouts and jeers. His host for the lecture, chair of the Political Science Department, scolded the crowd "for not letting Mr. Bundy speak." In fact, Mr. Bundy was able to deliver his whole talk, but with a good number of brief interruptions. At the time there was (usually) an understanding that while lies and deceptions should be answered forcefully on the spot, a speaker should be heard out fully, if not "respectfully."  The same etiquette used to cover (maybe still does) the speakers corner at Hyde Park in London -- a kind of noisy call and response, entertaining political theater. This is altogether different from the persistent Teabagger mob disruptions that try to intimidate people, shut down free speech and eliminate any exchange of views.

Hence, I think both of the following points are true:

1. Respect for free speech does not require us to sit quietly by as a speaker spews forth blatant falsehoods and vile prejudice.

2. Total disruption of public gatherings is contrary to freedom and democracy.

- Langdon

Depression humor

At the wonderful, but lamentably very wet, Falcon Ridge Folk Festival, I visited a porta-potty. On the wall was a printed message: "You can rent this unit by the day, week, month."

Just underneath someone had written in felt tip pen: "I HAVE A HOME"

At Obama's press conference last Wednesday, the main headline concerned an ugly racial incident in Cambridge, Massachusetts involving the false arrest of noted Harvard historian, Henry Louis Gates. But within the larger politics of another issue – health care reform, the very one Obama wanted to feature – there was a far more significant racial conflict brewing. The primary barrier to progress in writing the final healthcare bill comes less from obstructionist Republicans than from their fellow travelers, the "Blue Dog" Democrats who are blocking important policy changes, especially ones that would produce a "public option" in the "reform." In today's NYT it becomes clear that the obstructionist "Blue Dogs" are notably white and "nondiverse."

* * * * * * * * * * *

[Henry Waxman, chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee:]

"We have to take up the legislation next week or acknowledge the fact that Democrats do not control the committee any longer," Mr. Waxman said. "I will not allow Blue Dogs to turn over control of the committee to Republicans, which they have threatened to do. I am troubled that some Democrats would rather align themselves with Republicans than work out their problems with fellow Democrats."

Representative Charlie Melancon, a Blue Dog Democrat from Louisiana, said passions were running high because "Mr. Waxman decided to sever discussion with Blue Dogs who are trying to get a bill that works for America." ….

The intraparty dispute had racial overtones. One African-American Democrat, Representative Hank Johnson of Georgia, pointed out that the seven Blue Dog Democrats holding up the health care bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee were "a nondiverse group" of white men.

"They should be more concerned about people who are dying than about their basic philosophy, which involves simply money," Mr. Johnson said. "Which is more important, money or live human beings with flesh and blood running through their veins, who cannot get health care?"

* * * * * * * * *

Of course, the real source blocking genuine reform in healthcare is big money: the health insurance, pharmaceutical, and other "medical industry" companies that buy votes with campaign funds to the Blue Dogs and others. I regret to say that among the Blue/Cross/White Dogs is my own congressman, Scott Murphy from upstate New York. I worked to get him elected, a terrible mistake in retrospect.

Healthcare in sane countries

An interesting post in Daily Kos, "WORDS YOU'LL NEVER HEAR IN THE CANADIAN HEALTHCARE SYSTEM," describes understandings and practices that many American would find utopian. But Canada is not the only example.

Over the years I've lived in Europe and Scandinavia for extended periods.  Each time my family and I were covered by health insurance provided by universities in the U.S.  What was notable, however, was the way in which extracting payment was not part of the drill over there.  When I'd say "We're covered by ..." they'd often say not to worry, that the charge was nominal anyway, and it was.  During a stay in Norway sixteen years ago we took our three young boys to clinics with a variety of minor illnesses.  When we'd ask, "How much do we owe you?" the doctor or person at the desk would say most emphatically, "Children don't pay!"  They were offended by our asking.

The difference comes in defining health care as a public good, equally available to all as a basic right, in contrast to the American understanding that has crept in over the past several decades that health is a profit center for the sellers, a consumer good for those able to pay.  I rank this "industry" second only to our military-industrial complex as a fount of deranged priorities and policies.

- Langdon

The wisdom of Confusedius

Insurance companies are to today's health, as leeches were to medieval medicine.

Just one example.

The Apollo 11 Moon landing: a hollow anniversary

It’s fully predictable that the fortieth anniversary of the Apollo 11 mission would be cause for widespread celebration, especially in the U.S.A. The basic accomplishment – flying a rocket ship 238, 800 miles to let the first human to set foot on the Moon – still ranks as a fascinating milestone in human history, something to place on the list with the first visit to the North Pole or the running of the first four minute mile. But while in July 1969 just about everyone agreed with Neil Armstrong’s proud proclamation that he’d made “one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind,” today we’re entitled to ask: Exactly what great leap was that? And what wonderful consequences for humanity followed?

It strikes me that the passage of time has revealed how hollow and unfulfilling the moon landing turned out to be. While media pundits and politicians wax eloquent about a great turning point, no one moves on to list any specifics. The sad fact is that the Apollo mission was predicated on Cold War competition with the U.S.S.R. and embodied some highly suspect underlying obsessions -- nationalism, militarism, technological triumphalism, and the goal of conquering nature. Along with the three astronauts, this was the ponderous cargo the space capsule carried on its journey. But once the basic entry in the record book had been written, the promise of manned space flight faded rapidly.

Yes, the Hubble and other orbiting telescopes, along with robot journeys to Mars and to distant parts of the solar system, have made valuable contributions to scientific knowledge and provided new images and perspectives for human imagination. And yes, the Space Shuttle and Space Station have logged in some noteworthy achievements. But the part of the story that involved sending living astronauts on missions of “exploration” and “conquest” to the Moon or beyond seems increasingly vain, costly and (given notable problems on Earth) unreasonable. Perhaps that is why political support for NASA dwindled when the Apollo program ended, why the agency’s funding has been steadily cut. Although not a topic for polite company, a silent question about space travel hovers in the strosphere: What good is it really?

In his recent NY Times essay, Tom Wolfe laments the fact that America never produced a philosopher to define a better understanding of space travel beyond its tawdry Cold War narrative. The only plausible candidate he mentions is ex-Nazi rocket scientist and U.S. space program guru, the late Wernher von Braun.

“The fact was, NASA had only one philosopher, Wernher von Braun. Toward the end of his life, von Braun knew he was dying of cancer and became very contemplative. I happened to hear him speak at a dinner in his honor in San Francisco. He raised the question of what the space program was really all about.

“It’s been a long time, but I remember him saying something like this: Here on Earth we live on a planet that is in orbit around the Sun. The Sun itself is a star that is on fire and will someday burn up, leaving our solar system uninhabitable. Therefore we must build a bridge to the stars, because as far as we know, we are the only sentient creatures in the entire universe. When do we start building that bridge to the stars? We begin as soon as we are able, and this is that time. We must not fail in this obligation we have to keep alive the only meaningful life we know of.”

A bridge to the what? How appropriate on the occasion of the anniversary of Apollo landing to be offered a philosophy for space travel that is literally sheer lunacy – a grotesque intellectual moonbeam that envisions options for humanity in a disaster scenario millions of years in the future. It’s lucky we Earthlings don’t have any serious worries for the shorter term.

There’s a perfectly obvious reason why no respectable philosopher has stepped forward to chart a new vision of space as a destination for human aspirations. It’s a total vacuum out there.

- Langdon

Orwellian Tweets

It's high time. The North Korean government is using Twitter to get its message out. Short URLs take you to longer stories with some hilarious observations and announcements, For example: "S. Korean Puppet Army's Plan for War Exercise Announced"

http://twitter.com/kcna_dprk

What a planet we live on!

Sarah Palin and Reactionary Politics

While Sarah Palin's resignation may a way to dodge personal and
political scandals, it seems likely that she's positioning herself as an
eventual presidential candidate. Her political strategy fits the “let’s
hope Obama fails” message of Rush Limbaugh and Republican politicians. This posture openly welcomes and may even seek to realize a massive economic collapse and social upheaval for America, seen as a grand opportunity to gain power.

The apparent lack of rational, policy content in right wing rhetoric at
present is, in my view, exactly what the game is about. Republican
demagogues along with radio and TV talk show hosts blather on about
“socialism” and other inflammatory themes, preparing the populace for disaster. If Obama’s policies fail to produce a steady, expeditious
recovery, if the economy continues to sink in ways people find
frightening, if public dissatisfaction swells, then a loose cannon like
Palin could well attract considerable support, precisely because her way of being unhinged matches the gut sense of her heartland audience and the prevailing sentiments of America’s “conservative” corporate media.

There are many examples from the past century in which strategies of
this kind worked supremely well for political extremists. Driven to
desperation, societies sometimes turn to sociopathic leaders able to
focus popular distress, rage and thirst for revenge.

It can’t happen here? Don’t count on it. If the U.S. economy continues
to tank, things could get extremely ugly.

New Chinese Software: protecting youth from objectionable online material

During my recent travels in China, it was fascinating to notice which web sites were censored (Huffington Post, and Americablog, for example) and which were not (BBC, NY Times, etc.)

Rather than embrace the internet as a source of vitality and positive change, the government of China has launched yet another crack down. From now on every computer sold in the country must install a program that will filter out violent and pornographic web sites. Critics of the development suspect it will also be used to censor political content.

As reported by the BBC, Qin Gang, spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, "The purpose of this is to effectively manage harmful material for the public and prevent it from being spread," he said. "The Chinese government pushes forward the healthy development of the internet. But it lawfully manages the internet," he added.

Healthy?

For those who enjoy the names chosen for political initiatives in China, the name chosen for the software is memorable -- "Green Dam Youth Escort".

Sounds like a real innovation to me: an online escort service for young people.

Free marketeers in the toilet in Iceland

These are evidently pictures of bankers who fled Iceland after leading the country into bankruptcy. A restaurant in Reykjavik paid homage to them in this clever way. Could similar tributes be organized in lower Manhattan? Or is the U.S.A. still pissing its future away by indulging the acolytes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and the fop pied piper, Ronald Reagan? Ask Timothy Geithner.

(photo from the NYT)

$1.5 billion wind tunnel?

In the first three games at the new Yankee Stadium, there have been seventeen home runs. Yesterdays score was 22-4 with the Indians beating the Yankees. As I watched the spectacle on TV, it seemed that lazy pop flies to right field became homers.

Will this become a chapter in "Great Architectural Disasters"? An appendix to "Form Follows Fiasco?" Will the place have to be re-engineered? Will they have to build a huge screen like the one in the L.A. Coliseum left field when the Dodgers first
moved west?

Stay tuned.

After watching Obama’s first “Open for Questions” session

Old political communications model:

Elect a “conservative” president who maintains a sphinx-like presence.

Rely upon “journalists” and pundits acceptable to Rupert Murdock, G.E. and the corporate owned media along with talking heads from bought-and-paid-for right wing think tanks to blather 24/7 cable TV spin on public events.

Call this “democracy.” (Heimlich maneuver may be necessary at this point.)

New communications model:

Elect a progressive president interested in direct contact with citizens and who’s willing to speak AND listen.

Bypass the carefully selected, well paid, reliable corporate spin doctors. Instead, use a variety of means -- town halls, talk show visits, internet chats, and new media – to frame and motivate public deliberation and debate.

Celebrate modest steps toward a revival of citizen-based democracy.

Prepare for blasts of hot air from those who’ve profited from the Old model.

Probably too utopian, but I’m like that.

Langdon's visit to the Obama inauguration: Some photos here.

Again in the forefront of every backward step:
U.S. refuses to sign ban on cluster bombs

OSLO, Norway (AP) — An Afghan teenager who lost both legs in a cluster bomb explosion helped persuade his country to change its stance and join nearly 100 nations in signing a treaty Wednesday banning the disputed weapons.

Afghanistan was initially reluctant to join the pact — which the United States and Russia have refused to support — but agreed to after lobbying by victims maimed by cluster munitions, including 17-year-old Soraj Ghulan Habib. The teen, who uses a wheelchair, met with his country's ambassador to Norway, Jawed Ludin, at a two-day signing conference in Oslo.

[And for what reason, I wonder, does the U.S. insist upon using one of the most unambiguously evil devices mankind has ever devised? The story continues ..... ]

The U.S., Russia and other countries refusing to sign the treaty say cluster bombs have legitimate military uses, such as repelling advancing troop columns.

Cluster bomblets are packed by the hundreds into artillery shells, bombs or missiles, which scatter them over vast areas. Some fail to explode immediately. The unexploded bomblets can then lie dormant for years until they are disturbed, often by children attracted by their small size and bright colors.

The group Handicap International says 98 percent of cluster-bomb victims are civilians, and 27 percent are children.

* * * * * * * * * * *

The teenager mentioned in the news story is not the one I've pictured. The photo comes from journalist John Scully's web site, Am I Dead Yet?

Human flesh search engines -- another dark side of the internet

The Obama campaign's use of the internet to mobilize positive, political participant is one of the brighter chapters in the Net's presence as a contribution to public life. Now from China comes some awful news about ways in which "human flesh search engines" are used by aggressive moralists to hound people suspected of wrongdoing.

From the Christian Science Monitor:

Beijing - Some call it a weapon in the hands of a righteous army, forged so that wrongdoers might be smitten. Others say it simply allows a mob of vigilantes to publicly vilify and humiliate anyone they choose to pick on through grotesque invasions of privacy.

Either way, the peculiarly Chinese Internet phenomenon known as the "human flesh search engine," a citizen-driven, blog-based hunt for alleged undesirables, claimed a fresh victim this month when a mid-ranking government official lost his job.

Accused of accosting a young girl, Lin Jiaxiang found his name, address, phone number, and workplace plastered all over Chinese cyberspace for 250 million Internet users to see, and his alleged crime the subject of hundreds of insulting blog postings.

Mr. Lin might be thought to have gotten his just deserts, especially since the police refused to prosecute him because he'd been drunk. Grace Wang, however, a Chinese student at Duke University, was outraged when netizens back home, offended by her efforts to mediate a campus dispute between pro-Tibetan and Chinese students last March, tracked down her parents' address and emptied a bucket of feces by their front door. . . . .

* * * * * * * *

It's easy to imagine mud slinging campaigns of this sort in the U.S. as well.

China's plans to bailout Detroit

Chinese carmakers SAIC and Dongfeng have plans to acquire GM and Chrysler, China’s 21st Century Business Herald reports today. . . . The paper cites a senior official of China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology– the state regulator of China’s auto industry– who dropped the hint that “the auto manufacturing giants in China, such as Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation (SAIC) and Dongfeng Motor Corporation, have the capability and intention to buy some assets of the two crisis-plagued American automakers.”

A take-over of a large overseas auto maker would fit perfectly into China’s plans. As reported before, China has realized that its export chances are slim without unfettered access to foreign technology. The brand cachet of Chinese cars abroad is, shall we say, challenged. The Chinese could easily export Made-in-China VWs, Toyotas, Buicks. If their joint venture partner would let them. The solution: Buy the joint venture partner. Especially, when he’s in deep trouble.

At current market valuations (GM is worth less than Mattel) the Chinese government can afford to buy GM with petty cash. Even a hundred billion $ would barely dent China’s more than $2t in currency reserves.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/breaking-news-chinese-may-buy-gm-and-chrysler/

* * * * * * *
Is this what has finally become of the Bush/neocon/Republican Party dreams for America as the "world's lone superpower"?
- Langdon

Vroom-Vro0m!! -- Detroit in crisis, no surprise

From my vantage point, what’s happening to Detroit is the culminationof a slowly developing car crash.

Anyone who’s read Keith Bradsher’s “High and Mighty,” a social history of the SUV, understands the broad coalition of groups – the companies, labor unions, federal and state politicians, suburban families, and others – who came together to resist building fuel efficient automobiles and push for big, heavy, profitable vehicles. Several of my students who’ve done internships at GM in recent years have come back with the same basic story. A good many top level managers were fully aware that corporate culture and the firm’s product line needed drastic reform to respond to the realities of peak oil and climate change. But in the middle layers or the organization, inertia prevailed. Equally disappointing from my students’ reports is the fact
that while young engineers recently graduated from the best engineering schools were aware of the pending energy crisis and the need for “sustainable technology,” their inclination was to keep designing vroom-vroom muscle cars, as if the power fantasies of the 1950s and 1960s were still the cool way to go.

Those who argue that a bailout of Detroit should revolutionize its “corporate culture” should include money for psychotherapy of the technical staff.

- Langdon

American power fantasies today: Housing

The above photo shows unfinished McMansions in Las Vegas, construction halted by the mortgage crisis. A story from the ironically named "Center for American Progress" web page tells the sad story.