A treasure in trouble

I have had little direct contact with Fisk University, some concerts in my younger years. My few black friends went to Tennessee State.
Back in the '60s, as US colleges and universities integrated and recruited minority students, it was predictable that historically black colleges and universities would struggle, and some would fail.
A decade or so ago there was an article in the Tennessean recalling some of Fisk's accomplishments, including a high percentage of its students going on to academic graduate and advanced professional schools. It became clear that Fisk is a community treasure, as deserving of annual citizen support as our symphony, opera, library, public broadcasting, zoo, United Way and our own alma maters, deserving also a few rich patrons. I later learned that one of my thoughtful and influential friends had organized some existential help for Fisk in the '80s.
Given recent news of Fisk's financial state, it's a good time to consider these things. Their address is: Fisk University, Office of Institutional Advancement; 1000 17th Av N; Nashville TN 37208-3051.

Gobal warming / Reaganism

"Unwelcome truth is better than cherished error" - attributed by Google to E G Conklin, 1936 president of the American Association for Advancement of Science. This dictum comes to mind when the Tennessean publishes columns of Thomas Sowell, Cal Thomas and now Phil Valentine as well as numerous letters repeating conservative talk-show rejections of scientific findings demonstrating global warming, the causes and consequences of its accelerating time course. Is it possible that these writers cherish their errors because they are wedded to Reaganism?
Beginning in 1980 I judged from Reagan's campaign slogans and policy initiatives about free trade, deregulation, taxation and family planning that he would usher in a period of increasing and accelerating resource depletion, destruction of natural support systems (oceans, soils), off-shoring of manufacturing jobs, transfer of wealth from American laborers to managers and investors, negative trade balance, government debt, bankruptcy rate, homelessness, world overpopulation, population dislocations, resource wars, anxiety and paranoia - all this for a temporary delay of inflation. Global warming, we now know, is another consequence of Reagan's faith in unfettered market forces as sufficient determinants of economic decisions.

No more preemptive wars please

  *  At least 10 recent syndicated columns contain the endorsement of preemptive war: "We need to fight them over there so we won't have to fight them here." This pernicious sentiment holds "them" to be sub-human, as did our slave holders, our KKK and Adolph Hitler. It is music to bin Laden's ears. Al-Qaida and other Islamists couldn't contrive a more effective recruiting scheme.
  *  People resent foreigners killing their kinfolk on their own soil, and they don't forgive the humiliation of armed foreigners breaking down their doors. Occupation generates hatred and resistance by those directly affected and their sympathizers, and it eventually demoralizes the occupiers.
  *  Considering the above dynamic, one can predict that preemptive invasion and occupation of Muslim states by western states will look like a crusade morphing into something approaching genocide - adding to a long history of betrayal, domination, colonization, population dislocation, arbitrary geographic divisions, political interference and exploitation.
  *  It's time (before attacking Iran) to try a regime of improved international cooperation on intelligence and policing, international good will, cooperative problem solving and development of non-carbon energy sources - this along with a moratorium on preemptive war, proportional military response to attacks on American interests abroad and disproportional military retaliation (without occupation) in response to attacks on our own soil.
  *  The risk to any given American, incident to such a regime, would be far less than those of our own medical errors, transportation mishaps, criminal behavior, neglect of vulnerable people, natural disasters, etc.

Satanic Paradigms - 1

In modern usage, paradigms are widely embraced often tacit assumptions or articles of faith guiding human conduct. They may be so pervasive for so long as to seem like the unavoidable natural order. Pondering what we humans are doing to the earth and its inhabitants (ourselves and our descendants included), thoughts of lemmings come to mind. We seem unable to examine the paradigms leading to future misery and destruction, unable to explore more widely satisfying and sustainable variations and alternatives.
Economic growth. What would happen to a candidate for municipal, state or national office who opposed economic growth? States and municipalities offer tax breaks and other incentives to lure big businesses, especially manufacturers. Government officials making those offers recognize that the citizens and established businesses are either powerless or willing to make up the taxes for anticipated increased earnings or prestige. This is unfair to many who do pay normal taxes. The tax break is a subsidy giving the recruited business an unfair advantage over its competitors, and it detracts from the benefit that the recruited business could bring to the community. Certainly the total happiness/satisfaction of the nation is indifferent to which state and community lures a given business. The tax-break/subsidy for recruiting business should be a federal crime.
Is economic growth always good--for the environment, resource reserves, sea life, climate, etc? Is the average pre-Dell Nashvillian happier by virtue of our recruitment of Dell Computer? What would be the consequences of steady economic activity? Could we adapt to it? How much of current economic activity is trivial waste? What if population expansion could be checked? Are there limits to economic growth--locally, nationally, internationally? What will life be like as such limits are approached?

Ethical Pragmatism

Ethical Pragmatism = quest for the objectively desirable & possible
Or : What would Jesus cheer for today? Or : What would we support/oppose if we cared for everyone including future generations equally? Or : Golden rule applied in four dimensions.
Can we examine doctrines and paradigms of the socioeconomic dynamic based on experience, evidence, reason, modeling - without reference to authority or scripture or personal benefit?
Anxiety. I don't like it. Do society and economy need so much? How much reduction of anxiety is desirable, possible? By what policy, eg universal health coverage? Should public assistance be modified? How?
GDP growth, pros & cons. Effect on earth health? Is it sustainable? Any substitutes for social-stabilizing effect of high employment rate? Is there a happy societal adaptation to constant or diminishing GDP?
Population growth, pros & cons. Effect on earth health? Is it sustainable? Is there a happy societal adaptation to constant of diminishing population? Incentives?
Laissez-faire capitalism vs regulation. Regardez the SUV & Oxycontin!!!
Globalization vs protectionism. Obligation to our labor, consideration of foreign economies.
Latino immigration. Why is it? What would be preferable and how implemented?
Subsidies, cost/benefit for every kind of person affected, recipients, non-recipient Americans, international competitors.
Balanced budget amendment. Who promoted it? Who wanted it? Consequences of failure/success? How to implement? Exceptions?
Progressive taxation. What is purpose? Best formula? Grover Norquist doctrine.
If you break it you own it. Is this valid under all circumstances?
Finance-free politics?
Universal national service, one year, two years?

Secretary of Vegetation

Just this morning the radio mentioned some decision by our Secretary of Vegetation. What do we need with a Secretary of Vegetation? Wouldn't vegetation be the responsibility of the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior? Has our government gone mad? Somebody needs to get Grover Norquist on this case.
(Whisper, whisper).....Oooooh! It's Secretary of Education, not Vegetation. That's different. Never mind.

Screaming Video

What's all this talk I hear about screaming video? Can screaming video spread peace, justice and happiness? It seems unlikely. I don't want it. As a grandparent with baby-sitting duties, I get all the screaming I need.
(Whisper, whisper.....) Ooooh, It's streaming video, not screaming video. That's different. Never mind.

Socioeconomic model

Is there an ideal socioeconomic model to maximize peace, justice, satisfaction, progress, happiness, sustainability, goodwill? All models so far embraced across time fall short in various ways, owing to the wide spectrum of human characteristics, including intelligence, talent, physical prowess, imagination, desire, experience, opportunity, ambition, faith, gender, responsibility, luck, self restraint, compliance, cooperation, etc.
An ideal socioeconomic model would enable the vast majority of citizens to be gainfully and/or usefully employed. It would incentivize various kinds of responsible behavior, such as committed marriage, family planning, interest in current events and other knowledge, cultural involvement, respect for law, care for others, work at available jobs appropriate to education and skills. It would seek to insure agricultural reserve, which requires some restraint of population growth. It would maintain a spectrum of skills and capacities for self reliance.
Globalization of virtually all production and information industries undermines any advanced nation's attempt to implement an ideal socioeconomic model. Migrations from less advanced nations complicate such attempts similarly. Modern economists consider these trends desirable, as they result in expanding economic activity and increasing wealth for the majority of those affected. A few economists and others suspect that the associated job dislocation, loss of self respect and anxiety among an advanced nation's citizens are too great a price to pay for these results.
The western model results in too many throw-away people turning to recreational drugs and criminal life. It is fiscally irresponsible, heading for bankruptcy. It depends on immigration, resulting in demographic problems much greater than the economic problems solved by the immigration.

Latino Labor

Most US citizens are disturbed to some degree by the rate of immigration from Latin America. What are the ethical and practical implications of this socioeconomic stressor?
One might ask why so many are so desperate to leave their home countries. Is it overpopulation in relation to agricultural resources, lack of innovation-based industry, aristocratic/plutocratic/oligarchic control of power, means and wealth? If so, why is it so, how did it get that way, what could be done to make the source countries more hospitable to their peoples? Then behind those explanations more underlying whys & hows. Where is the US in this spectrum or evolution?
One might ask why so many jobs in the US are filled by illegal aliens. In essence, it is because they come and because employers find that they will work harder than available US citizens for lower wages. This process is self augmenting, in that, no employer can compete without adopting the practices of those who use the hardest-working lowest earning laborers. Beyond a critical point a job or trade can become culturally unwelcoming to non-latinos.
Clearly, this labor force, like outsourcing, keeps consumer prices down, presumably a benefit to consumers. But, also like outsourcing, it displaces US laborers from jobs. How should this affect our thinking? Does a government owe its citizens some job protection at the expense of non-citizens?
What about: 1) potential ethnic hostility, 2) the fact that the US stole its southwestern territories from Mexico, 3) overpopulation of several US regions, 4) effect of remittances on trade balance, 5) life in US without aliens, how the jobs would get done with education/culture teaching away from labor, 6) unsustainability of importing labor especially with amnesty, 7) unsustainability of economic growth on a limited earth, 8) the role of our welfare system on employment demographics, 9) etc???

Female oppression

  *  Among the more disturbing practices occurring in the 21st century are female genital mutilation and honor killing/mutilation. Female genital mutilation, as reported, involves restraint of a young girl by family members whereupon her labia minora and clitoris are cut off and her genital opening is sewn closed, all without anesthesia. The purpose is to increase the probability that she will be a virgin until marriage. Honor killing is the murder of a female by a family member as punishment for unchaperoned fraternizing with a male, especially with one of a rival group. Alternatively it can occur for a girl's failing to comply with her family's wishes with respect to an arranged marriage. A husband's family may kill or mutilate a wife because her dowry was insufficient. Concentrated sulfuric acid in the face is often the mutilation.
  *  In these patriarchal cultures, women are essentially chattel. It is difficult to extend respect to a culture where these practices are lawful or tolerated. In some countries where female genital mutilation and honor killing/mutilation are unlawful, the crimes go unpunished, and the practices continue.
  *  There are numerous reasons for failure to punish perpetrators of female-oppression acts in countries where they are crimes. If a government considers this to be shameful, it could adopt a policy of punishing such a crime by putting the likely perpetrating family's oldest male in prison for 20 years or until the actual perpetrator steps forward to take his place for 20 years. This would not always be just, but it wouldn't take many patriarchs in prison for the practices to stop.
  *  Governments of advanced countries should do what they can to improve the status of women everywhere. One could argue plausibly that gender equality worldwide might be the key to world peace and environmental sustainability.

What about sex?

Sex may be the most pleasurable natural animal activity, at least among mammals and possibly among all animals, though eating when hungry, drinking when thirsty, warming when cold, cooling when hot, and scratching an itch aren't out of the running. Yet sex is a source of much human misery. Mating is one of the most important determinants of satisfaction in life. Parents give mating of their children much thought, worry and hope, often tacitly. We just don't have a formula for optimizing sex and mating. How can wisdom prevail in an arena where desire and impulse are so strong? Both love and the lack of it make people crazy.
How much delay is optimal? Most religious traditions teach abstinence until marriage, but that teaching has been ignored by many throughout history and has largely lost traction with the sexual revolution. This trend makes more sense as our culture encourages delayed marriage, incident to the perceived need for both spouses to be employed outside the home.
The youth culture today is a minefield of temptations and opportunities. Perhaps the biggest increase of danger is in the availability of pleasure drugs, but the danger of irresponsible sexual activity is much greater than it was in the 50s. Back then, unwanted pregnancy was the biggest worry and the likely STDs were curable; today there are several deadly STDs. Some happiness-diminishing and incurable STDs are now epidemic, afflicting more than half of young adults. Consider the inner conflict of an ethical person with an incurable STD. Thus, there is a practical downside to hooking up and friends with benefits. The upside might be the containment of depressing loneliness, fantasies, obsessions, compulsions and anxiety, and the development of comfort with the other gender, technique and sociability. Can the upside be maximized and the downside be minimized?
In today's environment, can a young person be guided toward a happy mating outcome without cynical motives? Would advice about goodwill, good intentions, long-term hopes about life be valuable along with that about protection? The internet once promised to help in identifying compatible mates, but abuse of that system presents some dangers. Examples of beneficial life choices might help.

Socioeconomic Pyramid

> He who dies with the most toys wins. Conspicuous consumption is a means to display status, especially for the respect of strangers. These usually unarticulated and unconscious features of human nature drive many to heights of accomplishment. For every person near the top of the socioeconomic pyramid, there must be masses at the lower levels.
> Aspects of this socioeconomic structure disturb liberal Democrats and please conservative Republicans. Liberals, like Jesus, lament the extremes from bottom to top and wish to mollify the impact on those at the bottom. Conservatives, like Marie Antoinette, see those extremes as the natural order and recognize that the height of an apex depends on the number of hungry, exploitable workers and customers beneath. There is a tension between ethical and practical considerations.
> The quest for status can be pernicious, especially among children, given the superficiality of their thinking and the cruelty meted to the excluded. There may be little relief from the status quest into adulthood, though the effects may be more subtle and practical. Given the wide spectrum of conditions in various dimensions of the pyramid, generalizations are difficult, but it appears that the distress of status is largely due to comparisons with perceived norms and internalized expectations, ie it is more psychological than practical. With basic physical needs met, one can be grateful with ones circumstances or resentful that others have more.
> Is it possible, through public policy and cultural encouragement, to broaden the distribution of satisfaction from top to bottom of the pyramid, without upsetting the motivations for productive activity throughout? How much misery and anxiety are necessary at and near the bottom? Are there entitlements that should be extended to all citizens? Would universal health care be one? Can self-destructive choices be be headed off more effectively? Should every citizen, rich and poor, be required to give a year or more of national service after high school to accomplish nationally important goals?

Mistakes were made

  *  Understatement of the decade!!! The American people made a huge mistake by electing a president who lacked curiosity about the world and who stayed inebriated during his formative years.
  *  1) Greedy Americans sought nirvana in abolition of the estate tax, not realizing that only the richest 2% pay any estate tax. Did they wish to establish and perpetuate an aristocracy or plutocracy?  Next came a reduction of the highest tax rate, another gift to the rich, then the abolition of tax on dividends to enrich the rich. The excuse was to avoid double taxation of dividends. More desirable would be to let corporations deduct dividends from reported earnings.
  *  Since the Republican congress went on a spending spree, including an unjust war, these tax policies just added to the national debt, which will have to be serviced by future generations, the interest on which will go to our rich and to foreign countries.
  *  The argument that the government did not need the revenues was short sighted, as the country was deeply in debt, with rising social-security payouts on the horizon. The argument that tax breaks for the rich would stimulate the economy was trickle down theory, the most inefficient conceivable economic policy.
  *  The very rich were not in fact asking for those gifts. Most of them understood that a balanced budget is more important than their additional wealth. Many of them understood that a healthy middle class is more important than a richer wealthy class. Fair minded people don't mind paying taxes needed by their government, provided all others of similar circumstances are paying their share.    *  Thus, the tax breaks didn't even contribute to the happiness of their beneficiaries.
  *  2) My fellow Christian Americans, our Christian Congress and our Christian President were too easily caught up in hate and revenge against the wrong target. It has been a long time since more evil than the Iraq war was projected on the world. How many ministers led discussions of Just War Theory during the run-up?
  *  3) Ignoring warnings about al-Qaida's intentions, withholding funds for international family planning, failing to promote energy conservation (transportation standards & building codes), maligning same-sex couples, all mistakes.
  *  Why would anyone regret the departure of Republicans from Washington?

Brittle Economy

The US economy is out of balance, hence the US way of life is unsustainable. We are too addicted to low consumer prices, high stock prices and convenience. Can a free society act rationally? We need to experiment with new ways to get things done.
1) We consume too much that we don't produce, so we spend much more on imports that we receive in revenues from exports. Our debts to foreign countries are huge and growing faster. Addiction to oil contributes much to this trade imbalance. Driving fuel-inefficient cars and living far from work are self destructive. Our building codes don't insist on high-R thermal envelopes and low surface/volume ratios. We have failed to support non-carbon (renewable, local) energy production. We have allowed too much of our manufacturing capacity to leave. These choices were political, not inevitable. As a result we are deep in debt to the more productive nations, most of which are not our friends.
2) US taxes are not sufficient to pay for federal programs. Our government spends much more than it takes in, with the result that national debt is huge and growing faster. Interest on that debt has become a very large component of the federal budget, which robs from programs and increases the debt even faster - the miracle of compound interest in reverse. Left as is, debt service will eventually consume the entire budget, ie it will be the only item in the budget. Debt service contributes to the negative trade balance. Cutting tax for economic stimulation is inefficient, temporary, undesirable. Satisfied, Grover Norquist & GW Bush?
3) Our culture and educational system don't sufficiently respect labor, encourage work ethic, teach trades, insist on work, reward hard labor. Fat, lazy & entitled are norms. We import workers at most levels: intellectuals, nurses, hospitality workers, builders, food producers and processors (We still grow inventors and entrepreneurs.) Many drop out of school early but don't have skills, work ethic or self respect to do needed work, and that work is so undercompensated that many who might be in that work force end up choosing crime while we import their replacements. The process is self augmenting. Some say that the massive import of laborers is necessary for several industries and to support our social-security system (which could be balanced by modest tweaking). One might ask whether an industry that needs massive imported labor is in need of more fundamental alteration to make it attractive to native citizens. There is no end of foreigners who would love to immigrate, but our population is already too big by some measures. The US will become like those places where the workers are coming from.
4) We believe that most problems can be solved by a growing economy. But economic activity is already bigger than the earth can support. Competition for energy, limitations of water, displacement of wildlife, pollution of air, water and land are consequences of expanding population and expanding economy. We are close to the maximal sustainable average world prosperity. It is hypocritical to pretend that a happier world will result from development of now small-footprint societies. The march for more economic activity is unsustainable. Time will come when Milton Friedman will be seen as the midwife of doom.

Scalene Triangle

A scalene triangle has three sides of different lengths. Likewise, it has three different heights depending on which side is base. In designing the Freedom Dobro Capo, I needed to calculate the coordinates of a scalene-triangle's apices from its three heights.
The formulae are given below the accompanying figure, where h1 is height when the triangle is oriented with b1 as base (as in the example), h2 is height when b2 is base, and h3 is height when b3 is base. The triangle is positioned with its left-base apex at the origin (where both x and y coordinates are 0) and with its b1 on the x axis. The x coordinate of the right-base apex has the value of b1. The x coordinate of the top apex is x1. The y coordinates of these apices are 0 and h1 respectively. The formulae give b1 and x1 from specified h1, h2 and h3.
They are derived from the formula for area of a triangle and the pythagorean theorem.

Tobacco Settlement

I can cite numerous reasons and excuses why I took up smoking at age 30, but I wouldn't advise anyone else to do likewise. Because of it, I payed attention to the arguments when the states sued the tobacco companies several years ago. I thought then and still think now that the courts should not have awarded the states a dime.
Everybody dies whether or not he/she smokes. The terminal diseases of non-smokers are essentially as expensive as those of smokers. Therefore, smoking doesn't significantly increase a person's draw on the government's health-care purse. Smoking shortens life expectancy by a few years, so the duration of the smoker's draw on the health-care purse is shorter than that of the non-smoker. The large taxes on tobacco pay for much of the state's health-care expense drawn by smokers, so the state probably comes out better with smokers than with non-smokers.
And the federal government makes out like a bandit, with smokers paying high taxes on tobacco and paying into social security for years and then dying prematurely thereby relieving social security of several payout years.
Perhaps the tobacco companies should sue the state and federal governments to recover some of the extra revenues and expense savings incident to smoking.

US-Cuban relations

It seems that our policies toward Cuba have been short-sighted almost from the time Castro took power. For decades we encouraged Cuban dissidents to escape and take refuge in the US. One result was the takeover of southern Florida by a large population of angry foreigners with policy agendas of their own and with enough clout to tie the hands of our government in its relations with Cuba. Various embargoes made life difficult for the people of Cuba and prevented US businesses from operating in and trading with Cuba. This exclusion probably prolonged the Communist regime or prevented or delayed its mollification. It advantaged businesses from all not-US countries vis-a-vis US companies. Then there were the unethical attempts to assassinate Castro or overthrow the Cuban government by paramilitary action. The missile crisis came after several of our offenses against the Cuban government. Those missiles were forced (by Nikita Kruschev) on Castro against his wishes. When the Cubans shot down a small US aircraft dropping propaganda leaflets over Cuba, we should have just shut up instead of posturing self-righteously. In any case, normalization of relations with Cuba should have begun at least three decades ago and been completed by now. Why not?

Guantanamo Detainees

  *  Our invasion and occupation of Iraq have produced and trained at least one hundred enemy combatants willing to sacrifice themselves in the killing of Americans for every enemy combatant we have killed or captured in Afghanistan and Iraq.  The neocon doctrine of improving world order and our safety by projecting US military power abroad predictably had negative efficiency.
  *  Considering the frequency and brutality of inter-Muslim killings and the ease with which people can depart utterly from civilized ways in a hateful environment, there is little doubt that Americans and allies here and in various parts of the world will be killed by terrorists we have cultivated.
  *  The prisoners in Guantanamo are no longer well connected to movements in their home countries, so their possible intelligence value is minuscule and their threat in aggregate is small compared to that of the many thousands of enemy combatants we have cultivated.  Therefore, our danger would not increase measurably were we to repatriate those prisoners immediately, except those we are prepared to indite and prosecute immediately.  In most cases, it would be the just thing to do.  It is impossible to imprison even a modest fraction of those now willing to do us harm.  Better to make friends wherever possible - friends to help contain, discover and control those bent on violence.

Human condition

The world is so full of a number of things, I'm sure we should all be as happy as kings.
Man does not live by bread alone.
Better a man unsatisfied than a pig satisfied.
* These quotes (Stevenson, Jesus, Mill) address an important aspect of the human condition - a yearning for meaning and significance in ones own existence, which is rarely satisfied. We, like other animals, are restless, unsatisfied with the normal comforts and pleasures that we try to achieve. We seek occupation, prestige, community, intimacy, justification, righteousness, distraction, wisdom, wealth, power. We seek, sometimes obsessively, but are rarely satisfied!
* Philosophers and religion founders attempt to address this matter.
* These thoughts came to mind yesterday, when I received an invitation to join the American Humanist Association. The accompanying opinion survey was largely agreeable to me; and, next December, I will probably send $35 to join, unless it seems less valuable than some other uses of the money. It is unlikely that humanism can be a large movement, because it is based on evidence and reason and lacks compelling myths. Average people aren't likely to be passionate about evidence and reason, gather for sermons about evidence and reason, write and sing hymns to evidence and reason, fight for evidence and reason. I would like to be proven wrong, as civilization is in desperate need of more allegiance to evidence and reason.
* Could the Abrahamic religions undergo transformations toward humanism, refining their ethical principles and discarding their tribalism and magical ideation? Only if they learn to view their scriptures in perspective. Humanists are prepared to accept our limited significance and meaning, while working for a happier, more peaceful civilization and a sustainable earth. I wonder what Moses, Jesus and Mohammad would say on these matters and on their respective traditions if they came back today.

Traditions under threat

> Observing social/religious/political/economic/military turmoil occasionally everywhere in the world and today in too many locations, I can't be optimistic about the prospect of widespread and enduring peace, justice and happiness. Add to that the deterioration of the earth's natural support systems (water, energy, soil, sea life, climate) as never before in history, and the prospect becomes bleaker.
> Every society has organizational, governmental and judicial traditions, these along with wealth and power hierarchies, religious influences, educational institutions, economic possibilities and degrees of regulation and freedom. These characteristics in the US, UK and Europe are reasonably satisfactory for the moment. But all of us eurotypes had cataclysmic episodes in our past and there is no guarantee that our futures will be satisfactory. In fact, many trends are toward less satisfaction. Job security and family stability are declining. Senses of crowding, competition and invisibility are rising. Senses of community and significance are declining. The popular culture grows ever cruder and uglier.   Substance abuse and associated crimes are too prevalent. Conditions for ethnic strife loom in every eurotype country. The deterioration of natural support systems will accelerate as developing populations increase in number and/or prosperity.
> I wonder what traditions and other characteristics will crumble under the weight of crises or will be altered to stave off crises.

Anthrax subsidy

Why does our federal government subsidize anthrax? Isn't anthrax a bad thing? We shouldn't support anthrax, we should make war on it. I don't want my tax dollars used to subsidize anthrax.
(Whisper, whisper.....) Ooooh, It's Amtrak, not anthrax. That's different. Never mind.

Systematic solutions

When something goes wrong, I begin thinking of how it could have been avoided systematically. What, in your experience, needs systematic avoidance?
1. Complete and secure separation of airline pilots from passengers, as recommended by Israeli consultants - would have prevented 9/11.
2. An alarm in small-child school buses to alert anyone inside and outside the bus if not turned off at the inside-rear by the ignition key within two minutes of turning off the motor - would have prevented numerous heat-exhaustion deaths of children.
3. Stinky paint balls for riot control - would have prevented the second Intifada, etc.
4. Sticky Lo-Jack, a radio-transmitting projectile with mushy/sticky nose to mark a fleeing car so it can be followed at a great distance - would prevent most hot-pursuit accidents.
5. Universal labeling of ammunition projectiles and casings per box thereof (two-dimensional binary code) registered to buyer or assignee - would allow quick forensic back-tracking of such objects at crime scenes and battle sites, and would allow monitoring of inappropriate actions by our client Iraqi police/military personnel.
6. Quick-deploying parachutes and under-carriage air bags for helicopters - would prevent many crash-related casualties.
7. GPS transmitters or transponders in equipment of soldiers', contractors and indigenous police (shoe, gun, vehicle) - would help respond to emergencies and track perpetrators.
9. Binocular video GPS tracker of distant light/heat events - would allow instant and precise retaliation to missile or artillery attacks rather than delayed, scattered and excessive response.

Oil/Population Ratio

The US with 5% of the world's population consumes 25% of the world's oil production. Consider the implications.
We use petroleum as transportation and heating fuels and for lubricating everything. Every industry, including agriculture, is oil intensive. No fuel comes close to petroleum for convenience as a transportation fuel. Our lives will be much less comfortable, convenient, efficient, equitable, flexible, affordable and safe when oil becomes far more costly. Distant bedroom subdivisions will be almost worthless. Our economy will be much less productive and supportive. Imagine our important life-style and economic options taken away owing to limited and very expensive oil. Which options would you gladly forgo?
Our economic/educational/political system calls for ever increasing population, mainly as immigrants, so our own internal dynamics require an increase of oil consumption or a diminution of conveniences on average.
If for simplicity, we assume that oil and population are zero-sum quantities, one might estimate life-style convenience as the ratio of % oil consumption to % population, 25%/5% = 5. This approximation is justified by the small and diminishing oil-production flexibility. The convenience ratio for all other nations on average is 75%/95% = 0.8. Thus, our life-style is about 6 times as oil intensive and convenient as that of the rest of the world, on average.
Large segments of non-US populations are more robust than the US, and are catching up in productivity and income. In fact, we are indebted to them by trillions. Leaders of those robust nations continue lending to us to keep their populations employed and peaceful. When those populations demand happier life styles, they will have the money for the implied increase of oil consumption.
But, their life styles will improve very little as ours diminish dramatically. For example, a halving of our oil consumption to 12% of production would be very painful (a ratio of 2.5), but the corresponding increase in their consumption to 88% (a ratio of 0.9) will be modest indeed. That is, a more equitable distribution of oil consumption will be very disruptive to us but minor help to them. The envy, demands, expectations, resentments and entitlement habits will result in deterioration of international relations worse than we have experienced since the second world war. And we will be the weaker of the competitors.
This simple dynamic has been obvious for decades, but no US administration has addressed it competently.
Finally, this will happen as world population increases from 6 billion to 9 billion, so the average convenience ratio for the world will decline about 30% unless oil production increases. It's a question of how fast we are able to destroy the climate. All these problems could be avoided peacefully by a worldwide embrace of family planning.

US-Iranian Relations

 *  How would US-Iranian relations be judged by an objective observer who wishes Americans and Iranians well? Such an observer might say that those relations have deteriorated owing to short-sighted or incompatible economic goals, foreign-policy decisions influenced by the cold war and Israel, power struggles within each country, ethnic/cultural/religious tribalism, conventional international protocols, specific historical events and a whole lot of ignorance and self-righteousness.
 *  Perhaps a Truth and Reconciliation Conference would be a useful way to restore happier, more peaceful relations. The conference would enable each side to understand the dynamics of the other, to examine sources of resentment, explore areas of common interest, etc. It would provide an opportunity for each side to apologize for unjustified or excessive offenses and possibly to exchange some forgiveness.
 *  The US could explain and apologize for stirring up riots to overturn the democratic election of a constitutional nationalist prime minister in 1953. We could apologize for embracing the Shah, despite his irresponsible, corrupt and tyrannical ways, in order to exploit Iranian oil. Iran could explain and apologize for supporting a spontaneous invasion of our embassy by exuberant youths and the holding of hostages therein. We could explain and apologize for failing to restrain Israel's settlement expansions into Palestinian territory. Iran could explain and apologize for supporting Hezbollah in its actions against Israel, against the Lebanese government and against our former base in Lebanon. We could explain and apologize for our attitudes, positions and actions during the Iran/Iraq war. We could apologize for invading and occupying Iraq, thereby loosing a civil war in Iran's neighbor, in general for a distorted concept of US interests.
 *  It seems likely that Iranians would not have developed their stifling theocracy had we stayed out of their politics during the cold war. In any case, hateful rhetoric should be less attractive after a Truth and Reconciliation Conference.
 *  I want my country to deserve a reputation for reason and justice and believe that most Iranians want the same for their country. We are on the verge of dealing peacefully with Iran's nuclear program or failing to do that with disastrous results for generations.

Fiscal Policy

> I have opposed almost every initiative of the Bush administration, especially tax, energy and family-planning policies and the Iraq war. Bush's fiscal policy is an exaggeration of Reaganism which was already excessive. It seems to be influenced by Grover Norquist, who wishes to bankrupt the federal government.
> Bush's first presidential campaign was full of deceptions, none more irritating to me than the proposed tax cuts (income and estate) fortified by the phrase, "it's your money". Better would have been to leave both taxes alone and hope that budget surpluses would endure for a few years to reduce the national debt, knowing that considerable borrowing was in our future as social security revenues fall below payouts. The surpluses were unlikely to endure for long, since much of it was due to capital gains incident to sale of NASDAQ stocks. One should not forget the social effect of the tax cuts to widen the wealth gap, further calcifying the plutocracy.
> The national debt has multiplied several fold, owing to Reaganism and its exaggeration by the Bush administration. Service of that debt is now a large fraction of the federal budget, so the debt is self augmenting. Our federal government is living on payday loans.
> When the predictable budget deficits occurred, the "it's your money" justification proved patently false, so Bush claimed that the tax cuts were legitimized as economic stimulus. Tax cuts to the rich are the most inefficient, even stupidest conceivable, means of stimulating the economy.
> In any case, supporting our economy with debt that will pass to the next generation and the next, is unethical. Our generation has no right to create debt to be serviced by future generations.
> One must consider whether the earth's support systems (waterways, aquifers, oceans, atmosphere, farmland, energy sources) can tolerate our economy and the rising economies in Asia, Africa and Latin America. We need to think about how to live as happily as possible with sustainable economic activity. I predict that we won't make the needed adjustments until a crisis is upon us. The needed adjustments are: more regulation, fairer distribution of employment and compensation, incentives and coercion for citizens to accomplish necessary tasks, effort to encourage family planning worldwide, a swing of the pendulum away from Reagan/Bush toward socialism. If that sounds bad, then contribute to the conversation.

She told us so

The national conversation lost a beloved voice this week - Molly Ivins. She was among the most insightful, prescient, ethical and interesting columnists ever to grace the nation's journal pages, and funny too. There can be no other like her.
To restore balance on our opinion pages, it would be wise to reject columns from self-righteous, war-mongering, ultramontanian, ethnoreligiously fanatical bullies like Cal Thomas, at least the ones utterly replete with deception.

Reptile Dysfunction

What's all this talk I hear about reptile dysfunction. I can't turn on my TV without hearing some geezer telling me not to be embarrassed about reptile dysfunction. Bob Dole, don't you have something more important to do than promote a remedy for reptile dysfunction. Reptiles have prospered on earth longer than people, and they will endure after we are gone, so a little reptile dysfunction isn't our problem. Get over it!!!
(Whisper, whisper.....) Ooooh, erectile dysfunction. It was erectile dysfunction, not reptile dysfunction. That's different. Never mind.
At 72 years, I can still hear tones and vowels about as well as ever, but many consonants escape me, along with occasional syllables, often with interesting and comical results.

Improbable Earth

We live on an extremely improbable planet. No other planet in our solar system has the potential for sustaining life. None has water, supportive atmosphere, habitable temperatures, crust and other conditions in combination that might give rise even to primitive life. We have them all and more; a life-friendly habitat giving rise to life's masterpiece, mind.
Given the rarity of life-supportive planets, it is worth considering the wonderful, improbable combination of circumstances that surround us. That can be done by imagining our planet lacking those circumstances one at a time.
Imagine where we would be and how we would live: if trees had not evolved in the plant kingdom, if iron and other metals had not accumulated in convenient deposits, if carbon fuels had not accumulated in deposits, if the majority of microbes were pathogenic rather than innocuous or beneficial, if any element of the periodic table were far less abundant on earth or totally lacking or were much harder to get, if key elements lacked their properties, eg if calcium, carbonate and phosphate did not make such wonderful solids, if earth's surface weren't protected from the sun's particle wind by a magnetic field. It is extremely improbable that earth has every good thing that could possibly be.
These things and mind should evoke awe in everyone who considers them. Could that awe be the basis of a modern religion? Could mankind embrace earth and mind as objects of devotion, inspiration, care, wonder, responsibility, passion, stewardship, sacrifice, contentment, music, satisfaction, support, development? What form would such a religion take? Who would be its prophets? Would such a religion be something like a study of ethics, leading to active concern for our co-inhabitants and future inhabitants of the earth regardless of tribe? I question whether the Abrahamic religions can evolve to be good stewards of earth and mind? They are all replete with tribalism, which limits application of the golden rule in all dimensions.

Iraq Peace

  *  Make no mistake, the invasion of Iraq was a crime compounded by irresponsible occupation, resulting in loosing of man's worst tribal instincts. How can this crime be mitigated? I propose: A) an improved Iraqi police force and B) a means of influencing Iraqi behavior generally.
  * *  A) Prior to the ethnic cleansing and civil war, it might have been possible to assemble an Iraq police force from buddy units consisting of one each of a Shiite, a Sunni and a Kurd, each squad consisting of several such buddy units. The squads would take responsibility for protecting Iraq's public assets first and private assets second. Members of this force would be very well paid. Much of the mischief (especially police misbehavior) that has happened could be thus avoided. It may not be too late for this plan.
  *  US forces should have taken charge of leading such squads in protection of oil assets and utility infrastructure all of which should be nationalized.
  *  Responsible performance by the police can be encouraged, almost assured, by three technologies.
 1) Each policeman will be issued firearms whose barrel signatures are on record and will forfeit other firearms and ammunition in his home or possession.
 2) The ammunition issued to each policeman will be uniquely labeled. (There are several patents for uniquely labeling ammunition projectiles and casings, but none has been adopted.)
 3) Each rifle (automatic or otherwise) will be equipped with an inaccessible GPS transmitter that is energized and activated by recoil and/or gas pressure to transmit for several minutes or more.
  * *  B) Every adult Iraq citizen living in Iraq would be given a one-time dispensation of 1000 stock shares of a utilities fund and of an oil-assets fund, these shares being administered in a special way. Specifically, they cannot be sold or otherwise transferred during an owner's life but will be inherited equally by a surviving spouse and next-generation descendants. That way every citizen in Iraq will have a stake in the success of its services and its revenue production. Also, this administration of stock would be an incentive for responsible family planning, since very small families can concentrate the shares and large families will dilute the shares. This plan could be refined to deal with implied inequities. A final benefit if the stock plan would be almost automatic, updated census/contact records.

More Peace Please

Must international relations be as contentious as they have been throughout history? If not, then people of goodwill need to explore what revisions of human habits could bring about more international friendship and cooperation. National governments typically don't examine necessary and sufficient policies until all conventional ones have failed and crises have arrived. Are we there yet? It saddens me that US voters hold foreign-policy toughness and militancy in such high esteem.
What can be done about the tendency of heads of state to unify populaces or majorities by stirring up hatred or contempt for foreign peoples or minorities? Can such practices be exposed, ridiculed and curbed?
How should powerful nations like us regard prospective attacks by government-independent radicals? Would it suffice to treat them as criminal acts justifying intrusive international investigation and policing rather than war?
How should powerful nations like us regard suspected actions by unfriendly governments that appear to increase their capacity for mischief? Would containment, diplomacy and carrot/stick coercion suffice until an immediate existential danger is demonstrable?
Shouldn't "existential danger" be examined for definition? It may be that competition with large robust nations for resources is a bigger existential danger than overt attack by a small entity. Should foresighted adjustments of the American way of life be a policy - an internal existential shift?
We have spent >$200 billion (eventually >$400 billion) upsetting civil order in Iraq. What's the benefit? What else might we have done with that investment?
Ponder this. Why did we not use our influence to prevent expansion of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory during recent decades? Weren't the consequences obvious?
Here's a plan that might have worked for the middle east about 4 decades ago. We, in cooperation with all wealthier peace-seeking countries, give every Palestinian adult a one-time gift of at least $10,000 of treasury bonds (of said countries and/or of Israel) or an index fund of stocks in international corporations doing business locally or local corporations (including those of Israel), the rule being that the securities cannot be traded or transfered but can be inherited equally among spouses and next-generation descendants. That would be an incentive to think well of the source nations or corporations or to treat them well regardless. It would also be an incentive to use birth control more responsibly. This plan might still be useful.
Before the Iraq war, we were hated by a minority of Muslims in several countries. As a result of that war, the US is held in contempt or hated by populations of most other countries, including our allies. It is reasonable to suspect that the war has made us less safe. My prewar plan for Iraq is described in Naive Iraq Plan.
In many countries we have a lot to answer for. We could start with apologies for meddling in various countries' politics, eg to Iran for interfering with their their election in the 1950s, to Argentina for assassinating their president, to Guatemala for overthrowing their leaders, etc.... We could lift embargoes and trade disadvantages based on political systems. We could continue by reconsidering those foreign-country characteristics of which we actively disapprove and reconsidering the methods by which we express disapproval. Do socialist governments deserve disapproval for that reason alone? I would propose female oppression and female genital mutilation as reasons for condemnation. I would propose gender equality and responsible family planning programs as reasons for praise and help.
The tools for expressing approval or condemnation need reconsideration. Trade policy, immigration policy and foreign aid might be used more effectively for this purpose. In general, it seems that less condemnation and a longer view would be in order. For example, Iran overall is neither the worst aspects of Iran today nor the worst moments of Iran's history; just as the US is neither the worst aspects of the US today nor the worst periods of US history.

Democrat Burden

> We Democrats are a bit like the dog who finally caught a car. Leading this great nation and the world back to ethical and responsible policies, programs and relations is a daunting prospect. It would be wise to give the Republican administration all the funding needed to achieve the best possible outcome in Iraq, insisting on a goal of achieving whatever success is possible by 2008, but recognizing that no outcome could justify the misery we have visited on the Iraqi people without cause.
> At the same time, we owe it to the American people and the world to investigate every detail of decision making that led to the invasion, thereby minimizing the odds that a future administration might repeat the experiment in unjust war. Prior to Bush's announcement of interest in an Iraq war, the national conversation was about failure to finish off Al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Bush's alleged insider-trading crime at Harken Energy. It was a propitious time to act on Karl Rove's recommendation that Republicans maximize the political advantage handed to them on 9/11/01.
> The announcement stifled talk of Afghanistan failure and Harken crime and gave Republicans undisputed power in all branches of government. Fearing the unpatriotic" label, virtually no one in government or journalism insisted on evidence and reason for invading Iraq, and celebrities speaking up were punished. Dick Cheney had a free hand to manufacture false charges and unethical doctrines, eg the 1% doctrine. Collin Powell should have known better than to lend his prestige to a campaign directed by Karl Rove, and he should have resigned rather than sell a war the evidence for which he had not seen.
> When the most powerful nation on earth elects to violate an international convention for peace (see Just-War Theory), then that convention becomes inoperative unless the lesson is learned, articulated and embraced.

Ethics Audits

> From time to time I have a radical and impractical thought, for example:
"ethics audits" of public policy. An ethics audit would estimate
anticipated and actual effects of a policy on happiness distribution.
> Happiness is linked to wealth in a diminishing-return relation, but
involves such factors as fairness, self respect, health, stability,
safety, comfort, convenience, cultural involvement, educational
opportunities, employment opportunities, recreational opportunities,
social opportunities, fellowship, love, hope, purposefulness,
accomplishment, relief of anxiety, ability to accept limits, etc.
> The imaginary ethics audits would analyze policy effects not only across the socioeconomic spectrum but also across genders, regions, ethnicities, nations, religions and especially across time to future generations.
> In my opinion, the main policies of Republican administrations
and congresses deserve negative ethics scores: passing tax laws that
further enrich the wealthy, cripple Social Security and burden future
generations with our expenditures; failing to address resource waste,
environmental degradation and the population explosion; ignoring export
of middle-class-ladder jobs to maximize corporate profits and trade
imbalance; killing 1/2 million and humiliating millions of Arabs for
reasons that would not justify war even if true.

Liberals vs Conservatives

The contempt that conservatives have for liberals seems gratuitous to me. Liberals believe that sharing is an imperative and should be systematic, whereas conservatives believe that sharing should be optional, random and limited to ones own tribe.
Liberals are likely to respect and wish the best for people different from themselves as regards race, ethnicity, national origin, language, religious preference, gender, sexual orientation, age, economic status, geographic location and political system. I shudder to imagine America without such liberal initiatives as: the Bill of Rights, women's suffrage, abolition of slavery, public education, Social Security, child labor laws, limited working hours, minimum wage, integration of public accommodations, workplace safety, Medicare, affirmative action. Liberals are likely to believe that we should protect the environment, encourage cultural involvement, restrain the waste of nonrenewable resources, encourage family planning and regulate corporate behavior. Liberals are unlikely to quote authorities or doctrines. Considering how America benefits from the liberal agenda, it is hard to understand why so many people are receptive to sensationalistic, liberal-bashing talk-show hosts.
I would urge conservatives to imagine a society in which they have won every argument and all their wishes are public policy and to imagine a future with Republican domination of all branches of government. Do they really want a theocracy, more overpopulation worldwide, a military-industrial cleptocracy, a plutocracy, more federal deficit, more trade deficit, more people carrying fire arms, more disaffected citizens, more racial inequities, more global warming, more invasions of countries engaged in neither foreign aggression nor genocide? Do they believe their grandchildren would celebrate their success?

Sustainable Earth

* It is high time for more people to begin imagining a sustainable earth, how to achieve and occupy it peacefully and happily, how civilization and the economy will differ from what they are today.
* In numerous parts of the world, forests, grasslands and farmlands are giving way to desert; rivers, lakes and aquifers are being emptied and/or polluted; and sea life is being depleted toward the point of no return. Humankind and the earth are out of balance - all this with about half of the 6 billion people living very-small-footprint lives.
* The world is getting flat, ie many poorer nations are catching up to the richer ones, acquiring or expecting the resource-intensive conveniences to which richer nations are accustomed. Therefore, even if world population were stabilized, over-exploitation will certainly accelerate, and this will be compounded by further population expansion.
* Ethical nations, religions, races, cultures, tribes and families will do everything possible to promote birth control and small families within and outside themselves. Unethical ones won't - believing that war, famine, pestilence and population dislocation are OK, inevitable or in God's hands.
* Population shrinkage is necessary but not sufficient for a peaceful and happy future civilization on an hospitable earth. Additionally there will need to be a variety of adjustments of expectations, individual choices and economic organization, inasmuch as our economic opportunities today depend significantly on such drivers as population expansion, GDP growth, luxury lifestyles and wasteful behavior. How can a satisfactory economy and satisfactory opportunities prevail in absence of these drivers? How will employment be distributed? How will hard jobs get done? What will be sources of self respect and contentment?
* I suspect that we will eventually recognize the need for rational regulation, incentives and coercion. We will need an anti-Reagan revolution. So far, no utopian society has endured, so our prospects aren't good.

Iraq-war runup

From Bush's announcement of Iraq-war contemplation through the invasion, my thoughts were:
a) This appears to be Karl Rove's way to stifle conversation about Bush's alleged crimes at Harken Energy and to ensure Republican victory in the mid-term elections.
b) Bush's reasons for invading Iraq are improbable and unproven, and congress should insist on proof. We don't condemn criminal suspects without proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
c) We have no right to invade now, even if Bush's reasons were true, as there is no immediate threat.
d) Zero tolerance for potential harm to us can become terrorism by us.
e) It might be unwise to overturn one of the few anti-theocratic governments in the middle east.
f) Saddam won't live forever, and we can wait and see what Iraqis do after his death.
g) We and our allies were complicit or compliant in many of Saddam's crimes enumerated to stir up support for war.
h) Some of his crimes could be viewed as attempts to "Save the Union", the Iraqi union, and might have been committed by Lincoln if the relevant weapons existed in the 19th century. The casualty numbers were comparable.
i) Making war on a country that does not clearly and immediately threaten us encourages other countries to act likewise, which is a step backwards for civilization.
j) Fear of being labeled soft on national security may have caused many in congress, like John Kerry, to vote authorization for war, against their consciences.
k) Bush's claim, that Saddam could avoid invasion by proving the absence of WMD, is cynical, as is not possible to prove the absence of something, and Saddam isn't interfering with UN inspectors.
l) Cheney's predictions about the invasion and occupation exhibit a gross ignorance of human nature.
m) How sad to see Colin Powell, a courageous patriot, sell the UN on allegations that he must surely doubt.
n) Rumsfeld's bluster and pride about shock and awe reveal a lack of ethics, and his referring to Iraqis defending their homeland during the invasion as terrorists reveals rabid dishonesty.
o) Wearing flack jackets in 120 F temperates with sandflies all around will exhaust our troops, patrolling the streets with ambiguities about who is a threat will demoralize our troops and the prospect of these experiences will degrade recruitment.
p) Many thousands of innocent Iraqis will suffer and die because of our invasion and occupation, and that weighs negatively in the ethical equation, against any good that might be done. We have no right to sacrifice some Iraqis for the sake of others.
q) Sudden regime change in Iraq will likely lead to ethnic revenge, civil war, balkanization, enhanced terrorist recruitment and/or emergence of a theocratic or dictatorial police state.
r) Civil war in and balkanization of Iraq will trouble its neighbors.
s) Why aren't journalists asking the awkward questions?
t) Why aren't Christians discussing the ethics of elective war?
u) Why did Republicans, my fellow Americans, my fellow Christians and the Supreme Court give us a president so ill prepared to consider these matters?
v) We Christians need to think more about Jesus' goals - a happier and more peaceful civilization.
w) Why did my fellow Americans and fellow Christians condemn the French for declining to participate in an unjust war?
x) Civilization will be better when we all become suspicious of and bridle our tribal instincts.
y) The checks and balances of our representative system of government is failing to prevent irrational policies. The Karl-Rove/Rush-Limbaugh/Grover-Norquist/Tom-DeLay factor is too strong; the Garrison-Keiller/Al-Frankin/Robert-Reich/Leonard-Pitts factor is too
weak.
z) How would we feel if a few populous countries like China, India and Indonesia (about 3 billion people) formed a coalition to improve the United States - having concluded that we are a dangerous and unaccountable loose canon with an appetite for war, that we are self-indulgently wasting the worlds resources and polluting air and sea by driving SUVs, building suboptimally insulated McMansions for few inhabitants, that we are making policies to further enrich the rich and exploit the poor, resulting in a widening wealth gap, that our health-care system is wrong-headed, that we are not willing to pay for what we insist on getting, that we are hypocritical in our dealings with the third world, that our government has been corrupted by plutocrats and kleptocrats? That may all be true, but we would resist them with our lives. Would our resistance fighters be terrorists?

Spam, what is it good for

Spamming, as practiced today, abuses web providers and almost all recipients. It occupies a costly fraction of infrastructure and it wastes the time of busy desk workers. Effective spam-blocking systems interfere with legitimate traffic and require time-consuming procedures for senders and receivers of legitimate email. My centralized filtering system (bellsouth.net) successfully blocks porn but fails to block flesh-market, pharmacy, penny-stock, gambling and mortgage spam. That seems half hearted or incompetent.
Several years ago, federal anti-spam legislation was contemplated. During the public-comment period, I downloaded the bill in hopes of influencing the law. It was almost incomprehensible; but, from what I could tell, it would have stifled some useful email. Apparently the bill was dropped. It may be time for a class-action suit and a reconsideration of an anti-spam law.
It seems that providers could do much to identify spam sources and ban abusers from the web, possibly to block it upstream and disable relay software. If they don't already have one, providers should have an address for receiving spam forwarded from victims, the site having an artificial-intelligence system to learn spam characteristics as distinguished from non-spam characteristics, so that future email with spam-specific characteristics can be blocked at the source. Spam changes with time, but it may still be characterized by deceptive source names and addresses and deceptive subject lines, nonsense text, graphic text and presumably other deception technology.
That I receive only a few spams daily rather than 1000, suggests that the number of serious abusers is limited or there is an organization and clearing house for abusive spammers. If so, it should be possible to prosecute or sue them, were there a law forbidding abuse.
As an entrepreneur, I would love to do some shotgun emails. I recommend a law that forbids the kind of spam that we all get daily but allows non-abusive spamming, possibly once per year from a given sender to a given address for a given product. Details of how that could be implemented and enforced are over my head.
PS: Bellsouth.net has improved its filter recently (Feb '07), so I get very few spam each day.

Ethics Education

The purpose of my ethics musings is to have a happy, peaceful civilization on a healthy, hospitable earth and to pass these to our descendants. Both our civilization and our earth depend on the quality and quantity of my generation's ethics. Our record is abysmal, so we have plenty of data on what doesn't work.
Historically and to this day, we have depended on religions to inculcate ethical ideas, and we have depended on law and its enforcement to contain the failures. All well established religions have some form of the golden rule, which would be enough if fully embraced and broadly interpreted. Unfortunately, most people (me included) are attracted to religions that are encumbered by scientifically untenable cosmologies that offend most intellectuals. Also, many of those religions cultivate tribal attitudes that interfere with universal extension of concern and ethical action. It is somewhat encouraging that our schools now have programs to teach "character", and that presumably includes caring about others.
How are people persuaded to learn habits of goodwill, fairness, honesty, caring, responsibility, kindness, modesty, etc, that make for a happy, peaceful civilization? Most of these properties are internalized or not at an early age from family dynamics. Appropriate praise or scorn, celebration or disgrace, compensation or dismissal, reward or punishment, etc for exposed actions seem useful. (Honor societies are big on control and punishment and don't appeal to me.) Family ceremonies (eg regular dinners) provide opportunities to convey values of all kinds. Setting ethical examples is useful, but may need to be articulated as well as demonstrated. Jesus taught ethics by example and in parables, whereas Martin Luther King Jr appealed to our sense of justice in ways we couldn't ignore or gainsay. Both of these prophets changed hearts. Our popular culture contains numerous parables and examples of both positive and negative ethical value. This is my faith: If ones heart is right, ones choices will be right.
Policy makers should consider how much unhappy experience is good for a society. How much anxiety is needed to encourage hard work and responsibility? Should health care be such a big source of anxiety? How much taxation and sacrifice of time should be demanded of the citizens in support of the society? Shouldn't there be a contract between a society and those receiving public support, such as to limit the demands on the society?
I don't have firm positions on ethics-education content and methods, but hope these conjectures will stimulate wiser people to think about how to get a good civilization and healthy planet.

Reaganism

Since the '50s, I have believed that our reproductive success would inevitably make the earth an inhospitable place, characterized by famines, diseases and wars. Since the '60s, I have worried about future energy availability and the fact that populations were already too dense to cope with the inevitable shortfall. Nixon took notice and advanced some energy-conserving proposals. In the '70s, inflation was rampant through the Ford and Carter administrations, and this was augmented by OPEC's embargo that resulted in severe gas shortages and price hikes. Carter began preparing us for some austerity, but he was hampered by the hostage crisis in Iran. Then along came Reagan. During the 1980 campaign, I objected to his "are you better off?" line, considering the internal complexity and external causes of our problems. It seemed simple minded or dishonest for Reagan to claim that he could cut taxes, increase spending and balance the budget. In fact, these measures quadrupled the national debt in just a few years. It also seemed that deregulation and globalization would bankrupt many US businesses, decimate our manufacturing sector and expand our trade deficit. It angered me to hear him say that the American worker could compete with any in the world, if the government were off their backs. The result was a massive transfer of satisfaction from middle- and working-class families to the very rich. It angered me that he interfered with international family-planning services. His belief that the market place would solve all problems seemed extremely short sighted, as it would accelerate the unsustainable over-exploitation of resources. Regardez the SUV. Reagan's policies succeeded in controlling inflation, which bankrupted many real-estate partnerships (to my detriment) but stimulated stock-market gambling (to my benefit). For me it was a wash. After 26 years, Reaganism is so pervasive as to seem like the natural order. One result is that the US is behind other developed nations in resource-conserving technologies. Another is that overpopulation is bringing misery to many areas of the world. Still another is trillions in debt to other nations. It's time to re-examine Reagan doctrines.

Office of Intellectual Liaison

> In my retirement, I have gained much pleasure and satisfaction from activities that cost almost nothing: repairing broken things, composing and performing music and inventing things that aught to be. I joined a chapter of the United Inventors Association. It welcomes anyone wishing to protect or commercialize an idea or just hang out with kindred spirits. We encourage, help, learn from and get inspiration from one other. The best practical advice I have received in decades came from one of those meetings. It was, "Go back to school." In this state, retirees can attend any college or tech center for about $65/quarter.
> Inventors have peculiar minds. Received wisdom is questioned. Established procedures are re-examined. Tools are looked at without prejudice. Problems, failures and calamities are seen as opportunities. Half of my inventions came from bad news reported in the media, others from unmet needs while repairing things or performing music.
> There are chapters of the UIA all over the country, teaming with independent original thinkers. This organization could provide a conduit for the federal government and its agencies to query America's most creative people on matters of public policy and specific national problems. And for grounding we have associations of historians and philosophers. We need to balance the influence of economists and corporations.
> Were there a federal Office of Intellectual Liaison over the past 20 years, numerous disasters might have been avoided - the 9/11 hijackings, riots turning deadly, the intifada, the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the kidnappings in Iraq, disproportionate and nonspecific responses to terrorist attacks, many transportation accidents and many gun crimes. Then there are the economy, environment, resource conservation, trade balance, industrial capacity, national debt, health care, Social Security, corporate citizenship and SPAM, none of which is being addressed rationally. The National Academy of Sciences and Advisory Boards and recognised think tanks apparently aren't sufficient.

Anti-intellectualism

> The term "anti-intellectual" came to my attention about 40 years ago. I assumed that it referred to new-age fascination with crystals and pyramids, the growth of cults, society's absorption with meaningless entertainment, young people dropping out of established systems and into counterculture or self-destructive pursuits, or growing mental sloth.
> Whatever it meant then, it seems to characterize today's Republican party with its penchant for name-calling (elitist liberals, femiNazis, tree huggers, gutless peacenics, godless socialists) and its irrational doctrines (making our grandchildren pay the taxes that we should pay for today's programs, failure to make progress away from polluting fuels, abandoning international conventions on the justification for war, labeling as "unpatriotic" those Americans with the insight to suspect Bush's lies and to predict the Iraqi mess, labeling as "ungrateful cowards" those foreign leaders trying to dissuade us from this misadventure).
> The noblest voices of the past 100 years were not those of the establishment. Consider where women, blacks, rivers, children, forests and retirees would be today if conservatives had won every legislative argument. Since half of the population is female and most of the other half have sisters or daughters, electoral successes of conservative politicians over the past three decades suggest failure of memory or of gratitude.
> Modern conservatives have promulgated ancient paradigms causing most Americans to believe that invading Iraq would be justified, beneficial and welcome. Had their thinking prevailed in the '50s, we would be in a nuclear winter. I dream of an administrative Department of Reason or a congressional Office of Intellectual Liaison to solicit, receive and weigh policy ideas from creative citizens, among other things to consider paradigms of peace, e.g. ideas for promoting gender equality and responsible reproduction worldwide.

Naive Iraq Plan

  *  From the mid '90s until Bush's war began, I entertained a
carrot/stick initiative to limit the harm done by the Iraqi government
and by us in that area. My stick might have faced legal impediments,
and my carrot might have seemed soft on murderous tyrants.
  *  According to this reverie, Saddam and his closest ministers would be
told secretly that their history of fratricide and tyranny placed them outside
the pale of sovereign-leader protection. As a carrot, Iraq would be
offered: cessation of no-fly-zone patrols, normalization of trade
relations and almost full restoration of sovereignty. In exchange, Iraq
would be expected to: improve human-rights performance, improve ethnic
relations, demolish offensive weapons, host an American military base on
Iraqi soil, tolerate surveillance flyovers, and host weapons inspectors
and human-rights inspectors. As a stick, Iraqi leaders would understand
that failure to comply with these expectations would result in deep
bombing of unspecified palaces, government buildings and military sites.
This initiative would be cheap, low-risk and relatively beneficial.
  *  The military base would simply be moved from Saudi soil and enlarged as needed to support operations, protect itself and be a credible threat.
Surveillance flyovers would be cheaper and less destructive than
no-fly-zone patrols. The inspectors would be from the UN. There would
be little killing and wounding of Americans and Iraqis, little
destruction and gradual restoration of Iraqi infrastructure, and
immediate economic benefits to the Iraqi people. Leadership shuffling
would likely occur as palace coups with little risk of civil war.
  *  I wonder how the cost/benefit/risk analysis of the war planners
compares to this and to what actually happened in Iraq.

Reproductive Ethics

* There are several measures that the US should and could take to encourage family planning in overpopulated countries. Our current policies are stupid.
* Fifty years ago, as a naive college student, I wrote an essay examining the ethics of reproductive choices. I was aware that a biological species, having all of its needs well satisfied, will expand exponentially - the needs including water, minerals, essential building blocks (containing carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, etc), energy source, waste separation, space to occupy, access to tolerable temperature, dearth of predators and germs. This prosperous circumstance, in which sentient beings are happy, is rarely found among species living in their historic habitats, for they have already expanded to the point where poor satisfaction of at least one need limits longevity and reproduction. Thus, pain and misery are common among wild sentient species, in the form of thirst, hunger, weakness, crowding, infectious disease, parasites, and fear and injury from competitors and predators.
* My thesis was that, given the contraceptive technologies of our time, human populations suffering resource deprivation can reduce their numbers peacefully, and human populations with all needs well satisfied can avoid expansion to the point of resource limitation and resulting misery, such as war, civil disorder, famine and pestilence. I predicted that political and religious leaders worldwide would soon espouse small families and that contraception would eventually be seen as mankind's most valuable technology. Had they done so over the last half century, today's local conflicts, wars, starving millions, population dislocations and migrations, environmental degradations and resource depletions could have been avoided.
* My generation has witnessed unspeakable atrocities, but none of them worse than the atrocity that we are visiting on future generations for lack of will to address overpopulation and its consequences. It is my generation's biggest ethical failure, bigger than our mindless waste and unjust wars. I recently read Lester R Brown's book, "Plan B 2.0", which documents the degradation of the natural support systems upon which populations depend as well as numerous policies and technologies that could restore those systems to support our 6 billion people comfortably, even an anticipated 9 billion. But that relief will be temporary without restraint of population expansion.
* With this agenda in mind, I tell people that world peace will be possible only when all religions and nations embrace gender equality, as that might provide the needed restraint. It would help if we could all learn to distrust and examine our tribal and chauvinistic instincts, but that's too much to hope for.

Just-war theory

  *  Recent syndicated columns favoring the Iraq war evoke thoughts of Augustin's Just-War Theory, international conventions and rights of nations -- not to mention pragmatic considerations.
  *  According to Augustin's centuries-old theory, to be just: 1) War must be the last resort after all non-violent options are exhausted; 2) War must be waged by a legitimate government; 3) War must be defensive, in response to already inflicted injury, not in anticipation of potential harm; 4) War must be to restore peace, a peace that is preferable to that which would occur without the war; 5) War must have a reasonable chance of success, not spill blood for a hopeless cause; 6) Violence inflicted on an enemy must not be excessive relative to injury suffered from that enemy; 7) Effort must be made to minimize harm to non-combatants.
  *  The Iraq war was unjust according to items 1, 3 and 6; and, knowing the inability of Iraqi factions to share, it violated item 5.
  *  Modern experience has led to modifications of item 3. It is considered just to defend a friendly nation from assault, to intervene in an ongoing genocide, and to act preemptively in the face of certain, imminent, existential threat. The Iraq war was unjust by these modified criteria also.
Shouldn't a nation have the right not to be attacked in absence of any of these justifications?
  *  Our violation of Just-War principles invites other nations to do likewise. We have squandered our moral authority in international relations. The generation in power today has left its children with a worse civilization than it inherited. This could have been avoided with a little attention to history and ethics. That's why I espouse an "Office of Intellectual Liaison" in the federal government.

World better sans Saddam

  *  The president and numerous of his apologists brag that the world is a better place without Saddam. Indeed the world would be a better place without Saddam, had he lost power by any process other than our invasion of Iraq.
  *  The list of people for whom the world is better seems much shorter than the list of people for whom the world is worse. Is the world better or worse for: American soldiers killed or maimed in Iraq, or their families; Iraqi citizens killed, maimed, deprived, inconvenienced or ethnically cleansed in Iraq, or their families; neighboring countries coping with Iraqi refugees? Is unleashed ethnoreligious strife and cleansing better for Iraq than strong-man secular antitheocratic government where Shiites and Sunnis could be peaceful neighbors and intermarry? Is America better off having squandered goodwill, prestige and moral leadership? Are we better off with with massive additions to the federal debt, massive additions to our negative trade balance, rising middle- and working-class anxiety, little progress in development of green energy or energy conservation, contempt for us around the world, wider and deeper hatred of us in parts of the world, a bigger arena for perfecting terrorist technology and organization, a fatigued and degraded military with no prospect of victory or relief? Are Republicans better off having their political tricks, self-righteousness, elitism, cynicism and hypocrisy exposed, having produced an administration of intellectual Lilliputians that would involve us in an unjust war? Are Democrats better off having to disengage us from chaos not of their making? Are Africa, Latin America and the middle east better off with unrestrained population expansion combined with deteriorating natural support systems?
  *  One could reasonably suspect that the Iraq war did more harm than good and distracted us from opportunities to make the "world a better place".

Ethics and Consequences

It is natural to weigh ones self, family, tribe, community, nation, race, gender, sexual orientation, political party, religion and generation as more worthy, righteous or deserving than others. This natural tendency is reinforced by education, tradition, media and leaders. Consider school spirit, evangelism, patriotism. We want to win; we want our children and our groups to win. Many think God wants the same things.
Ethical theories and teachings urge us to restrain this natural tendency, ie to care about the well being of others, including those outside our circles, to heed and practice the Golden Rule. They urge us to consider our choices objectively from the viewpoint of others affected, and they provide some mental experiments to help. For example, one may examine a choice by asking whether it would be good if most others made the same choice under similar circumstances. With respect to public policy, we can ask what choice we would support if we didn't know our status or group. Ethical behavior is the price we pay for a happier civilization on an hospitable earth.
Policy decisions often have long-term detrimental effects, and reasonable policy must await a crisis. Consider: 1) Our interference in Iran's politics in the 50s; 2) Deregulation of industries and globalization in the 80s and since; 3) An economy that depends on waste, deficit spending, population expansion, imported labor; 4) Failure to use all means at our disposal to encourage and support gender equality and family planning worldwide; 5) Failure to develop renewable-energy technology, energy-efficient codes and energy-efficient land-use planning; 6) Preemptive war on a nation that posed no immediate existential threat.

Iraq-War Decision

 *  Until recently, most critics of the Iraq war lamented its conduct. Only a few of us saw it as a destructive violation of ethically valuable international conventions from its conception. Now some early proponents of the war regret it, and some leaders regard the invasion of Iraq as our worst foreign-policy debacle ever. Nevertheless, we must try to leave Iraq in the best condition possible in a reasonable time; and that will cost much more of our treasure, many more of our soldiers' lives and many more innocent Iraqi lives on our watch.
 *  In hopes of avoiding a repeat of this gigantic ethical lapse, congress should use its subpoena power to discover the sequence of discussions about Iraq among administration advisers and deciders from the mid 90s up to the invasion.
 *  Why did the Neocons and Vulcans think it would be good to destroy one of the few antitheocratic regimes in the middle east? Why didn't Congress, journalists and Colin Powell insist on seeing raw, uncooked evidence for and against invading Iraq? By what dynamic did Cheney & Rumsfeld suppress evidence that Saddam hated al-Qaida and that claims of WMD in Iraq were phony? What charge did Rumsfeld give his Pentagon intelligence group? Consistent with his memo advising Republicans to maximize the political advantage handed to them by the 9/11 attack, did Karl Rove mention to the deciders or fellow advisers that attacking Iraq in 2003 would stop the national conversation about Bush's alleged insider-trading crimes at Harken Energy and that it would insure a landslide Republican victory in the upcoming mid-term elections, despite failure to cripple al-Qaida and Taliban in Afghanistan/Pakistan? What did Bush's spiritual advisers tell him about invading Iraq?
 *  It is with regret that I must suggest that the only way to prevent future think tanks and administrations from repeating such destructive policies is to heap disgrace on all participants in the decision to invade Iraq.