The Fusion Reactor: an energy source that burns money

     The JET, Joint European Torus, nuclear fusion research plant in Culham, Oxfordshire UK 

The New York Times has a wonderfully nostalgic op-ed piece that echoes fantasies of technological omnipotence of the 1950s.  Stewart C. Prager, director of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, argues that "an abundant, safe and clean energy source once thought to be the stuff of science fiction is closer than many realize: nuclear fusion."

I've been reading articles of this sort for decades.  I place them in a file of colorful materials labeled: "Science funding promotional hype."  To his credit, Prof. Prager delivers the pitch as eloquently as any of the fusion boosters of past six decades.

"It is essentially inexhaustible and it can be created using hydrogen isotopes — chemical cousins of hydrogen, like deuterium — that can readily be extracted from seawater.

Fusion energy is created by fusing two atomic nuclei, in the process converting mass to energy, which appears as heat. The heat, as in conventional nuclear fission reactors, turns water into steam, which drives turbines to generate electricity, or is used to produce fuels for transportation or other uses.
Fusion energy generates zero greenhouse gases. It offers no chance of a catastrophic accident. It can be available to all nations, relying only on the Earth’s oceans. When commercialized, it will transform the world’s energy supply"

It's no surprise that an essay of this kind appears soon after the ongoing calamity at the Fukushima reactors has tarnished, perhaps once and for all, the reputation of nuclear fusion reactors and the industry's lovely refrain: "Clean, safe, too cheap to meter!"  And perhaps it's no coincidence that a puff piece of this kind comes at a time when the budget cutters in Washington, D.C. are looking for items items to trim from Obama's WFT (Win the Future) wish list.  To his credit, Prager notes that costs for research and development will be quite high.

"We need serious public investment to develop materials that can withstand the harsh fusion environment, sustain hot plasma indefinitely and integrate all these features in an experimental facility to produce continuous fusion power. This won’t be cheap. A rough estimate is that it would take $30 billion and 20 years to go from the current state of research to the first working fusion reactor."

Ah, yes...with just little more money and little more time we can save the world....

Evidently, nobody has the gumption to ask an obvious question:  Wasn't it twenty years back, forty years back, and even earlier that members of your tribe made the same projections and promises?  

The Age of Austerity: Obama asks America to put its house in order

 Daily Kos pretty much sums up the mood of liberals and progressives about the extent to which Obama has adopted not only the language, but also the vision of Herbert Hoover and other opponents of the New Deal.

"In the past week, we witnessed the truly astonishing spectacle of a wide array of Democratic Congressional leaders feeling it necessary to stand up to a Democratic President in order to defend the programs and values that have defined the Democratic Party since the Great Depression. Just think about that. And now some consider it a victory that there probably won't be any immediate cuts to Social Security, even though there will be a trillion or more in overall budget cuts, without any major increases in revenue. And cutting Social Security is now safe to discuss on both sides of the aisle. To use digby's own comparison, only Nixon could go to China; and while Reagan and the Bushes did not even seriously try, a Democratic president may be opening the door to the dismantling of the New Deal."

Inside the debt reduction talks

 

There seem to be few if any photos from the inner chambers where deliberations about the looming calamity of an Obama/Congress debt "deal" are taking place.

To fill the gap, this painting, Francisco Goya's "Duelo a garrotazos" (duel with cudgels), 1819-1823, with two young men, legs stuck in the mud, perpetually flailing away at each other, captures the spirit of what passes for "serious" economic and policy thinking in Washington, D.C. these days.  It's one of the works in Goya's series of "Black Paintings" produced after he'd withdrawn from his career as artist for the Spanish crown.

I wonder, which of today's artists and works adequately convey the deranged, rudderless trajectories of American social, economic and political life as the new century unfolds?  One nominee would certainly be David Simon and his masterful series of Goyaesque video black paintings, "The Wire."

When the rich stop paying their share -- empires collapse

Writing in the Washington Monthly, Paul Glastris imagines that America's plutocrats may well be repeating a familiar historical pattern: "the willingness of the rich to defend their wealth from taxation to the point of national ruin". 

"The Han dynasty in China fell in the third century AD after aristocratic families with government connections became increasingly able to shield their ever-larger land holdings from taxation, which helped precipitate the bloody Yellow Turban peasant revolt. Nearly a millennium and a half later, the great Ming dynasty went into protracted decline in part for similar reasons: unable or unwilling to raise taxes on the landed gentry, the government couldn’t pay its soldiers and was overrun by Manchu invaders. In the fifteenth century, the Hungarian King Matthias Corvinus persuaded his reluctant nobles to accept higher taxes, with which he built a professional military that beat back the invading Ottomans. But after his death the resentful barons placed a weak foreign prince on the throne and got their taxes cut 70 to 80 percent. When their undisciplined army lost to Suleiman the Magnificent, Hungary lost its independence.
Similarly, the cash-strapped sixteenth-century Spanish monarchy sold municipal and state offices off to wealthy elites rather than raise their taxes—giving them the right to collect public revenues. The elites, in turn, raised taxes on commerce, immiserating peasants and artisans and putting Spain on a path of long-term economic decline. This same practice of exempting the wealthy from taxation and selling them government offices while transferring the tax burden onto the poor reached its apogee in ancien regime France and ended with the guillotine."

Glastris' source for these examples is Francis Fukuyama's book The Origins of Political Order.
So, folks, keep your popcorn ready and TV set on for the next several weeks; you may be able to watch our national march of folly carry us right over the cliff, the rich leading the parade!

New hope for high tech gadgets

Somewhere on the floor of the Pacific Ocean, scientists have discovered vast amounts of rare earth minerals -- gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, and others -- used in the production of electronic equipment including such popular items as the iPad.  Thus, he longevity of high tech gadgets seems bright, although the population of their users is still on the "endangered" species list.

Poll: 39% of Americans see the nation in permanent decline

A CBS News/New York Times Poll shows the American public in a gloomy mood about the nation's future and, in general, buying the argument that increased austerity and system-wrecking are the nation's best hope.  "Assessments of the economy remain poor, and 39% now think the U.S. economy may never full recover, an increase of 11 points since last fall.  Only 20% think the economy is improving, the lowest percentage since last summer.

Despite economic concerns, less than half the public thinks the government should spend money to create jobs, even if it has to borrow to do so. Just over half think the government should focus on lowering the national debt instead."
 *  *  *  *  *  * *  * 
Tearing down crucial institutions, shedding the cost of caring for society's most endangered citizens, distributing wealth only to the top layers of the populace, and abandoning the key principles of "liberty and justice for all" -- all these are symptoms of what Chalmers Johnson called "the sorrows of empire."  (Are we there yet?)

[The painting is Thomas Cole's "The Course of Empire: Destruction," 1836.]

While America sleeps: global warming picks up speed

From NUNATSIAQ NEWS

"The Arctic air, land and water continue to change as the  world's climate changes, says the 2010 State of the Arctic report, released this week by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Organization.

Worldwide, 2010 was one of the two warmest years on record, says the 2010 State of the Climate report, released June 27 by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
On the Arctic, the State of the Climate shows how 2010 marked the end of the warmest decade since instrument records began in 1900.
The summer of 2010 in Greenland reveals the speed and breadth of the environmental change occurring in the Arctic, the report says.
In Greenland, warm air from the south was responsible for the longest period and largest area of ice sheet melt since at least 1978, and the highest melt rate since at least 1958, it says."

 * * * * * * * * * * * *
Of course, this is not noteworthy to the corporate news outlets more interested in the risible horse race for the Republican presidential nomination. 

Cost of U.S. wars? Maybe $4.4 trillion

In 2003 I carried a sign at a local protest demonstration against the impending war and occupation in Iraq: "How much will the war cost? $1 Trillion!"  The lady waving a large American flag on the other side of the street shouted, "You're crazy!  The war will pay for itself!" 
At the time I was using the estimates of economist Joseph Stiglitz in an article in The New York Review of Books.  An article in Politico makes earlier projections seem far too modest.

"The final bill for U.S. military involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan could be as high as $4.4 trillion, according to a comprehensive new report Tuesday.
In the 10 years since American troops were sent into Afghanistan, the federal government has already spent between $2.3 trillion and $2.7 trillion, say the authors of the study by Brown University’s Watson Institute for International Studies."

Stiglitz's own estimates, summarized on a Democracy Now! radio broadcast last fall, run $4 to $5 trillion, counting all of the war's costs to American society.

Today the patriotic lady who waved the flag so intensely is nowhere to be seen.  Perhaps she a Tea Party activist demanding that the poor, sick, elderly, and students make "sacrifices" to pay for the nation's spiraling debt.

Did Bachmann followers scrub Wikipedia to produce a new "founding father"?

Add a founding father, subtract a founding father.  Who cares?!!!


In an exchange with George Stephanopoli recently, Michele Bachmann argued that John Quincy Adams was one of the "founding fathers."  Challenged on the point, Bachmann persisted in in the claim,using Adams as support for her belief that the founding fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery.  (See an excerpt from the interview below.)

It appears that the supporters of Bachmann have gone full Stalin -- or is it full Orwell? -- doctoring the Wikipedia to assert, for the  historical (or is that hysterical?) record, that John Quincy Adams was one of the founders:

'''John Quincy Adams''' ({{IPAc-en|John_Quincy_Adams_pron.ogg|ˈ|k|w|ɪ|n|z|i}}; July 11, 1767{{ndash}} February 23, 1848), a founding father, was the [[List of Presidents of the United States|sixth]] [[President of the United States]] (1825–1829).

 *  *  *  *  *  *  *
(from the interview)
Bachmann: Well you know what’s marvelous is that in this country and under our constitution, we have the ability when we recognize that something is wrong to change it. And that’s what we did in our country. We changed it. We no longer have slavery. That’s a good thing. And what our Constitution has done for our nation is to give us the basis of freedom unparalleled in the rest of the world.
Stephanopoulos: I agree with that…
Bachmann: That’s what people want...they realize our government is taking away our freedom.
Stephanopoulos: But that’s not what you said. You said that the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery.
Bachmann: Well if you look at one of our Founding Fathers, John Quincy Adams, that’s absolutely true. He was a very young boy when he was with his father serving essentially as his father’s secretary. He tirelessly worked throughout his life to make sure that we did in fact one day eradicate slavery….
Stephanopoulos: He wasn’t one of the Founding Fathers – he was a president, he was a Secretary of State, he was a member of Congress, you’re right he did work to end slavery decades later. But so you are standing by this comment that the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery?
Bachmann: Well, John Quincy Adams most certainly was a part of the Revolutionary War era. He was a young boy but he was actively involved

  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
As is true for many of today's so-called "conservatives," Bachmann is eager to sanitize and mythologize America's founding generation.  Actually, it was the slaves who were "working tirelessly," serving slave owners that included George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and others. 

In spirit of right wing historical revisionism, I'm rewriting my own Wikipedia page to indicate that I played with Babe Ruth on the 1927 Yankees.

Google prof urges increased pain and suffering for average Americans

This video clip from the BBC has to be the best example of the sick mentality of U.S. millionaires & billionaires currently available.  "Google professor David Cheriton warns over US economy" shows the smug, self-satisfied, even whimsical Stanford computer scientist and mentor to the founders of the Google corporation musing about the tragic fate of the American people.  He describes them as benighted passengers on an airplane that is about to crash.  The only solution for the poor devils is to slash government spending on services that sustain their way of life.  Along the way he heartily endorses the need to move private investment massively offshore as way to further his self-fulfilling prophecy. 

The video is the spitting reality of global plutocracy now vividly on display in the corridors of power in Washington, D.C.  I suppose Prof. Cheriton's views reflect the current version of Google's fabled philosophy: "Don't be evil." 

Nuclear power plant flooded -- officials optimistic

One of the year's most astonishing developments in news about technology is that of tsunami and floods around nuclear power plants. The Fort Calhoun plant near Omaha joins Fukushima Daiichi as a site of inundation. A story in the Wall Street Jounal notes, "A protective berm holding back floodwaters from a Nebraska nuclear power plant collapsed early Sunday after it was accidentally torn, surrounding containment buildings and key electrical equipment with Missouri River overflow....The berm's collapse allowed floodwaters to wash around the main electrical transformers. As a result, emergency diesel power generators were started."

Back-up generators? Where have we heard that before?

Predictably, officials of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have been quick to reassure the public that " there is little cause for immediate concern." Still clean, safe and too cheap to meter.

No doubt this means, as in Japan, that swimming lessons will now be required for tritium and cesium atoms. Fish will be advised to avoid areas contaminated by high levels of radiation and to take their potassium iodide pills each day.

Update:  Surf's up at the Cooper Nuclear Station near Brownville too.  Waxing up my board!

Marriage equality law in New York: how far we've come

The fact that one of the deciding votes on marriage equality came from a Columbia County’s Republican state senator brought to mind the following true story.

Several years ago a north county friend, a well-known architect, hired a high school boy to do some lawn mowing for her. After several weeks he approached her and asked: “If you think I’ve done a good job, would you be willing to recommend me to do yard work for your friends?”

“Certainly, I’d be glad to,” she replied.

“There’s just one thing,” the boy continued. “I won’t work for gay people.”

“Oh, I understand exactly how you feel,” she said. “You know, I refuse work with Republicans.”

A worried look came across his face. “But I’m a Republican.”

She smiled and said, “Life’s full of surprises, isn’t it?”

- Langdon

Top Ten Secrets of Innovation Revealed

After years of reading the literature on “innovation” and listening to discussions among academics, business people and politicians about how to make it happen, I’m pleased to share the basic insights with you.

1. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, innovation, blah, blah, blah, blah.

2. Blah blah blah, innovation, blah blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, global, blah, blah, blah, blah.

3. Blah blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, entrepreneur, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, innovation, blah, blah, blah.

4. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, tech park, blah, blah, blah, blah, innovation.

5. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, military, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, innovation, blah, blah.

6. Innovation blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, research, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, partnership, blah, blah, blah, blah.

7. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, education, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, skills, blah, blah, blah, blah, tomorrow.

8. Blah, blah, blah, iPad, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, innovative, blah, blah, blah, blah.

9. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, White House, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, investment, blah, blah, blah, blah, jobs, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, future.

10. Blah blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Chinese, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, innovation, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, China.

Comparing the flow of news: Middle East vs. U.S.A.

Juan Cole's piece, "Our News and the News," compares recent headlines from two parts of the world. It points to noble political struggles in the Middle East in contrast to the tawdry spectacles that fill U.S. news channels and, for that matter, what passes for politics here.

"Americans live in a late capitalist society where the rich have gotten many times richer and the middle class has gotten poorer, where Wall Street bankers have stolen us blind and blamed us for living above our means, where persistent unemployment is worse than in the Great Depression, where most politicians and some judges have been bought by corporations or special interests, where authorities actively conspire to keep people from voting, where the government spies on citizens assiduously without warrant or probable cause, and where the minds of the sheep are kept off their fleecing by substituting celebrity gossip, sex scandals, and half-disguised bigotry for genuine news.

In the Arab world, masses of 20-year-olds have challenged their corrupt politicians and manipulative billionaires in the streets, demanding transparency, an end to arbitrary secret police, and free and fair elections untainted by influence-peddling and plutocracy. I have Arabic satellite t.v. on in the background most of the day, with its dramatic stories of personal risk and human tragedy and bold challenge to a rotten status quo. And I channel surf over to the American cable news and mostly find fluff or de-contextualized reports or, frankly, propaganda. So here is my life, the day’s news given synoptically, our news and their news."

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