Morning Fog

Specter Grabs The Headlines

OK, by now I guess we all know, if we care to know, that Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania yesterday became the latest U.S. politician to switch parties (in this case, from Republican to Democratic).  The announcement has already caused so much ink to be spilled by such a multitude of analysts and pundits, that I'm not even bothering to provide links to any reports on it.  It's an interesting development for political wonks, of course, but I doubt that it has much of the earth-shaking significance people are attributing to it. It's far too early to determine what it means for anyone but Specter himself.

Some claim Specter's switch gives the Democrats a filibuster-proof majority.  I don't believe it, even if (as seems probable) Al Franken of Minnesota is finally seated.  Sixty Democrats doesn't necessarily mean 60 votes on every issue.  Specter has already stated that no one should count on his vote.  And, any advantage the Democrats gain here could be lost quickly if Specter still can't get reelected in 2010. 

In fact it's not just beer and skittles for the Democrats, who must avoid overconfidence. If they're wise, the Dems will even edge consciously more to the moderate center, in order to get some workable and consensual legislation on the books.  Only through clear success in solving some of the country's problems can they hope to buck the historic trend by which the minority usually gains seats in midterm elections.

Some say the Republican party is placed in a weaker position, and will be forced to move more toward the center; yet those Republicans who value ideological purity over winning elections are predictably arguing that they're well rid of Specter, who began political life as a Kennedy Democrat and probably could define himself most accurately by wearing an "Independent" label. 

The significance of Specter's announcement lies beyond the political infighting of the next year or two.  Will this symbolically important act (reaching the 60-seat threshold) break the trend toward extremism and restore our two-party system to health, could it just intensify divisions and condemn us to another generation of deadlock, or might it have no lasting effect at all?  I'm betting on the last answer, but in any case, changes won't start to occur until after the 2010 election results have been analyzed.   

Energy Reform: Something For Nothing?

At this time of year in the mid-Atlantic region of the U.S., the oak pollen is covering everything indoors and out with a thick film of yellow-green dust.  Grimier still is the thick patina of hypocrisy that coats nearly every utterance by government, corporate, religious, and other spokesmen these days.  The pollen makes us sneeze, the hypocrisy turns our stomachs; but the pollen will stop in a week or so, while the hypocrisy is unlikely to abate soon. 

A lot of the hypocrisy right now concerns jobs; unemployment is the big concern for many, so why not turn it to your advantage when you have an ax to grind?  Thus, when the Administration seeks to reform abuses in student lending, loan companies don't suggest they fix the problems that they could have fixed over the past ten years or more; instead, they argue that reforms would "destroy jobs in the private lending sector."  Military spending adjustments suggested by DefSec Gates won't reduce defense spending (in fact would increase it) but they would mean spending on different things, so as a defense contractor, you don't argue the policy, you claim it will result in the loss of 100,000 jobs (just ignore the fact it will create 100,000 more elsewhere).  

The issue that prompted my little diatribe today, though, is what I like to call energy reform.  As conservative economic columnist Robert Samuelson points out, proponents of "alternative energy" are making a lot of exaggerated claims about how easily or cheaply we can switch to non-carbon fuels.  Can we do it for a mere 10 cents a day for every man, woman, and child?  Samuelson doesn't think so.  I don't either.  Can we accomplish it in 10, or even 20, years? No.  Once again, I agree.  And he's surely correct in saying that politicians love a something-for-nothing proposition.  But he takes a very deep skinny-dip into the slough of hypocrisy when he fails to take his conservative cohort to task for the same sorts of exaggeration and deception. 

One example is the now-defunct coalition of energy and automotive companies called the Global Climate Coalition, which claimed to have scientific studies suggesting the link between our energy usage and global climate change was inconclusive.  It turns out that they covered up the Inconvenient Truth that their own scientists reported the linkage was "well established."  The GCC is now defunct but some of its members remain committed to hypocrisy:  Utility companies now say that their real concern isn't profits, it that their customers might pay higher costs.  Meanwhile, to come full circle, the equally hypocritical television ads of the American Petroleum Institute tout that any changes in their comfy arrangement will .... (care to guess?) ... destroy jobs!

Back to Samuelson for a moment:  He wrongly implies that supporters of alternative energy are offering something for nothing.  A dime a day per capita for the U.S. population comes to a surprising 13 billion dollars a year - a bit more than nothing.  But even if it were zero, the key fact is that something is being offered; a start must be made.  We are far behind where we should be thanks to eight years in which our government and industry leaders fiddled while the fossil fuels burned, offering nothing at a very high cost.

The Notre Dame Case: Ignorance Is Blessed

The ongoing flap about Notre Dame University's invitation to President Obama to speak at commencement (and concomitantly to be awarded an honorary degree) is amusing, though undoubtedly some of those involved don't see themselves as ridiculous.  It would be more laughable if it weren't also so reflective of some sad currents in higher education in the U.S.  

It's not the first time serious universities and their graduates have seemingly forgotten the basic precept of intellectual freedom.  I wasn't too proud of the University of Kansas, one of my alma maters, a couple of years ago for not being more forceful when the state of Kansas temporarily decided that the spurious "science" of creationism should be taught in schools -- but that was politicians fooling around, not the university itself.  Yale ought to have been embarrassed even to claim George W. Bush as a graduate, a fellow who seemingly flunked remedial English; yet they raced not only to claim him, but fulsomely to give him an honorary degree within months of his inauguration.  Maryland legislators recently intervened in the affairs of the state's university to emasculate plans to air an avowedly pornographic film. 

Now we have Notre Dame.   I'm not in a position to judge the university's motives or actions here - not on the religious level, in any case.  As laymen, we might suppose that Obama, a man of some educational achievement, and being the current President of the United States, would be a reasonable candidate for honorary treatment.  Further as laymen, we could be excused for thinking the university was seeking to "do the right thing" by laying down a marker for freedom of thought and intellectual inquiry.

Yet many Notre Dame alumni have objected to the university's plan.  The latest to come to our attention is one Mary Ann Glendon, a Harvard prof who has declined to accept an honorary award of her own because the university is violating a "request" laid down by a panel of bishops, the gist of which is that Catholic universities ought not to proffer honorifics to people whose views aren't the church's.  Ms. Glendon is certainly entitled to her opinion.   I don't think she's adding much to the dialogue, and is perhaps even detracting from it.  

The press credential her as a former Ambassador to the Vatican, but the chief qualification for obtaining this political appointment is to be a Roman Catholic.  Furthermore, the timing of her announcement is political; clearly aimed at influencing the university's decision.  So, when she says that the bishops' position "in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution's freedom to invite and engage in serious debate,"  there is every reason to suppose that like most of the other alums who have objected, she's reasoning from a religious and political, rather than intellectual, basis.  

That, it seems, is what Professor Glendon and other howling alumni would have the university do:  Define itself first as a religious institution and only secondarily as an institution of higher learning.  Could Notre Dame have the President speak and not grant him an honorary degree?  I suppose so.  Would he still speak? I presume so (I doubt that he's much concerned about having an essentially meaningless certificate to hang on his wall at the White House).  But the public might then consider if it's appropriate for any U.S. President or national politican to speak at a university that makes such decisions under the chilling effect of a batch of bishops, rather than on their value in educated discourse.  

One gets the impression that a certain group of Notre Dame graduates would really prefer that the Presiden'ts appearance be canceled.  Of course they would deny that.  Regardless, they do the reputation of their university no favors by raising objections that sound to others as if they were anti-intellectual.  Could they be worried that his ideas might resonate with some in the student body?  Instead, these folks should consider the positive effects of having a U.S. President whose beliefs are different from theirs appear before this particular audience and speak on the record about the issues that so concern them.  

How To Vacation

I was on vacation recently on one of those semi-tropical Caribbean isles.  Just before I boarded the plane to come home, the TV in the airport had CNN on, with Pres. Obama making a statement about something or other, and I remember thinking to myself, "Obama...is he still President?"  So much for the fleeting glory of politicians!

I quickly readjusted to reality, but that brief little thought reflects how completely disconnected I had been for one short week -- no cell phone (it wouldn't have worked if I'd turned it on), no PDA, no newspapers, no radio, no television, no snail mail or e-mail, and the only tweeting going on was that of the birds.  I realized that this isolation was what made it such a totally relaxing week. 

I'm retired now, so you may think, what's the big deal?   First, even we retirees have obligations, duties, commitments, and distractions that are best left behind from time to time.  More important is belatedly realizing the value of really "getting away," and regretting that you didn't do it sooner.

By coincidence, I read a novel (Natural Elements by Richard Mason) while on vacation in which a high-powered commodities trader nearly loses her firm several hundred million dollars because she is on vacation and not receiving the panic calls coming in on her cell  phone.  At the time, it seems like the end of the world, but in the end things turn out OK because her original judgment on the value of the investment was sound. 

Well, that's the imaginary world.  I am very aware that in this day and age, it's different when you're working.  You feel that pressure to always be in touch; maybe your boss even insists that "if you must go," you have to be reachable; or you own your own business but there's that one big client that just might call and expect to find you.  You tell yourself no one is indispensable for one little week, but you don't quite believe it.  (Actually, it's true.) 

Nevertheless, my advice, especially if you're still working, is:  try to make the space to give complete isolation a try.  If you look up "vacation," you'll see words like "respite" and "rest" in the definition but the root, of course, is the same as "vacate" or "vacuum."  Empty that brain, clear out those cares and woes, and don't let them be thrust back upon you by some buzzing or beeping little electronic device.  Sound tough? It is.  But you may find it's truly beneficial.  

Employment: Working For Uncle Sam

Personnel er...now we call them "human resources" ...officials in federal government have been concerned in recent years about future staffing as baby boomers start retiring. Now, however, there seems to be an uptick in interest among job-seekers in working for the government.  Why?

What's that I hear you saying?  "It's the economy, stupid!"?  Well, yes, but I think that's oversimplified.  Government employment ebbed and surged in the course of the twentieth century and into the 21st as a result of several factors.  Usually the big shifts have resulted from the convergence of more than one of the following:

• Expanded job supply, such as exists today with baby boomers retiring, or after World War II when the government's functions expanded rapidly (experts like Dr. David DeLong, quoted in Bottom Line/Personal newsletter, say up to 60% of federal supervisors will be eligible to retire in 2010);

• Expanded supply of workers, which can result from unemployment (like today or during the Great Depression) or from huge numbers of men and women being discharged from the military who already have a service orientation;

• Changes in national mood, as we cycle between administrations that both encourage a service orientation over pure self-interest, and also set off a spark among younger Americans (here the contrast between the Peace Corps, which did both, and the Thousand Points of Light, which did only the first, is revealing);

• Shifting perceptions of meaningful opportunities in the public sector, (job seekers today surely take into account that current plans for new departures in energy, education, health, and environment will create exciting possibilities for professional fulfillment in a way that the last decade's minimalist approach to government did not).

Every one of these factors is present in society today, so it's little wonder that more people are exploring the possibility of working for government.  One of this blog's readers has observed that the stimulus money approved earlier appears to focus largely on blue-collar work.  I'm not certain that's true, but perhaps white-collar jobs take a little longer to develop; here's one sector where they are already in existence, and coming open. 

Incidentally, government also faces the issue of lost experience and knowledge as older workers retire.  I don't want to get into that issue here but anyone interested might want to look at Dr. David DeLong's www.lostknowledge.com, or Roberta Matuson's blog, www.generationintegration.typepad.com.  

   

A Dead End For Real Estate Developers?

In 2007 the Virginia Assembly unanimously adopted a regulation on the types of secondary streets it would "accept" in future construction projects, meaning for which the state would provide maintenance, snow plowing, and the like.  The provisions will go into effect July 1 this year.

There are a number of changes, including narrower streets (enhancing groundwater retention) and the provision of sidewalks, but the main focus has been on the requirement that street networks in new subdivisions must connect to those in other adjacent subdivisions and commercial developments.  This is broadly being interpreted as a ban on cul-de-sac streets, though it is anticipated that irregular parcels of land and other factors would still necessitate some non-through-streets.

It's nice to see this new regulation was passed unanimously (it's rare that our mix of Republicans and Democrats, urban and rural, in the Assembly produces a majority, let alone unanimity).  I think the unanimity reflects a consensus that the cul-de-sac has gotten out of hand.  It was one thing when a cul-de-sac was usually a lollipop-looking street of less than a block, with only a half-dozen houses on it; it's another now, when so many new subdivisions are vast tracts with possibly hundreds of homes, and only one road leading out. 

These new larger subdivisions are virtually gated communities without the gates.  They dump all the traffic onto the main arteries, even if it's just Mom running to the grocery store for a loaf of bread and a bottle of gin.  From the state's viewpoint, besides the clogging of traffic and higher street maintenance costs, I imagine these giant cubicles are also harder for emergency vehicles, snow plows, and maintenance crews to reach and service.  Real estate developers like to claim culs-de-sac are safer because they reduce traffic and crime, but there is little evidence to support that; in fact, most urban planners, following the lead of Jane Jacobs's seminal 1961 book The Death and Life of Great American Cities, as well as statistics comparing "connected" residential areas to "unconnected" ones, come to the opposite conclusion -- the presence of more people and traffic, even if the passers-by do not live in the immediate area, tends to reduce crime. 

A Personal Note:  I remember reading Jacobs's book while the Army had sentenced me to eight weeks of bad air.  Ft. Knox, Kentucky was heated with coal, and the diesel fumes wafting out of those tank engines were no picnic either.  Is it possible the book was required reading for Tank Platoon Leader training? Probably not... But I digress.  The book was memorable because it seemed so rational and well thought-out.  I've never forgotten its basic conclusions: that neighborhoods with traffic, especially pedestrian traffic, are both safer and livelier than closed-off communities where nothing is happening on the streets.

Earth Day

Today is Earth Day (or one of them, the other being UN Earth Day, observed at the spring equinox in March -- saving the Earth is such a big job that we seem to need two days a year to do it).  So I'm going to return to trees again.  

One thing we see at this time of year in the northern hemisphere is all the flora starting to bud and bloom.  The flowering of the Japanese cherry trees around the Tidal Basin and the Jefferson Memorial in Washington DC is among the first manifestations of spring, and it attracts thousands of spectators.  This annual spectacle, however, also provides clear evidence of how much work needs to be done to sensitize people to the preservation of their natural environment. 

One article on April 5 used a photo of a boy climbing one of the famous cherry trees.  On the link, you can't see the photo (by Kevin Lamarque of Reuters) so here's a copy:    

This is a constant problem at this time of year.  Because of the huge crowds, and the potential damage to the trees, climbing the trees is forbidden, as are pulling blossoms or twigs off them, or getting off the paths (which compacts the earth).  Not only are many, many people every year so oblivious as to commit these offenses, but now we have a major newspaper showing them doing it, as if it's a cute and fun thing to do.  At least one citizen wrote in to complain about this ignorance.

Another item recently pointed to the same kind of behavior by visitors destroying the historic olive trees at the Mount of Olives in Israel. When an arborist tells people not to snatch branches off the trees, they ask "Why not?"  So the problem is worldwide.

Maybe we DO need two Earth Days.    Meanwhile, as I suggested earlier, wouldn't it be nice to have this date as an official holiday every year?  

Remarkable Trees

 

"I think that I shall never see

A poem lovely as a tree." 

(Joyce Kilmer - 1914)

Like Joyce Kilmer, most of us do like trees, whether it's for their beauty, their shade, their grandeur, or even for the utility and strength of their wood.  I've just finished an excellent book entitled Remarkable Trees of Virginia and with Earth Day coming up tomorrow, I decided to throw in a quick plug for it.  If you love marvelous trees - big trees, old trees, especially interesting trees, even historic trees - this is a book you should get, whether you live in Virginia or not.  

There are magnificent color photos on every page (the one posted here is my own, however).  In addition, a well-written accompanying text provides more information about each of the trees shown, their particular histories, and the growth habits, preferred microenvironment, and longevity of the species.

The book stems from a continuing project of the same name that was developed to find, list, and document the state's greatest trees - not just the largest, or the oldest, but also in a variety of other categories.  One surprise to the layman is how evidently often a "champion" tree can be displaced by another, either by dint of the "champ's" demise, or by being overtaken in growth, or perhaps supplanted by a "new" tree that had not been previously documented.  

All in all, an outstanding book.  The original edition was quickly sold out, but a second press run is due this month.  Click the icon in the right margin, where you can be notified when it's available.   

In Radio, A Surprising Success Story

Everywhere we turn there are concerns about key news media losing audience.  One I hadn't written about yet was radio, where a somewhat surprising success story has emerged - stolid old National Public Radio (NPR) is seeing a steadily growing audience for its news programs, according to the Washington Post. 

Surely there are a variety of reasons.  Some are exogenous, such as the increased interest that all news media experienced after the terrorist attacks of September 11, and again during the unusually high interest in the 2008 Presidential election campaign.  Unlike other media, however, NPR has experienced a continuing growth since these surges (unlike other media), to the extent that it has been adding resources. 

This steady growth is likely due to the gradual decline of other media; to the very limited time remaining media devote to news; to the longer and more in-depth treatment NPR gives to its stories; and the fact that it retains its own fairly large staff for foreign reporting.  I would also suggest that NPR offers a calm, sane, and objective listening experience that's probably a boon to listeners, especially those in their cars, where so much of the radio audience listens these days.

The boom isn't likely to turn public radio profitable, or eliminate those funding campaigns, but it is one bright spot in an otherwise bleak media news picture.

Museum Musings

Some time ago the Smithsonian Institution announced plans to create a National Museum of African-American History and Culture (NMAAHC) to be built on the National Mall next to the Washington Monument.  Not having heard anything of it for a while, I had thought maybe the idea had been abandoned.  That would not have been all bad; the conceptual framework for this effort is flawed.   

African-American history is an inseparable part of our history as a nation; it is not a distinct, unrelated set of events.  I agree that it's a history which deserves a greater representation in our museums than it currently has, but the creation of a separate museum devoted to one part of the whole ignores reality.  It smacks of the discredited "separate but equal" theory.  The current plan will also create a NMAAHC bureaucracy that will in future jealously guard its separateness, so it's now or never for the Smithsonian to get it right and provide an integrated (in all senses) picture of American history. 

I'm sure that's not going to happen, but here is a practical fix, if anyone in high places wants to reconsider:  Make the new building a second building of the Museum of American History, much as the National Gallery of Art nearby now has "East" and "West" buildings.  That would allow placing African-American topics and exhibits into their proper places in the whole fabric of our history, throughout both buildings.  

Meanwhile, the Smithsonian has announced its selection of a design and an architect for the future NMAAHC.  I was pleasantly surprised by some of the preliminary design proposals.  Several were graceful, architecturally interesting, and would have been good additions to what's already in the area.  To me, the winning design is one of the more mundane entries - heavy and fortress-like -- but I'm no architect.  What's more important in a museum is display space and accessibility of the exhibits.  I hope Smithsonian officials will keep that in mind, now that the design choice has been made, and avoid creating another wasteful architect's-dream/viewer-disaster like the American Indian Museum.