In my last post about civil discourse, I talked about having an open mind and its importance to the character of a discussion/argument. When it comes to science, however, there are some limits on what an open mind must consider as pertinent. In particular, arguments predicated on someone's beliefs rather than on evidence or logic is beyond the boundaries of what I consider to be worthy of consideration in the discussion.
For example, many people I know, including some folks who wear the label "meteorologist" find it easy to discard the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and say they just don't buy into the notion that humans are responsible for a significant part of the observed increase in global temperature. [I'm not going to touch on the notions of those who go still further, to deny that the global temperature is rising - they're already well beyond the pale of science.] The IPCC report was created by a large number of specialists in climate research and the content of that report contained essentially no minority opinions because they were more or less unanimous regarding the main conclusion that the evidence supports the hypothesis that anthropogenic climate change is real and significant. Most of the disbelievers like to point out that not all climate change scientists agree on this point. Surprise, surprise! There are very few aspects of science to which all scientists agree. So there are some scientists out there who don't accept the consensus view of the IPCC report. On that basis, the disbelievers among the folks I know are willing to discredit the consensus without actually understanding the scientific issues. I'm a meteorologist, but I'm not a global climate change researcher. I believe it would be rather arrogant for me to reject that consensus simply because I heard of some scientists who don't believe in that consensus or because it violates my personal beliefs.
What gives those who are not global climate change scientists the idea that they can reject the consensus without having any direct evidence of their own? That idea, in my opinion, stems from the fact that global climate change has been transformed into a political issue. In politics, one opinion is pretty much at the same level as any other. You can embrace or reject political opinions at will and you need not muster a shred of evidence or logic to support that stance. Your beliefs are sufficient. In science, some interpretations are at a higher level than others because they're based on stronger evidence and/or more compelling logic. Scientific issues aren't decided on rhetoric alone. Not all scientific opinions are equal.
Why has global climate change become politicized? Because if we are to respond to the potential threats posed by global warming, it will have considerable economic and social impact! Mitigation of anthropogenic climate change requires decisions to be made in the political sphere. The people in a democratic nation would have to show their support for any decision to be made by electing politicians they believe would vote on those political issues the way the voters want. The majority rules, so the politicians want to read the pulse of the voters to know in which camp to throw their support. After all, the primary motive for a politician is to get into and stay in public office. Anything else is optional, at best.
Which way should the citizens lean on a politicized scientific issue? Is consensus science always right? No, of course not, but would it be sensible to base a decision that has far-reaching societal impact on the opinions of some maverick scientist well outside of the consensus? Only if that maverick was correct. But how does a non-participant in the science know who's right and who's wrong? The IPCC consensus has emerged from the best evidence that a large cross-section of the world's climate change scientists can muster. The IPCC was formed with the explicit purpose of informing political decision-makers which way to lean on the issue of anthropogenic climate change. Some politicians don't like the IPCC consensus because it threatens their political agenda.
Does it make sense to reject that consensus without knowing much of anything about the global climate change science that has formed that consensus? Most voters won't ever be able to make informed decisions about most scientific issues because most voters aren't specialists in those scientific areas. Does it make any sense, then, to decide to reject the IPCC consensus on the basis of what amounts to political opinions? I think not. Although I know more about meteorology than most voters, I have no evidence of my own to deny the validity of the IPCC report. I know some of the participants and I trust their science. That trust doesn't make them infallible, but it's not based on a personal whim, either. I don't comprehend how people who know less than I about atmospheric science can take a position opposed to that consensus, except because of either a purely political opinion, or an innate mistrust of any authority (so a maverick appeals to them despite having no basis for deciding the validity of that maverick viewpoint).
Note that most of meteorological debate on scientific issues stays within the scientific community. There's no political fall-out from the ongoing argument about using vertical wind shear or storm-relative helicity to understand supercells and tornadoes. So the media aren't covering that topic, and the political parties haven't got a shear versus helicity plank in their platforms. It's not something that can or should be settled in the media. The argument goes on between the advocates without any press conferences, intergovernmental panels, etc. The issue eventually may be settled in some fashion but those participating in the argument won't be appearing in media interviews to attack their scientific colleagues, or to respond to attacks in the media by their colleagues. In other words, without the attention of the media and the politicians, science will go on as usual - issues will be decided on the basis of evidence and logic, not opinion. The consensus isn't dogma - it changes all the time, but on a rational basis - not according to personal whims and beliefs.
It's a real shame that societally important scientific issues apparently can't be decided in the proper way - I refuse to participate in an argument where my opponent in the discussion has a closed mind about the inadmissability of his/her beliefs in the discourse.
It's much the same about the apparently widespread belief in the religious dogma about a supernatural origin for life. It's not an open mind that rejects the position of consensus science regarding the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to religious creationism. Rather, it's a thoroughly closed mind - closed to the logic and evidence that supports evolutionary biology. Supernatural explanations can have no place in science regardless of their possible validity in other magisteria. Someone who embraces the notion that supernatural causes are a scientifically valid "explanation" for life is dogmatic in the extreme.
Why is there creationist biology, but no theist severe storms meteorology? Because the sacred texts of the world's deist religions have virtually nothing to say about storm dynamics! If these sacred texts offered an extensive description of how their deity creates tornadoes, then perhaps we'd be having theists calling for alternative explanations in scientific textbooks, and radical theists disrupting school board meetings to impose creationist tornadogenesis theory in schools. Since no such text appears, the theists feel no threat to their beliefs from severe storm science.
Anyone who believes in their religious version of creation in preference to evolutionary biological science is outside the domain of a reasonable discourse. Science rejects dogma in favor of evidence and logic. If you dispute scientific consensus, then you must present extraordinarily good evidence to support such an argument. If you have none of your own, then you really have nothing to offer in a rational discourse. I don't have to open my mind to your nonscientific belief system. My mind isn't closed to rational argument, but you have nothing of the sort to present. Further discourse is impossible, and the best we can hope to do is to agree to disagree.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Sunday, August 30, 2009
And just what is civil discourse?
The notion of what constitutes "civil discourse" is certainly arguable. I'm offering the following thoughts on the topic.
1. For a discourse to have value, both members must have open minds. If one member in a conversation has a closed mind regarding the topic, then it's quite likely that the course of the conversation will slide into incivility. What constitutes an open mind can be debated, as well, naturally. Generally speaking, I think having an open mind means a willingness to be convinced by careful logical arguments and/or evidence. A closed mind is one unwilling to consider any possibility, however remote, of changing one's position on a subject.
Most debates over religion or politics include at least one closed mind, and often two (or more). These aren't often civil discourse - they simply represent opposing position statements. You can continue to offer position statements back and forth indefinitely, and that might be a civil discourse of a sort. Without anyone being willing to consider changing their minds, it's at best an information exchange. For the most part, such conversations descend well outside the range of civil discourse.
For the most part, I dislike such conversations intensely and avoid them as much as possible.
2. A civil discourse avoids using provocative language, which inevitably obscures the point being made. Imagine a conversation you're having with an acquaintance on some topic. You've just voiced an opinion and the response is "You piece of shit! You're an absolutely stupid fucking asshole for thinking that!" You might, of course, actually be a stupid fucking asshole (or not - but that's not the point, is it?), but I doubt if the conversation's going to remain on point from that instant on. Your likely response is either to (a) terminate the conversation immediately or (b) come back in kind, with verbal guns blazing.
Now, rewind the tape, and consider your reaction to the following response. "That's an interesting viewpoint, but have you considered what it might look like from a different perspective?" I hope it's clear from this gedanken experiment that it's a rule of civil conversation that foul language, insults, name-calling, and such simply precludes the possibility of civil discourse.
Another variation: "That's an interesting goddamned viewpoint, but have you fucking considered what it might look like from a different perspective?" Same theme, but a very different sort of reaction is likely.
This is not about being "politically correct" (hereafter, PC) at all! Being PC is to use euphemisms and deliberately not using certain words to avoid offending someone. I was recently watching a re-run of "Blazing Saddles" on a commercial station, and the word "nigger" had been blanked out of the soundtrack wherever it was used. This PC version of "Blazing Saddles" was a grotesque mockery of the original movie - the excision of the "N-word" completely missed the whole point of the story, which was done in a comical mode but had some deeper content than farts around a campfire.
But - as another gedanken experiment - suppose I'm having a discussion with a black man and at some point, I call him a nigger. Yes, I know blacks call each other niggers all the time. Why can't I? Well, of course, no one can tell me what I can or can't do, but one of the nearly inevitable consequences of injecting that word into what had been a civil discourse between a white man and a black man is that it almost certainly changes the whole nature of the conversation. Is it reasonable that black folks can use that word among themselves and I can't? No. Of course not - it's stupid, and constitutes a form of racism. In the Army, of all places, I had a friend who was a black man - he called me a honky and I called him a nigger and we got along just fine. We chose not to be offended by mere words.
But the rules of civil discourse generally preclude using provocative words - not because of some slavish adherence to the rules of PCness, not because of some concern for being offensive (you don't need provocative language to offend someone, of course), but simply because it immediately throws the conversation off point. I'm not particularly worried about offending people. I've done it many times simply by being honest - without cursing, name-calling, or vulgarity. If someone wants to be offended, I can't prevent that. But if the goal is an exchange of ideas in order to convince the other party to think seriously about your point of view, you simply can't descend into language you know is likely to be offensive. It's not an arbitrary rule imposed by some authority figure - it's a fact of life.
Sometimes, people choose to become offended by something you say that has no obvious offensive connotation. They come back at you with invective and name-calling. Not much point to continuing such discourse, unless you want to try to talk them down off their high horse.
Most of us know most the words that are likely to offend. George Carlin enjoyed using them for their shock effect (so do I, occasionally) and even developed a famous list of 7 such words that couldn't be used on television: [Curious, by the way, that shit is #1 and piss is #2 - I always thought it was the other way around] Without straining oneself, I'm sure that this list could be expanded upon considerably, to include, inter alia, a whole litany of racial epithets and slurs: spick, nigger, wop, kike, chink, gook, etc.; as well as slang names for body parts: dick, pussy, asshole, etc.; and various forms of sexual topics: faggot, blowjob, jerking off, rim job, buttfuck, etc.
Words are just words. We probably shouldn't be offended by them, ever, but most of us are, at least occasionally. The fact is that when you use such language, the response is almost inevitably to shift the discourse away from civility. Using them can become a signal to your partner(s) in the conversation that you're not really interested in changing their minds or having a civil conversation. You likely just want to vent your contempt or impress them with your willingness to defy convention. It's an in-your-face way to assert your position on some topic. You're free to do that as much as you wish, naturally, but don't be surprised or offended that someone responds in a way that signals their disrespect for your part in the discourse.
3. If you want your opinion to be respected, you must respect the opinion of other participants in a civil discourse. Rewind the tape once again in my gedanken experiment - now imagine a response to voicing your opinion about something to be "That opinion simply illustrates that your stupidity is monumental." Note that no typical curse words are involved. [And it's a logical possibility is that you are monumentally stupid. Or, as is often the case, it might be that the speaker is confusing ignorance for stupidity.] This is manifestly a disrespectful statement, nevertheless. I've voiced comparable statements in conversations with friends and acquaintances, but only in two quite different circumstances - (i) in jest, or (ii) in absolute sincerity when I have, in fact, lost respect for the opinion of the other party in the conversation. At that point, I know the conversation is pointless and I have no wish to carry on with it.
4. About the so-called Golden Rule: some recent conversations have suggested to me that this isn't the cure-all I once thought it to be. In its basic form, it says one should treat others as one wishes to be treated. This sounds all well and good, but what if I'm a masochist, and I want others to beat me up? Does that mean I'm obligated by the Golden Rule to reciprocate and beat on everyone? I'm not really allowed to impose my wishes on anyone with the expectation that they'll respond the way I want. People are notoriously different in their responses within a conversation. In general, rather than imposing my wishes on them, I'm going to take the position that how I treat you isn't necessarily how I wish to be treated, nor is it simply a response to the way you treat me ("tit for tat"). Rather, when I engage in discourse, I enjoy having a bit of fun, and I thrive on having people challenge me. So long as the conversation is stimulating, I want to continue.
I'm not necessarily hoping to change your mind, although I hope to see at least some evidence that I might be able to do so. We can agree to disagree in many cases, but what I want to obtain from a conversation is: stimulation for additional thought, new insight, new information, new points of view I hadn't considered, new ideas. If you choose to ignore or dismiss everything I say without offering any coherent argument, then further conversation is pointless, and I'm going to terminate it, if you haven't. Should you choose to lace your conversation with pointlessly provocative words all the time, I can handle it, but it's a distraction I could do without, for the most part. It's not that I'm offended by it - it's just an annoyance if it dominates the discourse. The occasional expletive here and there isn't any problem for me - only when the talk reminds me of conversations in a military barracks does it become an issue for me.
1. For a discourse to have value, both members must have open minds. If one member in a conversation has a closed mind regarding the topic, then it's quite likely that the course of the conversation will slide into incivility. What constitutes an open mind can be debated, as well, naturally. Generally speaking, I think having an open mind means a willingness to be convinced by careful logical arguments and/or evidence. A closed mind is one unwilling to consider any possibility, however remote, of changing one's position on a subject.
Most debates over religion or politics include at least one closed mind, and often two (or more). These aren't often civil discourse - they simply represent opposing position statements. You can continue to offer position statements back and forth indefinitely, and that might be a civil discourse of a sort. Without anyone being willing to consider changing their minds, it's at best an information exchange. For the most part, such conversations descend well outside the range of civil discourse.
For the most part, I dislike such conversations intensely and avoid them as much as possible.
2. A civil discourse avoids using provocative language, which inevitably obscures the point being made. Imagine a conversation you're having with an acquaintance on some topic. You've just voiced an opinion and the response is "You piece of shit! You're an absolutely stupid fucking asshole for thinking that!" You might, of course, actually be a stupid fucking asshole (or not - but that's not the point, is it?), but I doubt if the conversation's going to remain on point from that instant on. Your likely response is either to (a) terminate the conversation immediately or (b) come back in kind, with verbal guns blazing.
Now, rewind the tape, and consider your reaction to the following response. "That's an interesting viewpoint, but have you considered what it might look like from a different perspective?" I hope it's clear from this gedanken experiment that it's a rule of civil conversation that foul language, insults, name-calling, and such simply precludes the possibility of civil discourse.
Another variation: "That's an interesting goddamned viewpoint, but have you fucking considered what it might look like from a different perspective?" Same theme, but a very different sort of reaction is likely.
This is not about being "politically correct" (hereafter, PC) at all! Being PC is to use euphemisms and deliberately not using certain words to avoid offending someone. I was recently watching a re-run of "Blazing Saddles" on a commercial station, and the word "nigger" had been blanked out of the soundtrack wherever it was used. This PC version of "Blazing Saddles" was a grotesque mockery of the original movie - the excision of the "N-word" completely missed the whole point of the story, which was done in a comical mode but had some deeper content than farts around a campfire.
But - as another gedanken experiment - suppose I'm having a discussion with a black man and at some point, I call him a nigger. Yes, I know blacks call each other niggers all the time. Why can't I? Well, of course, no one can tell me what I can or can't do, but one of the nearly inevitable consequences of injecting that word into what had been a civil discourse between a white man and a black man is that it almost certainly changes the whole nature of the conversation. Is it reasonable that black folks can use that word among themselves and I can't? No. Of course not - it's stupid, and constitutes a form of racism. In the Army, of all places, I had a friend who was a black man - he called me a honky and I called him a nigger and we got along just fine. We chose not to be offended by mere words.
But the rules of civil discourse generally preclude using provocative words - not because of some slavish adherence to the rules of PCness, not because of some concern for being offensive (you don't need provocative language to offend someone, of course), but simply because it immediately throws the conversation off point. I'm not particularly worried about offending people. I've done it many times simply by being honest - without cursing, name-calling, or vulgarity. If someone wants to be offended, I can't prevent that. But if the goal is an exchange of ideas in order to convince the other party to think seriously about your point of view, you simply can't descend into language you know is likely to be offensive. It's not an arbitrary rule imposed by some authority figure - it's a fact of life.
Sometimes, people choose to become offended by something you say that has no obvious offensive connotation. They come back at you with invective and name-calling. Not much point to continuing such discourse, unless you want to try to talk them down off their high horse.
Most of us know most the words that are likely to offend. George Carlin enjoyed using them for their shock effect (so do I, occasionally) and even developed a famous list of 7 such words that couldn't be used on television: [Curious, by the way, that shit is #1 and piss is #2 - I always thought it was the other way around] Without straining oneself, I'm sure that this list could be expanded upon considerably, to include, inter alia, a whole litany of racial epithets and slurs: spick, nigger, wop, kike, chink, gook, etc.; as well as slang names for body parts: dick, pussy, asshole, etc.; and various forms of sexual topics: faggot, blowjob, jerking off, rim job, buttfuck, etc.
Words are just words. We probably shouldn't be offended by them, ever, but most of us are, at least occasionally. The fact is that when you use such language, the response is almost inevitably to shift the discourse away from civility. Using them can become a signal to your partner(s) in the conversation that you're not really interested in changing their minds or having a civil conversation. You likely just want to vent your contempt or impress them with your willingness to defy convention. It's an in-your-face way to assert your position on some topic. You're free to do that as much as you wish, naturally, but don't be surprised or offended that someone responds in a way that signals their disrespect for your part in the discourse.
3. If you want your opinion to be respected, you must respect the opinion of other participants in a civil discourse. Rewind the tape once again in my gedanken experiment - now imagine a response to voicing your opinion about something to be "That opinion simply illustrates that your stupidity is monumental." Note that no typical curse words are involved. [And it's a logical possibility is that you are monumentally stupid. Or, as is often the case, it might be that the speaker is confusing ignorance for stupidity.] This is manifestly a disrespectful statement, nevertheless. I've voiced comparable statements in conversations with friends and acquaintances, but only in two quite different circumstances - (i) in jest, or (ii) in absolute sincerity when I have, in fact, lost respect for the opinion of the other party in the conversation. At that point, I know the conversation is pointless and I have no wish to carry on with it.
4. About the so-called Golden Rule: some recent conversations have suggested to me that this isn't the cure-all I once thought it to be. In its basic form, it says one should treat others as one wishes to be treated. This sounds all well and good, but what if I'm a masochist, and I want others to beat me up? Does that mean I'm obligated by the Golden Rule to reciprocate and beat on everyone? I'm not really allowed to impose my wishes on anyone with the expectation that they'll respond the way I want. People are notoriously different in their responses within a conversation. In general, rather than imposing my wishes on them, I'm going to take the position that how I treat you isn't necessarily how I wish to be treated, nor is it simply a response to the way you treat me ("tit for tat"). Rather, when I engage in discourse, I enjoy having a bit of fun, and I thrive on having people challenge me. So long as the conversation is stimulating, I want to continue.
I'm not necessarily hoping to change your mind, although I hope to see at least some evidence that I might be able to do so. We can agree to disagree in many cases, but what I want to obtain from a conversation is: stimulation for additional thought, new insight, new information, new points of view I hadn't considered, new ideas. If you choose to ignore or dismiss everything I say without offering any coherent argument, then further conversation is pointless, and I'm going to terminate it, if you haven't. Should you choose to lace your conversation with pointlessly provocative words all the time, I can handle it, but it's a distraction I could do without, for the most part. It's not that I'm offended by it - it's just an annoyance if it dominates the discourse. The occasional expletive here and there isn't any problem for me - only when the talk reminds me of conversations in a military barracks does it become an issue for me.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
So you want me to spoon feed you?
Today, in the midst of a conversation with a colleague who shall remain nameless, I had a realization. We were discussing a topic we had talked about a few days ago. In that previous conversation, I'd indicated that this colleague could learn a lot more about what I was doing by reading the publications I'd co-authored on the topic and by reviewing the essays on my Webpage. When I asked him today if he'd read those papers, he said he hadn't. He then wanted the URL to my website, so I asked him if he'd bookmarked it. "Yes, " he said, "but I have so many bookmarks I can't find anything." Apparently, going to read about my latest research isn't a continuing high priority. I typed in the URL for him, and even showed him the precise locations of the content I'd wanted him to review.
Years ago, I became excited about the enormous potential for information sharing represented by the Internet and the World-Wide-Web. Because of that excitement, I've taken some considerable pains to put out as much information about my work and my opinions about various topics on the Web. Maintaining my websites is not a trivial task, but I felt that providing my colleagues with easy access to my work was distinctly worthwhile.
Instead, it seems, that only a few people ever bother to take advantage of the by-now considerable amount of information that resides on my website. "Oh, I can't possibly keep up with all the stuff you put out there." is a common refrain. "Yeah, I went there about 6 months ago but haven't been back." is another. "I can't find anything there!" is another complaint. My experience today has been repeated many times in the last several years with others - it's not just the one person. Oh, no.
At times, and today was one of those times, I get frustrated with the apparent lack of interest in the content I've worked hard (to say nothing of time the time spent) to make available. It seems that making it easier to access has encouraged a kind of laziness, rather than stimulating the process of searching for information. There's a host of Web tools for assisting in that search, but I find that many people seem to want it handed to them on a silver platter. "Oh, can't you just email me the PDF?" So you want me to spoon feed you? Why am I going to the trouble to make things available on my Website, when so few seem willing to search it for content that's of potential interest to them?
Hopefully, I'll feel better tomorrow, but this is a continuing aggravation ...
Years ago, I became excited about the enormous potential for information sharing represented by the Internet and the World-Wide-Web. Because of that excitement, I've taken some considerable pains to put out as much information about my work and my opinions about various topics on the Web. Maintaining my websites is not a trivial task, but I felt that providing my colleagues with easy access to my work was distinctly worthwhile.
Instead, it seems, that only a few people ever bother to take advantage of the by-now considerable amount of information that resides on my website. "Oh, I can't possibly keep up with all the stuff you put out there." is a common refrain. "Yeah, I went there about 6 months ago but haven't been back." is another. "I can't find anything there!" is another complaint. My experience today has been repeated many times in the last several years with others - it's not just the one person. Oh, no.
At times, and today was one of those times, I get frustrated with the apparent lack of interest in the content I've worked hard (to say nothing of time the time spent) to make available. It seems that making it easier to access has encouraged a kind of laziness, rather than stimulating the process of searching for information. There's a host of Web tools for assisting in that search, but I find that many people seem to want it handed to them on a silver platter. "Oh, can't you just email me the PDF?" So you want me to spoon feed you? Why am I going to the trouble to make things available on my Website, when so few seem willing to search it for content that's of potential interest to them?
Hopefully, I'll feel better tomorrow, but this is a continuing aggravation ...
Saturday, August 22, 2009
America's national shame ...
My friend Max, a friend I met in Vietnam with whom I have stayed in touch ever since, brought this news story to my attention. Former Army Lt. William Calley (who took the fall for the My Lai massacre in Vietnam 40 years ago) made a public apology on 21 August of this year for his actions in that event, admitting he feels considerable remorse for what happened. This is a bit late, of course, but it's to his credit that he's done so. As the saying goes, better late than never. Lt. Calley was the sole person prosecuted for this crime against humanity. He was a scapegoat for the crime, which was clearly a reflection of the horrors of war. No such act can ever be considered the sole responsibility of one man.
Long after the war, I thought long and hard about my experiences in Vietnam. I was blessed with a time and duty station where I was exposed to none of the ugliness that combat troops participating in field operations had to deal with. Although I cannot condone the unlawful actions of my brothers-in-arms, I realized it wasn't possible for me to judge them. Had I been in their boots, what would I have done had I been there at My Lai? It's comforting for me to think I would have resisted shooting unarmed civilians ... but I have to accept that I have no evidence to believe I would have done anything different from what my fellow American soldiers did at My Lai.
What do you think you would have done, had you been there? How can you know the answer? I do know that if you haven't been there and experienced what the soldiers in that situation experienced, you also have no right to judge them.
They, like Lt. Calley, have to live with their choices on that day. Part of the agony of returning combat soldiers is to deal with the horrors that combat brought to them. People back home can't ever truly understand what it was like and so it's mostly pointless even to try. I was in Vietnam, and saw some part of the realities of that war, but by not being in combat, I can't ever truly understand what they experienced. So the returning combat veteran tends to keep it inside because it's obvious that friends and family who weren't there are not going to understand. But kept inside, these experiences can fester, and may become a cancer on the veteran's soul. I never had to deal with that, thank my lucky stars. But I know enough to have some appreciation for what my fellow soldiers may have gone through.
My government "asked" me to participate in that terrible war. I went, and I did what was asked of me, however reluctantly. Since it never involved shooting at another human being, and no one ever shot at me, I have no horrible memories or nightmares with which to try to cope. Lt. Calley, 40 years on, has admitted he was wrong and apologized for his misdeeds. When will our government do the same for its misdeeds during that time? William Calley is far from the only person responsible for war crimes during our long national disaster in Vietnam. When will our government face up to its responsibilities for that terrible time of our history? When will our government apologize to Vietnam, to the American public, and to the American war fighters for their actions in leading us into and continuing that awful, unjust war? If William Calley has the courage, however long after the event, to feel remorse and apologize for his actions, why can't our government show similar courage by owning up to its share of the responsibility for what happened in My Lai (and elsewhere during that long national agony)? Why should William Calley remain the lone repository of our national disgrace?
Many Americans, including me, are upset that the Japanese have never apologized for their war crimes during WWII, arguably with considerable justification. But if our own government is unwilling to admit its culpability in the horrors we perpetrated in Vietnam, can our government be justified in expecting Japan to own up to the war crimes it perpetrated in WWII?
Long after the war, I thought long and hard about my experiences in Vietnam. I was blessed with a time and duty station where I was exposed to none of the ugliness that combat troops participating in field operations had to deal with. Although I cannot condone the unlawful actions of my brothers-in-arms, I realized it wasn't possible for me to judge them. Had I been in their boots, what would I have done had I been there at My Lai? It's comforting for me to think I would have resisted shooting unarmed civilians ... but I have to accept that I have no evidence to believe I would have done anything different from what my fellow American soldiers did at My Lai.
What do you think you would have done, had you been there? How can you know the answer? I do know that if you haven't been there and experienced what the soldiers in that situation experienced, you also have no right to judge them.
They, like Lt. Calley, have to live with their choices on that day. Part of the agony of returning combat soldiers is to deal with the horrors that combat brought to them. People back home can't ever truly understand what it was like and so it's mostly pointless even to try. I was in Vietnam, and saw some part of the realities of that war, but by not being in combat, I can't ever truly understand what they experienced. So the returning combat veteran tends to keep it inside because it's obvious that friends and family who weren't there are not going to understand. But kept inside, these experiences can fester, and may become a cancer on the veteran's soul. I never had to deal with that, thank my lucky stars. But I know enough to have some appreciation for what my fellow soldiers may have gone through.
My government "asked" me to participate in that terrible war. I went, and I did what was asked of me, however reluctantly. Since it never involved shooting at another human being, and no one ever shot at me, I have no horrible memories or nightmares with which to try to cope. Lt. Calley, 40 years on, has admitted he was wrong and apologized for his misdeeds. When will our government do the same for its misdeeds during that time? William Calley is far from the only person responsible for war crimes during our long national disaster in Vietnam. When will our government face up to its responsibilities for that terrible time of our history? When will our government apologize to Vietnam, to the American public, and to the American war fighters for their actions in leading us into and continuing that awful, unjust war? If William Calley has the courage, however long after the event, to feel remorse and apologize for his actions, why can't our government show similar courage by owning up to its share of the responsibility for what happened in My Lai (and elsewhere during that long national agony)? Why should William Calley remain the lone repository of our national disgrace?
Many Americans, including me, are upset that the Japanese have never apologized for their war crimes during WWII, arguably with considerable justification. But if our own government is unwilling to admit its culpability in the horrors we perpetrated in Vietnam, can our government be justified in expecting Japan to own up to the war crimes it perpetrated in WWII?
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Recognition
A while back, I wrote an essay about career awards. This blog is more about the general topic of recognition for contributions to one's profession. I recently was the recipient of an email from a long-time friend, who felt the need to thank me for what I've accomplished as a professional. This was something of a "bolt from the blue" and I'm very pleased that someone would take the time to thank me for my professional contributions. It's more of an honor in my eyes than some certificate from a professional society. The only opinion of me that has ever mattered has been that of my peers - the people who love being involved with and learning about the weather. Their respect and recognition is something I've worked to try to earn, so whenever I receive such a message, I'm grateful to know that I've managed to hit that mark.
In the end, of course, the ultimate reward for me has been the work itself. I've had the great fortune to have been able to work in this profession for more than 35 years and along the way have been blessed with colleagues who have worked with me on projects of mutual interest. Those colleagues have been a great inspiration and awesome collaborators: Bob Maddox, Al Moller, Stan Barnes, Fernando Caracena, Harold Brooks, Ken Crawford, Barry Schwartz, Lance Leslie, Mike Richman, Fred Sanders, Dave Schultz, Lance Bosart, Les Lemon, Paul Markowski, and many others. The opportunity to work with such people has been an honor for me and I hope my efforts have provided at least some measure of substance in return for all that I've gained by the privilege of my professional efforts with them. Recognition beyond that seems superfluous, although when a colleague or friend takes the time to thank me, it's always a wonderful thing.
My graduate advisor, Yoshi Sasaki, made it very clear to me that the greatest reward a professional can have is to be able to make contributions to the field you've chosen. It's the best way to say "thank you" to those who inspired you and mentored you along the way - go out and become the best professional contributor you can be. Use your talents and hard work to achieve something substantial and it makes the work of an educator / mentor well worth whatever effort was involved in getting you to the point where you could make such contributons. And even more than that, a great thing you can do with what you've been so blessed to receive in the way of encouragement, inspiration, and mentorship is to pass it on. Serve as inspiration and encouragement to someone else.
Professional success came to me much earlier in my career than I expected, so I had to seek new goals. By now, I've achieved even those new goals, but not solely by my own efforts - rather, it's been with great pride that students and colleagues I've worked with have achieved far more than I could ever have done on my own. It just doesn't get any better than that. If I get run over by a truck tomorrow, I can pass on as a happy man.
If there were a professional meteorological Hall of Fame, then that would become some measure of achievement. But since such a thing doesn't exist - and I'm certainly not suggesting it should - its formal recognition would still pale in comparison with the respect of professional peers for one's body of work. I never worked to achieve recognition beyond that respect from my peers. That some of them have taken the time to let me know that they value what I've done is more than enough recognition for me.
In the end, of course, the ultimate reward for me has been the work itself. I've had the great fortune to have been able to work in this profession for more than 35 years and along the way have been blessed with colleagues who have worked with me on projects of mutual interest. Those colleagues have been a great inspiration and awesome collaborators: Bob Maddox, Al Moller, Stan Barnes, Fernando Caracena, Harold Brooks, Ken Crawford, Barry Schwartz, Lance Leslie, Mike Richman, Fred Sanders, Dave Schultz, Lance Bosart, Les Lemon, Paul Markowski, and many others. The opportunity to work with such people has been an honor for me and I hope my efforts have provided at least some measure of substance in return for all that I've gained by the privilege of my professional efforts with them. Recognition beyond that seems superfluous, although when a colleague or friend takes the time to thank me, it's always a wonderful thing.
My graduate advisor, Yoshi Sasaki, made it very clear to me that the greatest reward a professional can have is to be able to make contributions to the field you've chosen. It's the best way to say "thank you" to those who inspired you and mentored you along the way - go out and become the best professional contributor you can be. Use your talents and hard work to achieve something substantial and it makes the work of an educator / mentor well worth whatever effort was involved in getting you to the point where you could make such contributons. And even more than that, a great thing you can do with what you've been so blessed to receive in the way of encouragement, inspiration, and mentorship is to pass it on. Serve as inspiration and encouragement to someone else.
Professional success came to me much earlier in my career than I expected, so I had to seek new goals. By now, I've achieved even those new goals, but not solely by my own efforts - rather, it's been with great pride that students and colleagues I've worked with have achieved far more than I could ever have done on my own. It just doesn't get any better than that. If I get run over by a truck tomorrow, I can pass on as a happy man.
If there were a professional meteorological Hall of Fame, then that would become some measure of achievement. But since such a thing doesn't exist - and I'm certainly not suggesting it should - its formal recognition would still pale in comparison with the respect of professional peers for one's body of work. I never worked to achieve recognition beyond that respect from my peers. That some of them have taken the time to let me know that they value what I've done is more than enough recognition for me.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Truth's enduring inconvenience
A while back, Al Gore was associated with a movie - "An Inconvenient Truth" - I have no wish to endorse this movie without qualification, as it contains elements I can dispute. But the title itself contains something I think is essential. Truth inevitably represents an inconvenience to many, although truth has this property of tending eventually to emerge from the lies and smokescreens designed to suppress that truth.
In my own life, I discovered early I was a lousy liar. First of all, my emotions are like a neon sign on my forehead - hard to disguise. Anyone with any skills at recognizing nonverbal signals can see through any falsehoods I might try to spout. Second, trying to keep straight all the stories I might have told individuals in the past is well beyond my capability. The easiest thing, I concluded decades ago, is to speak the truth as I see it at any given moment. I reserve the right to change my mind, but when I say something, I mean it and it's the truth as I see it at the time. By this means, I don't have to worry about keeping track of what I might have said to someone, while at the same time saying something else to someone else. It's just too hard to manage the complex web of lies that results.
Further, my life as a scientist is predicated on honesty. I can't, in good conscience, withhold the truth as I see it and I'm duty bound to reveal all aspects of my professional work. No secrets, nothing held back, and no intentional falsehoods. I can be wrong and honest errors are tolerable, but need to be corrected when discovered.
Thus, I have a great deal of my professional and personal life invested in truth. And truth, it seems, has a long-recognized tendency to emerge from any attempts to cover it up, or prevent its revelation. It may take a long time, or it may be obvious right away, of course.
A fascinating recent example is the absurd notion that President Obama is somehow not a proper American citizen by birth, and so actually is ineligible to hold the office of the President. This political smear campaign resonates with those who hold different political views from those of the President, but it clearly and obviously has no factual basis. Innuendo and falsehood are not sufficient to overcome the truth. Despite this absence of any evidence to the contrary, some of the Obama-haters persist in this delusional belief. Why? Because the truth is inconvenient - it conflicts with their cherished notion that Obama is somehow an illegitimate President. They seize upon this ludicrous idea because it's convenient - not because it has any truth to it.
I personally have my own issues with the Obama presidency as it's played out so far. He's far from perfect in my eyes, and - like every other politician I've ever seen - I disagree with many of his decisions. But to dispute his citizenship in the face of the overwhelming evidence is a sign of an intense disrespect for the truth. If the truth is inconvenient, it's possible to ignore it, but only at the price of revealing your prejudices and willingness to sacrifice that truth for the sake of some cherished notion. That is profoundly contrary to my scientific profession, and should be of concern to every thinking, caring person. Disagree with the President freely, but to cling to this nonsense is simply evidence that you have what I see as a dangerous disregard for truth.
The main challenge to conspiracies that involve lies and distortions is the inconvenience of truth. History shows that the seemingly impenetrable "Communist conspiracy" proved vulnerable to the truth, even in a police state - the Russian Soviet regime. Truth continues to be an inconvenience to the remaining Communist regimes: North Korea, Viet Nam, Cuba, China. Their attempts to suppress truth are doomed to failure. Just as the attempts of the Islamic police states - such as Iran - to suppress the truth are ultimately doomed.
But the same can be said for similar conspiracies here in the United States - for example, the so-called C-Street Family. I'm pleased to say that the basic freedoms written into the US Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) have made it difficult for such conspiracies to be successful. So far, anyway. But the survival of those freedoms and the dominance of the truth is also vulnerable. As the G.W. Bush administration demonstrated so clearly, there's a side of our society that's more than willing to sacrifice our freedoms in the name of "security". Our Constitutional rights can be discarded when they prove inconvenient to a particular political agenda. Our own history makes that pretty clear - for instance, the internment of Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor. We're only safe from this sort of police state mentality so long as our economy remains successful. If we descend into economic chaos for any of a number of reasons, we're just as vulnerable to a demagogue who would lead us into submission to a police state (be it right- or left-wing in origin), as the Germans were in the 1930s (and the Russians in 1917).
Truth ultimately triumphed against the lies of the Russian Communists and the German/Japanese Fascists, but only after the bloodbath of WWII and the costly proxy wars of the Cold War. Lest we be too comfortable in our security blanket of the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights), freedom is only possible when the citizens have an unswerving commitment to truth. The truth may inevitably be revealed after a time, but the cost in the interim can be prohibitive.
In my own life, I discovered early I was a lousy liar. First of all, my emotions are like a neon sign on my forehead - hard to disguise. Anyone with any skills at recognizing nonverbal signals can see through any falsehoods I might try to spout. Second, trying to keep straight all the stories I might have told individuals in the past is well beyond my capability. The easiest thing, I concluded decades ago, is to speak the truth as I see it at any given moment. I reserve the right to change my mind, but when I say something, I mean it and it's the truth as I see it at the time. By this means, I don't have to worry about keeping track of what I might have said to someone, while at the same time saying something else to someone else. It's just too hard to manage the complex web of lies that results.
Further, my life as a scientist is predicated on honesty. I can't, in good conscience, withhold the truth as I see it and I'm duty bound to reveal all aspects of my professional work. No secrets, nothing held back, and no intentional falsehoods. I can be wrong and honest errors are tolerable, but need to be corrected when discovered.
Thus, I have a great deal of my professional and personal life invested in truth. And truth, it seems, has a long-recognized tendency to emerge from any attempts to cover it up, or prevent its revelation. It may take a long time, or it may be obvious right away, of course.
A fascinating recent example is the absurd notion that President Obama is somehow not a proper American citizen by birth, and so actually is ineligible to hold the office of the President. This political smear campaign resonates with those who hold different political views from those of the President, but it clearly and obviously has no factual basis. Innuendo and falsehood are not sufficient to overcome the truth. Despite this absence of any evidence to the contrary, some of the Obama-haters persist in this delusional belief. Why? Because the truth is inconvenient - it conflicts with their cherished notion that Obama is somehow an illegitimate President. They seize upon this ludicrous idea because it's convenient - not because it has any truth to it.
I personally have my own issues with the Obama presidency as it's played out so far. He's far from perfect in my eyes, and - like every other politician I've ever seen - I disagree with many of his decisions. But to dispute his citizenship in the face of the overwhelming evidence is a sign of an intense disrespect for the truth. If the truth is inconvenient, it's possible to ignore it, but only at the price of revealing your prejudices and willingness to sacrifice that truth for the sake of some cherished notion. That is profoundly contrary to my scientific profession, and should be of concern to every thinking, caring person. Disagree with the President freely, but to cling to this nonsense is simply evidence that you have what I see as a dangerous disregard for truth.
The main challenge to conspiracies that involve lies and distortions is the inconvenience of truth. History shows that the seemingly impenetrable "Communist conspiracy" proved vulnerable to the truth, even in a police state - the Russian Soviet regime. Truth continues to be an inconvenience to the remaining Communist regimes: North Korea, Viet Nam, Cuba, China. Their attempts to suppress truth are doomed to failure. Just as the attempts of the Islamic police states - such as Iran - to suppress the truth are ultimately doomed.
But the same can be said for similar conspiracies here in the United States - for example, the so-called C-Street Family. I'm pleased to say that the basic freedoms written into the US Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) have made it difficult for such conspiracies to be successful. So far, anyway. But the survival of those freedoms and the dominance of the truth is also vulnerable. As the G.W. Bush administration demonstrated so clearly, there's a side of our society that's more than willing to sacrifice our freedoms in the name of "security". Our Constitutional rights can be discarded when they prove inconvenient to a particular political agenda. Our own history makes that pretty clear - for instance, the internment of Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor. We're only safe from this sort of police state mentality so long as our economy remains successful. If we descend into economic chaos for any of a number of reasons, we're just as vulnerable to a demagogue who would lead us into submission to a police state (be it right- or left-wing in origin), as the Germans were in the 1930s (and the Russians in 1917).
Truth ultimately triumphed against the lies of the Russian Communists and the German/Japanese Fascists, but only after the bloodbath of WWII and the costly proxy wars of the Cold War. Lest we be too comfortable in our security blanket of the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights), freedom is only possible when the citizens have an unswerving commitment to truth. The truth may inevitably be revealed after a time, but the cost in the interim can be prohibitive.
Friday, July 17, 2009
It's just a thunderstorm ..
I sit on my back patio tonight, in a thunderstorm. It isn't particularly severe, but the rain is very much a welcome thing, after days of searing heat with only blue skies. The thunder is nearly continuous, the lightning stabs my eyes every few seconds, followed by the wonderful variety of thunder sounds: cracks, rumbling, lingering on until the next renews the cacaphony. God, I love it so ...
We were missed by this afternoon's first surge in northwest flow aloft. Alas, the early storms passed to our near east as they dissipated during the late afternoon. We did experience the outflow, as strong gusts pushing on the corn growing in our garden, but no rain. Our ground was cracked with parchness, begging for water. Soil shrinks as it slowly but inexorably dries under the sweltering heat. But tonight, we're blessed with another surge of storms, behind the first developments. Thunder and moderate to heavy rain. Cracks in the soil are filled with the expansion due to the rain. The sound of rain is mixed with frogs and toads, apparently stimulated by a blessed respite from the days of sweltering heat and searing sun without relief.
Tonight ... not only rain but that wonderful combination of light and sound that makes me spread my arms in happiness. I embrace the light of lightning and the sound of thunder. What a delight! The relief of days of heat is punctuated by the lightning and echoing rumbles and cracks of thunder. Alas, it moves on and diminishes. I could wallow in its sensory delights for the whole night, but it only persists for a half-hour or so.
Who can be unmoved by this dramatic light show and chorus, punctuated by the next flash and underscored by the lingering echo of the following thunder? Only a dead soul, unconnected to the Earth and its rhythms.
The ground smells of gratitude for the precipitation. Everything around me that lives is refreshed and invigorated by the rain. It speaks of the connection between the living, both animal and vegetable, and the unliving - the physics of the atmosphere sustaining all of us. We living things share not only our DNA - we share a connection to the nonliving processes that provide the environment we need.
I'm reminded of storms long past. The dwindling echoes of thunder sing not only of storms long gone, but of future storms. I can't help but look forward to the next. God help me ... I love them so.
We were missed by this afternoon's first surge in northwest flow aloft. Alas, the early storms passed to our near east as they dissipated during the late afternoon. We did experience the outflow, as strong gusts pushing on the corn growing in our garden, but no rain. Our ground was cracked with parchness, begging for water. Soil shrinks as it slowly but inexorably dries under the sweltering heat. But tonight, we're blessed with another surge of storms, behind the first developments. Thunder and moderate to heavy rain. Cracks in the soil are filled with the expansion due to the rain. The sound of rain is mixed with frogs and toads, apparently stimulated by a blessed respite from the days of sweltering heat and searing sun without relief.
Tonight ... not only rain but that wonderful combination of light and sound that makes me spread my arms in happiness. I embrace the light of lightning and the sound of thunder. What a delight! The relief of days of heat is punctuated by the lightning and echoing rumbles and cracks of thunder. Alas, it moves on and diminishes. I could wallow in its sensory delights for the whole night, but it only persists for a half-hour or so.
Who can be unmoved by this dramatic light show and chorus, punctuated by the next flash and underscored by the lingering echo of the following thunder? Only a dead soul, unconnected to the Earth and its rhythms.
The ground smells of gratitude for the precipitation. Everything around me that lives is refreshed and invigorated by the rain. It speaks of the connection between the living, both animal and vegetable, and the unliving - the physics of the atmosphere sustaining all of us. We living things share not only our DNA - we share a connection to the nonliving processes that provide the environment we need.
I'm reminded of storms long past. The dwindling echoes of thunder sing not only of storms long gone, but of future storms. I can't help but look forward to the next. God help me ... I love them so.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Safe, sane, ... and boring!
Yesterday was the 4th of July but it coincided here in Norman with thunderstorms (natural fireworks?), so the formal festivities (the official fireworks display) set for after sunset had to be postponed until tonight. In the post-frontal cool of the night this evening, after a very enjoyable early evening spent with friends, we watched the distant "official" Norman fireworks display from our own deck.
In the process, some local neighborhood patriots were motivated to set off some interesting fireworks of their own. Vickie and I were disinclined to call the Norman gendarmes. Our neighbors who set off these fireworks undoubtedly had spent some $$ on their enthusiastic celebration. Why should we be the wet blankets?
But this got me thinking - yes, fireworks are dangerous and may even (in extreme cases) be life-threatening. Vickie and I both reminisced about days long gone, when private citizens could have their own fireworks in their own backyards on the 4th of July. We recalled parents and grandparents who really loved to set off their own fireworks and nothing awful had ever happened.
Yes, we are safer and saner than in those wild and crazy days when private citizens could celebrate the 4th of July with fireworks in their yards. No doubt many unsafe things have become seriously illegal today. But Vickie and I chose not to call the cops on those daring neighbors of ours who apparently thumbed their noses at all the pious bullshit about safety and sanity. We didn't mind a bit. In fact, we enjoyed their rockets with stars and Roman candles! I think we were a little jealous that we weren't so daring as our unknown neighbors seemed to be. I was very nostalgic about what my Dad used to do with fireworks in our backyard.
Safety and sanity are fine - in their proper place. But the world we now live in is rather substantially less interesting than those ancient days when private citizens could buy and use fireworks without fear of having them confiscated or being arrested for celebrating the 4th of July in their own personal way. Safer than those days? No question. However ...
Norman has a great fireworks display every year, but wouldn't it be just a bit more fun if we could actually do something that wasn't entirely safe and sane to celebrate this holiday? Must everything in our society be reduced to safety and sanity? Can't we ever be just a little bit crazy?
In the process, some local neighborhood patriots were motivated to set off some interesting fireworks of their own. Vickie and I were disinclined to call the Norman gendarmes. Our neighbors who set off these fireworks undoubtedly had spent some $$ on their enthusiastic celebration. Why should we be the wet blankets?
But this got me thinking - yes, fireworks are dangerous and may even (in extreme cases) be life-threatening. Vickie and I both reminisced about days long gone, when private citizens could have their own fireworks in their own backyards on the 4th of July. We recalled parents and grandparents who really loved to set off their own fireworks and nothing awful had ever happened.
Yes, we are safer and saner than in those wild and crazy days when private citizens could celebrate the 4th of July with fireworks in their yards. No doubt many unsafe things have become seriously illegal today. But Vickie and I chose not to call the cops on those daring neighbors of ours who apparently thumbed their noses at all the pious bullshit about safety and sanity. We didn't mind a bit. In fact, we enjoyed their rockets with stars and Roman candles! I think we were a little jealous that we weren't so daring as our unknown neighbors seemed to be. I was very nostalgic about what my Dad used to do with fireworks in our backyard.
Safety and sanity are fine - in their proper place. But the world we now live in is rather substantially less interesting than those ancient days when private citizens could buy and use fireworks without fear of having them confiscated or being arrested for celebrating the 4th of July in their own personal way. Safer than those days? No question. However ...
Norman has a great fireworks display every year, but wouldn't it be just a bit more fun if we could actually do something that wasn't entirely safe and sane to celebrate this holiday? Must everything in our society be reduced to safety and sanity? Can't we ever be just a little bit crazy?
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
The Red Man's Revenge
There can be no real dispute that the native American population of the US suffered grievously at the hands of the European settlers. There can be no doubt that they were treated unfairly and unjustly, even by the justice standards of the white man. Of course, I wasn't party to any of that. Like most of us today, I simply inherited what was taken from the native Americans.
However, in today's world, considerable revenge is being inflicted on Americans by the scourge of the gambling casinos that have sprung up with the blessing of state and Federal government. Outside of Nevada, these new casinos generally are in the hands of the various "Indian" tribes. These are taking advantage of gambling addicts - people who are compulsive gamblers and have as much trouble controlling their addiction as those who smoke or who have become alcoholics or who use illegal drugs. [Curiously, another side of the Red Man's Revenge is the sale of tax-free tobacco in "Indian Smoke Shops" that also have become widespread.]
Gambling is a passion I never developed because I have some understanding of the laws of probability. If you gamble in a casino, you're going to lose. The more you gamble, the more you lose. No one walks away from the casinos a winner unless they walk away forever. Frankly, I don't call what goes on in a casino gambling at all - it's simply throwing away your hard-earned income. I consider something to be a gamble only when the odds are exactly 50-50, but the casinos have set the odds so they simply can't lose money. If they "pay back" 95% of their take, that means that they pocket 5% of the money they take in, day in and day out. When the odds are 5% in your favor, you want to encourage as many people as possible to participate. The more players, the bigger the take.
Part of the addiction may be the allure of "something for nothing" but I'm no expert on the psychology of gambling addicts. They apparently can't see or choose to ignore the reality that casinos simply can't be in the business of giving away money - they're in the business of taking in money from their customers, just like any other business. No one in a business that gave away money could stay in business for long. How the individual tribes distribute that income is another issue - one I'm not prepared to address. But casinos give no product or service in return - only whatever "entertainment" value is associated with the process of taking your money. I fail to see the entertainment of that, but that's just my perspective.
Gambling addiction has destroyed families, ruined lives, and created economic problems for millions of people. The compulsive gambler lies, steals, cheats - whatever is necessary to obtain the funds to continue to gamble. Those with this affliction aren't necessarily immoral or stupid; they're simply addicted to gambling. The pain and anguish this has caused compulsive gamblers, their families, and their friends is enormous. I'm not interested in legislating people's behavior (see my essay about the futility of marijuana prohibition), but it's evident to me that the casinos' gains represent a major problem for this nation. The native Americans are indeed obtaining revenge, whether or not that was their intent in opening these casinos. Prohibition isn't an answer but I don't know any easy answers, just as I have no easy answers for alcoholism, drug addiction, etc. We apparently have a host of sicknesses in our society, one of which is compulsive gambling. What does that say about us? I'm not sure the answer to that is going to be something good.
However, in today's world, considerable revenge is being inflicted on Americans by the scourge of the gambling casinos that have sprung up with the blessing of state and Federal government. Outside of Nevada, these new casinos generally are in the hands of the various "Indian" tribes. These are taking advantage of gambling addicts - people who are compulsive gamblers and have as much trouble controlling their addiction as those who smoke or who have become alcoholics or who use illegal drugs. [Curiously, another side of the Red Man's Revenge is the sale of tax-free tobacco in "Indian Smoke Shops" that also have become widespread.]
Gambling is a passion I never developed because I have some understanding of the laws of probability. If you gamble in a casino, you're going to lose. The more you gamble, the more you lose. No one walks away from the casinos a winner unless they walk away forever. Frankly, I don't call what goes on in a casino gambling at all - it's simply throwing away your hard-earned income. I consider something to be a gamble only when the odds are exactly 50-50, but the casinos have set the odds so they simply can't lose money. If they "pay back" 95% of their take, that means that they pocket 5% of the money they take in, day in and day out. When the odds are 5% in your favor, you want to encourage as many people as possible to participate. The more players, the bigger the take.
Part of the addiction may be the allure of "something for nothing" but I'm no expert on the psychology of gambling addicts. They apparently can't see or choose to ignore the reality that casinos simply can't be in the business of giving away money - they're in the business of taking in money from their customers, just like any other business. No one in a business that gave away money could stay in business for long. How the individual tribes distribute that income is another issue - one I'm not prepared to address. But casinos give no product or service in return - only whatever "entertainment" value is associated with the process of taking your money. I fail to see the entertainment of that, but that's just my perspective.
Gambling addiction has destroyed families, ruined lives, and created economic problems for millions of people. The compulsive gambler lies, steals, cheats - whatever is necessary to obtain the funds to continue to gamble. Those with this affliction aren't necessarily immoral or stupid; they're simply addicted to gambling. The pain and anguish this has caused compulsive gamblers, their families, and their friends is enormous. I'm not interested in legislating people's behavior (see my essay about the futility of marijuana prohibition), but it's evident to me that the casinos' gains represent a major problem for this nation. The native Americans are indeed obtaining revenge, whether or not that was their intent in opening these casinos. Prohibition isn't an answer but I don't know any easy answers, just as I have no easy answers for alcoholism, drug addiction, etc. We apparently have a host of sicknesses in our society, one of which is compulsive gambling. What does that say about us? I'm not sure the answer to that is going to be something good.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
The American Ranking Obsession
I'm out on my storm chase vacation for this week and the next, and have just had one very exciting day - on 05 June - we saw the entire life cycle of a large, long-lived tornado in southeastern Wyoming and had a great vantage point for seeing both the tornado and the storm that produced it. It's just what I wanted from this year's chase! See Vickie's blog for some preliminary images.
So I run into some fellow chasers - and I start hearing about how this storm was second behind the great 26 May 2007 (or whatever) storm they saw. OK - what's my problem with this? Two questions: First of all, why in the world is it important for me to know where a particular event fits into your life experiences? I really don't give a damn about how this storm compares to whatever it is you've managed to see during your chase experiences! Why would you think that anyone besides yourself cares about your personal rankings?
Second, it seems we Americans have some sort of fetish about rankings. Isn't it enough to recognize that it was a great event? Does it somehow need the extra bit of recognition that comes with placing it in some sort of ranking order?
And who decides precisely how to place a particular storm chase event into a hierarchy? Ranking in sports is widely recognized to be futile and any effort to develop a ranking scheme is fraught with arbitrary decisions and subjectivity, anyway. If there was a way to rank storm events, it would have precisely the same arbitrary and subjective issues that sports ranking schemes have. Yet we seem bound and determined to place everything in its "proper place". For the most part, having been involved with some efforts to do rankings, I think I know more than most how silly most of this effort to create an ordering is, unless there is one simple number that encapsulates everything about some event. An event that can be characterized by a single number isn't a very interesting event, as I see it. Being able to establish rankings for it is pretty much a "who cares?" exercise.
Interesting events (like successful tornado intercepts) are complex because they have multiple facets - technically, they require multiple dimensions to describe. The strength and duration of the tornado, how visible it was, the structure of the storm that produced the tornado, the impact of the tornado, etc., etc., etc. That leaves us with the problem of deciding how to rank each of these aspects - is one facet unabiguously the most important? If so, what's the next most important factor? Who decides, and how would they get everyone to agree? Everyone who buys into this ranking obsession apparently has an opinion about what's most important to him/her. But it's just their opinion, and there's at least a finite chance that I'm going to disagree about how to weigh and combine all the different aspects of some complex event to produce a final ranking.
Hence, a universal ranking system for rating storm chase experiences seems to be an impossible quest, to say nothing of being a waste of time. Lacking such a system, why not just forget about trying to rank your chase experiences, or to compare yours to someone else's? Enjoy the moment. Savor its unique qualities because another such event will never happen again.
And don't bother explaining to me where it fits in your ranking hierarchy, if you have one. I don't give a shit.
So I run into some fellow chasers - and I start hearing about how this storm was second behind the great 26 May 2007 (or whatever) storm they saw. OK - what's my problem with this? Two questions: First of all, why in the world is it important for me to know where a particular event fits into your life experiences? I really don't give a damn about how this storm compares to whatever it is you've managed to see during your chase experiences! Why would you think that anyone besides yourself cares about your personal rankings?
Second, it seems we Americans have some sort of fetish about rankings. Isn't it enough to recognize that it was a great event? Does it somehow need the extra bit of recognition that comes with placing it in some sort of ranking order?
And who decides precisely how to place a particular storm chase event into a hierarchy? Ranking in sports is widely recognized to be futile and any effort to develop a ranking scheme is fraught with arbitrary decisions and subjectivity, anyway. If there was a way to rank storm events, it would have precisely the same arbitrary and subjective issues that sports ranking schemes have. Yet we seem bound and determined to place everything in its "proper place". For the most part, having been involved with some efforts to do rankings, I think I know more than most how silly most of this effort to create an ordering is, unless there is one simple number that encapsulates everything about some event. An event that can be characterized by a single number isn't a very interesting event, as I see it. Being able to establish rankings for it is pretty much a "who cares?" exercise.
Interesting events (like successful tornado intercepts) are complex because they have multiple facets - technically, they require multiple dimensions to describe. The strength and duration of the tornado, how visible it was, the structure of the storm that produced the tornado, the impact of the tornado, etc., etc., etc. That leaves us with the problem of deciding how to rank each of these aspects - is one facet unabiguously the most important? If so, what's the next most important factor? Who decides, and how would they get everyone to agree? Everyone who buys into this ranking obsession apparently has an opinion about what's most important to him/her. But it's just their opinion, and there's at least a finite chance that I'm going to disagree about how to weigh and combine all the different aspects of some complex event to produce a final ranking.
Hence, a universal ranking system for rating storm chase experiences seems to be an impossible quest, to say nothing of being a waste of time. Lacking such a system, why not just forget about trying to rank your chase experiences, or to compare yours to someone else's? Enjoy the moment. Savor its unique qualities because another such event will never happen again.
And don't bother explaining to me where it fits in your ranking hierarchy, if you have one. I don't give a shit.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
American Sprawl
Jim Kunstler's dark visions for America include some pretty hefty hammering on the evolution of American cities. My friend Roger has recently posted a great blog about how the city of Savannah, Georgia is laid out, comparing it favorably to most plains towns and giving a good summary of what has happened. Here's my take.
Our cities had vast spaces surrounding them so expansion was an easy option. The explosion in automobile use allowed everyone the chance to work in the city and live in their own single-family home in countrified suburbia - the American version of English "country gentlefolk". When I was a boy in the Chicago 'burbs, my father rode a commuter train to work downtown. That train's business was usurped in the 60s by the development of expressways out to the 'burbs and the commuter lines went out of business. They ripped out the tracks in the 70s and made the right-of-way through town into a bike and walking path, which it remains to this day. Cheap oil powered the automobiles that enabled the expansion of the suburbs even as public intracity transport declined.
My life in that town as a youth was something like what Roger describes - we walked or rode bikes most everywhere we needed (although even then the car had become a convenient option to expand our horizon). My grade school was less than a block away from my home. Strip malls were just beginning - our 'central business district' was easily accessible to most people in town and had locally-owned businesses for the most part, not chains. The chains came in as I was growing up and forced out most of the locally-owned competition. The shift toward sprawl began as development of outlying parts of town made some things accessible only by car. I could walk to my high school, but it was nearly an hour's walk, so we rode a school bus and my father would drive me when the bus wasn't available (I didn't have my own car until I was in graduate school).
Chicago was accessible by bus so my high school friend and I could safely take the bus downtown, spend the day going to museums, enjoy a nice lunch in a restaurant, see a movie, walk along the lakeshore, and return home safely that evening - all before we were 16. Imagine letting your kids do that today!
Having traveled in Europe, I've seen they don't sprawl so much. Most people living outside the city park on the outskirts and walk in. Even relatively large cities are compact and many of the things you'd want to see and do are within walking distance. Most people don't live in individual houses, living instead in what we would call apartments, often located above city storefronts. The cities sprawl upward, not outward. There's frequent, affordable, comprehensive public transportation, including intercity as well as intracity transport. We have nothing like that anymore - whatever passenger train and bus lines existed in our past are mostly long gone, replaced by inefficient, gas-guzzling road vehicles and aircraft.
The time when we could afford this system is passing, quickly, hastened by the demise of cheap oil. Any sustainable system must look more like Savannah than Atlanta.
Our cities had vast spaces surrounding them so expansion was an easy option. The explosion in automobile use allowed everyone the chance to work in the city and live in their own single-family home in countrified suburbia - the American version of English "country gentlefolk". When I was a boy in the Chicago 'burbs, my father rode a commuter train to work downtown. That train's business was usurped in the 60s by the development of expressways out to the 'burbs and the commuter lines went out of business. They ripped out the tracks in the 70s and made the right-of-way through town into a bike and walking path, which it remains to this day. Cheap oil powered the automobiles that enabled the expansion of the suburbs even as public intracity transport declined.
My life in that town as a youth was something like what Roger describes - we walked or rode bikes most everywhere we needed (although even then the car had become a convenient option to expand our horizon). My grade school was less than a block away from my home. Strip malls were just beginning - our 'central business district' was easily accessible to most people in town and had locally-owned businesses for the most part, not chains. The chains came in as I was growing up and forced out most of the locally-owned competition. The shift toward sprawl began as development of outlying parts of town made some things accessible only by car. I could walk to my high school, but it was nearly an hour's walk, so we rode a school bus and my father would drive me when the bus wasn't available (I didn't have my own car until I was in graduate school).
Chicago was accessible by bus so my high school friend and I could safely take the bus downtown, spend the day going to museums, enjoy a nice lunch in a restaurant, see a movie, walk along the lakeshore, and return home safely that evening - all before we were 16. Imagine letting your kids do that today!
Having traveled in Europe, I've seen they don't sprawl so much. Most people living outside the city park on the outskirts and walk in. Even relatively large cities are compact and many of the things you'd want to see and do are within walking distance. Most people don't live in individual houses, living instead in what we would call apartments, often located above city storefronts. The cities sprawl upward, not outward. There's frequent, affordable, comprehensive public transportation, including intercity as well as intracity transport. We have nothing like that anymore - whatever passenger train and bus lines existed in our past are mostly long gone, replaced by inefficient, gas-guzzling road vehicles and aircraft.
The time when we could afford this system is passing, quickly, hastened by the demise of cheap oil. Any sustainable system must look more like Savannah than Atlanta.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Polarization and beliefs
Although Jim Kunstler (see my blog links) has a very dark image of our future, certainly darker than I want to believe, there are some pretty obvious problems ahead for the Great American Lifestyle we've all become accustomed to since the 1950s. The question that should be on our minds right now is just how far the coming "adjustments" can go before the existing social contract for America breaks down. If we're unable to restore the national economy to something sustainable that has the confidence of the majority of citizens, then the unthinkable - the disintegration of our society - could occur.
History suggests that when social contracts collapse, opinions of moderates are swept away. Extreme radicals on opposite ends of the political spectrum gain adherents because, it seems that gradual, evolutionary solutions move too slowly to satisfy people in hard times. Anyone speaking on behalf of moderation and tolerance is likely to be overwhelmed by the slogans, promises, and rhetoric of extremist demagogues. Scapegoats are selected and advocacy of extreme measures that trample on civil liberties becomes the norm. Vying extremist factions make whatever promises they have to in order to seize power, without regard to their actual intentions for the future.
The potential for this sort of internal collapse is inherent in any society, but it becomes most virulent when times are difficult. Even in relatively good times, demagogues (self-chosen, megalomaniacal leaders espousing extremist views anywhere across the political spectrum) can always be found in any society. When the social contract is seen as acceptable for the majority, these extremists are marginalized and ineffective. However, they never go away entirely (like virulent bacteria) and when the situation takes a turn for the worse, they’re right there to take advantage of hard times. They thrive on social and economic chaos, when society's "immunity" to their toxicity is at its weakest, sometimes supporting (usually covertly) actions apparently contradictory to their aims, just for the purpose of further polarization and erosion of confidence in the status quo. Economic collapse magnifies social inequity and turns the have-nots against the haves, with the outcome likely to be bad for moderate views regardless of the "victors" in such a struggle. The lessons of history are clear on this.
Around the world, there's a trend toward religious fundamentalism. I believe this to be an indicator of cracks developing in the social structure. Inherent in religious fundamentalism is an "us against them" mentality that magnifies intolerance. If your beliefs differ from mine, then either you have to convert to our orthodoxy or we'll marginalize, disenfranchise, and perhaps eventually kill you for being different. Tough times amplify and spread this polarized mentality, often sanctified by the notion that God (or whatever name your particular deity goes by) is "on our side" against the evils associated with any other belief set (or lifestyle). Many people need to be given a moral compass by which to guide their actions, rather than deducing one on their own - thinking rationally is hard and easy answers are elusive (and usually misleading, with unforeseen consequences). When religious (or quasi-religious secular) beliefs are used to that end, then intolerance, which is built in to virtually all major religions, is fostered. Opponents are characterized as evil, or even subhuman, unworthy to be participate in the "new order" to come. Intolerance is a stepping-stone to persecution and "cleansing" of contrary elements in society.
Even more or less secular autocracies (like Hitler's Fascism or Stalin's Socialism) cloak themselves in a quasi-religious "orthodoxy" as all proponents of any other viewpoint are suppressed ruthlessly. The structure of these secular forms is virtually identical to theocracies with only minor word changes. "Cults of personality" are little more than attempted deification of the leaders, justifying demands for blind, unthinking obedience and intolerance for any contrary viewpoint.
This is a possible future for us – we stand now on what might be the crumbling foundations of the American Experiment in social order. Most Americans assume that we're immune to a slide toward a repressive, autocratic society. I'm not very confident in our immunity if times get really tough (as they did in Russia at the turn of the 20th Century, or in Germany in the 1930s). I fear that a collapse of the social contract could move us toward anarchy, civil war, and the rise of a demagogue to power, resulting in an intellectual "Dark Age" dominated by some form of dogma (religious or not) from which it might take a long time for a new Renaissance. And I suspect that if the USA falls, it will take most of the rest of the world down with it. What will emerge from that can't be known with certainty, but it would likely be very different from the world as we know it. I hope I don't live long enough to see this come to pass - the collapse will be awful and the values I cherish will be swept away, to be replaced by mere survival skills in a world turned cruel and unforgiving.
History suggests that when social contracts collapse, opinions of moderates are swept away. Extreme radicals on opposite ends of the political spectrum gain adherents because, it seems that gradual, evolutionary solutions move too slowly to satisfy people in hard times. Anyone speaking on behalf of moderation and tolerance is likely to be overwhelmed by the slogans, promises, and rhetoric of extremist demagogues. Scapegoats are selected and advocacy of extreme measures that trample on civil liberties becomes the norm. Vying extremist factions make whatever promises they have to in order to seize power, without regard to their actual intentions for the future.
The potential for this sort of internal collapse is inherent in any society, but it becomes most virulent when times are difficult. Even in relatively good times, demagogues (self-chosen, megalomaniacal leaders espousing extremist views anywhere across the political spectrum) can always be found in any society. When the social contract is seen as acceptable for the majority, these extremists are marginalized and ineffective. However, they never go away entirely (like virulent bacteria) and when the situation takes a turn for the worse, they’re right there to take advantage of hard times. They thrive on social and economic chaos, when society's "immunity" to their toxicity is at its weakest, sometimes supporting (usually covertly) actions apparently contradictory to their aims, just for the purpose of further polarization and erosion of confidence in the status quo. Economic collapse magnifies social inequity and turns the have-nots against the haves, with the outcome likely to be bad for moderate views regardless of the "victors" in such a struggle. The lessons of history are clear on this.
Around the world, there's a trend toward religious fundamentalism. I believe this to be an indicator of cracks developing in the social structure. Inherent in religious fundamentalism is an "us against them" mentality that magnifies intolerance. If your beliefs differ from mine, then either you have to convert to our orthodoxy or we'll marginalize, disenfranchise, and perhaps eventually kill you for being different. Tough times amplify and spread this polarized mentality, often sanctified by the notion that God (or whatever name your particular deity goes by) is "on our side" against the evils associated with any other belief set (or lifestyle). Many people need to be given a moral compass by which to guide their actions, rather than deducing one on their own - thinking rationally is hard and easy answers are elusive (and usually misleading, with unforeseen consequences). When religious (or quasi-religious secular) beliefs are used to that end, then intolerance, which is built in to virtually all major religions, is fostered. Opponents are characterized as evil, or even subhuman, unworthy to be participate in the "new order" to come. Intolerance is a stepping-stone to persecution and "cleansing" of contrary elements in society.
Even more or less secular autocracies (like Hitler's Fascism or Stalin's Socialism) cloak themselves in a quasi-religious "orthodoxy" as all proponents of any other viewpoint are suppressed ruthlessly. The structure of these secular forms is virtually identical to theocracies with only minor word changes. "Cults of personality" are little more than attempted deification of the leaders, justifying demands for blind, unthinking obedience and intolerance for any contrary viewpoint.
This is a possible future for us – we stand now on what might be the crumbling foundations of the American Experiment in social order. Most Americans assume that we're immune to a slide toward a repressive, autocratic society. I'm not very confident in our immunity if times get really tough (as they did in Russia at the turn of the 20th Century, or in Germany in the 1930s). I fear that a collapse of the social contract could move us toward anarchy, civil war, and the rise of a demagogue to power, resulting in an intellectual "Dark Age" dominated by some form of dogma (religious or not) from which it might take a long time for a new Renaissance. And I suspect that if the USA falls, it will take most of the rest of the world down with it. What will emerge from that can't be known with certainty, but it would likely be very different from the world as we know it. I hope I don't live long enough to see this come to pass - the collapse will be awful and the values I cherish will be swept away, to be replaced by mere survival skills in a world turned cruel and unforgiving.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
To hell with easy access!
A continuing battle with regard to America's scenic wilderness is the conflict between access and preservation. Wilderness areas can be difficult to obtain access to for those of us who are unable or unwilling to hike over challenging terrain to see the beauty of these wilderness areas. The National Parks and other nominally protected areas are under constant pressure to provide easy (often motorized) access to people who apparently only wish to "check off" visitations to great natural wonders. I say "No!" to those people, even if I'm becoming one of those unable to reach pristine wilderness. It's the very difficulty of access that has preserved such places. Let it stay difficult!
My position is affected by the fact that I'm getting older and less capable of hiking to gain access to those beautiful locations I would have found relatively easy to get at a few years ago. I can't stop the advance of time and my declining capabilities. But I can say without hesitation that I would prefer that we conserve those areas of natural beauty in preference to providing easy access for everyone. I say let access be denied to those physically unable to reach these wilderness areas, in preference to providing motorized, simplified access. Preservation trumps access, as I see it! It's not absolutely necessary that I (or anyone else) be able to see these places - for me, it's preferable that I know they'll be preserved for future generations. Access inevitably turns into exploitation.
You can call me a tree-hugger or whatever. It's far less important to me that you have a chance to see something beautiful, thereby destroying its beauty, than for me to know that its wildness has been preserved. If you (and I) can't get there by some simple means, then everyone is better off! The natural beauty of these places should outlive me - I prefer that their natural wonders be there for future generations instead of turned into some sort of touristic checkoff.
If we can save some semblance of these wild places, then that trumps any "access" argument, in my view of things.
My position is affected by the fact that I'm getting older and less capable of hiking to gain access to those beautiful locations I would have found relatively easy to get at a few years ago. I can't stop the advance of time and my declining capabilities. But I can say without hesitation that I would prefer that we conserve those areas of natural beauty in preference to providing easy access for everyone. I say let access be denied to those physically unable to reach these wilderness areas, in preference to providing motorized, simplified access. Preservation trumps access, as I see it! It's not absolutely necessary that I (or anyone else) be able to see these places - for me, it's preferable that I know they'll be preserved for future generations. Access inevitably turns into exploitation.
You can call me a tree-hugger or whatever. It's far less important to me that you have a chance to see something beautiful, thereby destroying its beauty, than for me to know that its wildness has been preserved. If you (and I) can't get there by some simple means, then everyone is better off! The natural beauty of these places should outlive me - I prefer that their natural wonders be there for future generations instead of turned into some sort of touristic checkoff.
If we can save some semblance of these wild places, then that trumps any "access" argument, in my view of things.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
The decline of stock photography
I’m constantly amazed at how little value people assign to photographic images. Over the years, there’s been a steady stream of folks who contact me, wanting to use my images for one purpose or another but aren’t willing to pay a license fee for that usage. Most of them want to use my images so their product will make money, but deny me the opportunity to derive income from my product!
I’ve made it clear on my Web pages that when the intended use is for science or education, and no one is being paid for anything in the process, I’m quite happy to donate my images. But many people who want to use my images for free – say on T-shirts for a charity fundraiser, or in a pamphlet providing information – see no problem with having to pay for the shirts, or for printing the pamphlet. In their minds, apparently, it’s reasonable to pay shirt manufacturers or printers, but it’s being unreasonable to expect that someone licensing images also has expenses to pay.
Instead, I’m offered the compensation of the user giving me “credit” for the use. The idea behind this is, evidently, is that I should be grateful for the free advertising. Imagine asking the printer of your pamphlets or the manufacturer of your T-shirts to be given the same “compensation” for their costs! It must seem to these people that high-quality, spectacular images are just lucky accidents and that I incur no costs in obtaining them. Well, my creditors won’t take this “credit” in lieu of payment! I find the very idea insulting, actually. I’d rather not license my images at all than to give them away at little or no cost to these people who see them as having no value – except to help them make money.
The situation has not been helped by various trends in the stock photo industry: the rise of “royalty-free” and “microstock” image collections, where the asking price for images has been driven into the basement. A concurrent trend has been the emergence of corporate giants in the stock photo industry – in particular, Getty Images (and to a lesser extent, Corbis). These giants have also done two things that are photographer unfriendly. First, they’ve allowed a rapid decline in the cost of image licenses, believing that volume can overcome the reduced price-per-sale. Second, they’ve steadily eroded the “split” with the photographer – that is, the percentage of the sale income they share with the image creator (the photographer!). When I entered the stock photo business, large image agencies were sharing the income 50-50 with the photographers. Getty now has driven that down to where the photographer only gets 30% of the sale. Getty and Corbis also have absorbed many smaller, specialized image marketing companies, which maintain their business identity but are allowed to market images through Getty and Corbis. Those smaller image companies may provide a 50% split with the photographer, but that’s only after the giant takes its 70%. The photographer share is thereby down as low as 15% when Getty is involved. As a means of making a living, stock photography is becoming unworkable for photographers. If I actually depended on this income to survive, I’d not be surviving!
But the general perception that images should be “free” is pervasive. Even copyright protection is being eroded by the notion of “orphan images” – there is movement to allow the free use of images from any source if the user can’t locate the photographer. Embedding information about the photographer and the means to contact her/him has only recently been common in the industry and there are many who will simply remove that embedded information and then claim they tried to locate the photographer but failed, so it was an “orphan” work. Copyright protection eventually could vanish, meaning the eventual demise of income from creative work. This is further reducing number of reasons to pursue stock photography as a source of income.
I’ve made it clear on my Web pages that when the intended use is for science or education, and no one is being paid for anything in the process, I’m quite happy to donate my images. But many people who want to use my images for free – say on T-shirts for a charity fundraiser, or in a pamphlet providing information – see no problem with having to pay for the shirts, or for printing the pamphlet. In their minds, apparently, it’s reasonable to pay shirt manufacturers or printers, but it’s being unreasonable to expect that someone licensing images also has expenses to pay.
Instead, I’m offered the compensation of the user giving me “credit” for the use. The idea behind this is, evidently, is that I should be grateful for the free advertising. Imagine asking the printer of your pamphlets or the manufacturer of your T-shirts to be given the same “compensation” for their costs! It must seem to these people that high-quality, spectacular images are just lucky accidents and that I incur no costs in obtaining them. Well, my creditors won’t take this “credit” in lieu of payment! I find the very idea insulting, actually. I’d rather not license my images at all than to give them away at little or no cost to these people who see them as having no value – except to help them make money.
The situation has not been helped by various trends in the stock photo industry: the rise of “royalty-free” and “microstock” image collections, where the asking price for images has been driven into the basement. A concurrent trend has been the emergence of corporate giants in the stock photo industry – in particular, Getty Images (and to a lesser extent, Corbis). These giants have also done two things that are photographer unfriendly. First, they’ve allowed a rapid decline in the cost of image licenses, believing that volume can overcome the reduced price-per-sale. Second, they’ve steadily eroded the “split” with the photographer – that is, the percentage of the sale income they share with the image creator (the photographer!). When I entered the stock photo business, large image agencies were sharing the income 50-50 with the photographers. Getty now has driven that down to where the photographer only gets 30% of the sale. Getty and Corbis also have absorbed many smaller, specialized image marketing companies, which maintain their business identity but are allowed to market images through Getty and Corbis. Those smaller image companies may provide a 50% split with the photographer, but that’s only after the giant takes its 70%. The photographer share is thereby down as low as 15% when Getty is involved. As a means of making a living, stock photography is becoming unworkable for photographers. If I actually depended on this income to survive, I’d not be surviving!
But the general perception that images should be “free” is pervasive. Even copyright protection is being eroded by the notion of “orphan images” – there is movement to allow the free use of images from any source if the user can’t locate the photographer. Embedding information about the photographer and the means to contact her/him has only recently been common in the industry and there are many who will simply remove that embedded information and then claim they tried to locate the photographer but failed, so it was an “orphan” work. Copyright protection eventually could vanish, meaning the eventual demise of income from creative work. This is further reducing number of reasons to pursue stock photography as a source of income.
Theocracy in Oklahoma
The religious right-dominated Oklahoma legislature recently has voted to approve a bill authorizing the erection of a Ten Commandments display at the OK State Capitol. Once again, these Christian zealots are mixing their religion with politics, a notion contrary to the principle of separation of church and state that has been a cornerstone of this nation. The shameless pandering to voters by the so-called Oklahoma House of “Representatives” – who clearly don’t represent anyone not accepting the Ten Commandments as a cornerstone of their spiritual beliefs – is yet another indicator of the crumbling of our national commitment to protecting the rights of minorities. Many ignorant people see majority vote as the litmus test of democracy, but it’s not. Rather, it's always been the protection of the rights of the minority. In this case, putting the Ten commandments on the Capitol grounds is a clear violation of the separation of church and state, despite its being financed by private money (the author of the legislation, Rep. Mike Ritze, Republican, Broken Arrow, OK).
This seems to be an outgrowth of a 2005 decision by the Supreme Court ruling that by a 5-4 vote indicated that a display of the Ten Commandments on the capitol grounds in Austin, Texas, was somehow more historical than religious and so was not considered to be unconstitutional. Such a ruling is manifestly preposterous and evidently reflects how successful G.W. Bush was at packing the Supreme Court with ideological allies.
The threat of Muslim violence seems to have fueled the continuation of a religious revival here in the USA, and especially in “red” states. What the believers fail to recognize is that what the Muslim fanatics want in their nations is precisely what these Christian fanatics are trying to achieve here: a theocracy. It’s fine to have pride in your beliefs, but it’s contrary to the principles of this nation to force your beliefs on others.
==============================
Response to El Gran Rogelio:
Erecting a display of the Ten Commandments indeed doesn't establish a theocracy, but it's a major step in that direction. Regarding all the rationalizations you've provided: suppose a Muslim benefactor wished to erect a display of writings from the Koran on the Oklahoma State Capitol grounds, perhaps right next to the Ten Commandments display? Imagine the (literally) righteous indignation from most of people favoring this display of the Ten Commandments! The religious connection between the State and the Christian religion here is unmistakable and unambiguous. The Ten Commandments is in no way a historical document, unless you believe literally in the historical truth of the Bible.
There are many aspects of modern US government that are not formally codified in the Constitution, including the notion that all men are created equal (that's only in the Declaration of Independence). So what? The traditional "separation of church and state" was supported by many of the Founding Fathers and is inherently the right thing to do for a government that wishes to avoid a state-supported religion. I reiterate: the key to democracy is not majority rule. It's the protection of the rights of minorities. I view this action as an encroachment by the religious right - and can legitimately invoke the prospect of a "slippery slope" argument. If we merge the Ten Commandments with the government of the state of Oklahoma, why stop there? Why not institutionalize more religious elements into the state? Prayer in schools, religious iconography, and on, and on, and on. Eventually, the majority get their wish for a theocracy and the minority are systematically shut out and perhaps eventually persecuted for daring to be different. The US would be analogous to Iran ...
Not being forced to read the display is irrelevant. It's a clear intrusion of religious dogma into the state government.
This seems to be an outgrowth of a 2005 decision by the Supreme Court ruling that by a 5-4 vote indicated that a display of the Ten Commandments on the capitol grounds in Austin, Texas, was somehow more historical than religious and so was not considered to be unconstitutional. Such a ruling is manifestly preposterous and evidently reflects how successful G.W. Bush was at packing the Supreme Court with ideological allies.
The threat of Muslim violence seems to have fueled the continuation of a religious revival here in the USA, and especially in “red” states. What the believers fail to recognize is that what the Muslim fanatics want in their nations is precisely what these Christian fanatics are trying to achieve here: a theocracy. It’s fine to have pride in your beliefs, but it’s contrary to the principles of this nation to force your beliefs on others.
==============================
Response to El Gran Rogelio:
Erecting a display of the Ten Commandments indeed doesn't establish a theocracy, but it's a major step in that direction. Regarding all the rationalizations you've provided: suppose a Muslim benefactor wished to erect a display of writings from the Koran on the Oklahoma State Capitol grounds, perhaps right next to the Ten Commandments display? Imagine the (literally) righteous indignation from most of people favoring this display of the Ten Commandments! The religious connection between the State and the Christian religion here is unmistakable and unambiguous. The Ten Commandments is in no way a historical document, unless you believe literally in the historical truth of the Bible.
There are many aspects of modern US government that are not formally codified in the Constitution, including the notion that all men are created equal (that's only in the Declaration of Independence). So what? The traditional "separation of church and state" was supported by many of the Founding Fathers and is inherently the right thing to do for a government that wishes to avoid a state-supported religion. I reiterate: the key to democracy is not majority rule. It's the protection of the rights of minorities. I view this action as an encroachment by the religious right - and can legitimately invoke the prospect of a "slippery slope" argument. If we merge the Ten Commandments with the government of the state of Oklahoma, why stop there? Why not institutionalize more religious elements into the state? Prayer in schools, religious iconography, and on, and on, and on. Eventually, the majority get their wish for a theocracy and the minority are systematically shut out and perhaps eventually persecuted for daring to be different. The US would be analogous to Iran ...
Not being forced to read the display is irrelevant. It's a clear intrusion of religious dogma into the state government.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Bill Leftwich has passed
Bill Leftwich and his charming wife, Mary Alice. This was in 2005, I believe.
Another friend of mine has passed. I heard last evening that Bill Leftwich died in his sleep the evening of 27 April in Fort Davis, Texas, at the age of 85. Bill was a local figure of some note in the Fort Davis community and I met him through our mutual friends, Hal and JoAnn Belknap. JoAnn passed on this sad news. [Hal died a little more than a year ago now.] Bill was a complex character and a man of few words, but easy to get to know. His likes and dislikes were evident but so was his warm heart. He had a sense of humor as dry as southwest Texas.
Bill's primary passion was art and he produced a considerable body of work as a painter, sculptor, and writer - all of it focused on themes associated with his life experiences. His home was also his studio and I was afforded the opportunity to visit with him and his wife, Mary Alice, and see many examples of his art. Bill was a proud graduate of Texas A&M University - and he remained a fiercely loyal Aggie fan right to the end. Bill also served his nation in WWII as a tank commander - he was commissioned to create a sculpture of Audie Murphy for Camp Mabry, in Austin and I know he did another sculpture for his beloved Texas A&M, which I know pleased him a lot.
I'm very sorry about his loss, and know that he touched many, many people who will miss him, myself included, but I'm glad to have had the privilege to know him. My condolences to Mary Alice and the rest of Bill's family.
Two guys wearing cowboy hats ... one isn't a real cowboy, though ...
Sunday, April 19, 2009
A milestone along a journey
Well, it's finally happened ... on 14 April, my son Chad and his wife Candice made me a grandfather. I've posted the first pictures I've received here. Chad and Candice are in Heidelberg, Germany, so I'm afraid it will be some months before we get to see our new granddaughter - pictures will have to do for the time being. Seeing Chad and Candice posing with their new baby reminds me of that time in January of 1976 when Chad was born and we were proud new parents - as seen in this image while Vickie was still in the hospital, before she and Chad came home. A long journey for Chad and Candice has just begun - likely not without bumps in the road, but the blessings outweigh the challenges.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
A wonderful evening
Another cyclone approaches ... it's been an incredible spring so far. Strong winds from the south, followed by strong winds from the north. Reverting to south winds, to be followed by north winds once again. A cycle of monumental proportions. Thunderstorms are the result of these titanic forces at play. A feast of sensual pleaure. An awe-inspiring display of forces beyond our human comprehension.
Tonight ... lightning and thunder in a situation with little chance for severe. But I have a deep resonance with lightning and thunder, whatever the result. How do I express that feeling in my soul, when thunder crashes around me and rumbles on ... A beautiful sound that somehow connects to something deep within me. The total effect is awe-inspiring and readily penetrates into my psyche. If you don't find the experience of a thunderstorm to be special ... well, we're not going to be soulmates. My senses are full of the passage of cyclones. Whatever they do or do not produce, if they generate that sonic boom that reaches to the core of your being and you can't respond with awe and wonder ... well, perhaps you have a dead soul. We have no point of contact. You're somehow immune to the forces that shape our world. These forces are indifferent to human concerns, but have shaped us nevertheless. I feel my ancestors, cringing in the dark, shuddering in fear as the atmosphere responds to those unseen forces - the show goes on whether we observe or not. I love it so. The more massive the processes, the more awestruck I am. Imagine being at the nexus of a tornadic supercell. Words fail me. Such an experience is beyond verbal description ... it is a glimpse into the infinite. Religious without any deity.
If you're indifferent to such a message, then I feel sorry for you. It's a chance to be viscerally related to the processes around us that have shaped our world. Be indifferent to these forces at your peril. I'm awestruck in the face of them. I delight in their dance and feel connected to the infinite in their presence. It's a connection to the infinite that surpasses by far the mere religious.
Tonight ... lightning and thunder in a situation with little chance for severe. But I have a deep resonance with lightning and thunder, whatever the result. How do I express that feeling in my soul, when thunder crashes around me and rumbles on ... A beautiful sound that somehow connects to something deep within me. The total effect is awe-inspiring and readily penetrates into my psyche. If you don't find the experience of a thunderstorm to be special ... well, we're not going to be soulmates. My senses are full of the passage of cyclones. Whatever they do or do not produce, if they generate that sonic boom that reaches to the core of your being and you can't respond with awe and wonder ... well, perhaps you have a dead soul. We have no point of contact. You're somehow immune to the forces that shape our world. These forces are indifferent to human concerns, but have shaped us nevertheless. I feel my ancestors, cringing in the dark, shuddering in fear as the atmosphere responds to those unseen forces - the show goes on whether we observe or not. I love it so. The more massive the processes, the more awestruck I am. Imagine being at the nexus of a tornadic supercell. Words fail me. Such an experience is beyond verbal description ... it is a glimpse into the infinite. Religious without any deity.
If you're indifferent to such a message, then I feel sorry for you. It's a chance to be viscerally related to the processes around us that have shaped our world. Be indifferent to these forces at your peril. I'm awestruck in the face of them. I delight in their dance and feel connected to the infinite in their presence. It's a connection to the infinite that surpasses by far the mere religious.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Okie Counter-Evolutionaries
When the story broke to the effect that some Oklahoma legislators were upset about Richard Dawkins coming to OU for an invited public presentation about evolution, my first reaction was to sigh but I wasn't necessarily motivated to go off on a rant about it. After all, this is a thoroughly "Red" state, so this sort of "thinking" is just part of the fabric of living here. But an article in today's OU student paper about it finally got to me.
As of this time, there are charges and countercharges regarding this OU-sponsored talk, with both sides accusing the other of censorship. The OU people feel they're being harassed by the legislature, which could have an inhibiting effect the next time they're considering inviting another controversial figure to OU. The counter-evolutionaries feel that their public speakers need to have "equal time" and the university is effectively censoring their viewpoint.
Well, guess what folks - despite the attempts to cloak religious fundamentalism in the disguise of "intelligent design" theory - the alternatives proposed by these folks to evolution aren't science! Scientific presentations at a university aren't like broadcast journalism, where the so-called "fairness doctrine" applies, requiring opposing sides to be granted equal time. Perhaps Biblical versions of creation could be offered as religious seminars but they are not valid scientific alternatives to evolutionary theory. Hence, they aren't even talking about the same topics!
Furthermore, it would be absurd (although being absurd has never stopped zealots) to argue that if a famous physical geographer is invited to give a talk at OU, the advocates of Flat Earth theories need to be offered equal time. Or if a famous meteorologist comes to OU for a presentation, the proponents of forecasting by various means of divination (e.g., reading goat entrails or casting bones) should be allowed to air their views as alternative perspectives.
Unfortunately, it seems these fundamentalist legislators have no clue about how science works. If they can't see that Biblical creation myths aren't remotely close to science, it's likely because they don't understand much about the scientific process. Along the way, Oklahoma once again finds itself revealing how ignorant some segments of its society really are.
These legislators argue that evolutionary theory is inconsistent with the beliefs of the majority of Oklahoma citizens and so should be barred from state funded university campuses. Regrettably, it might even be true that the majority of Oklahoma residents deny evolution and embrace Biblical creation stories! But to say that a state university should only invite speakers who reflect the viewpoints of the majority of a state's residents is contrary to what an educational institution should be doing. If anything, universities have a clear obligation to offer controversial figures an opportunity to speak, especially when their views clash with those of the majority of its citizens! Oklahoma's students need to be exposed to ideas that shake their foundations. To a considerable extent, that's what universities are supposed to do.
I recommend that OU emulate the sentiments of the University of Wisconsin, as immortalized in the "Sifting and Winnowing" plaque affixed to Bascom Hall on the UWisc campus in Madison. The plaque reads:
As of this time, there are charges and countercharges regarding this OU-sponsored talk, with both sides accusing the other of censorship. The OU people feel they're being harassed by the legislature, which could have an inhibiting effect the next time they're considering inviting another controversial figure to OU. The counter-evolutionaries feel that their public speakers need to have "equal time" and the university is effectively censoring their viewpoint.
Well, guess what folks - despite the attempts to cloak religious fundamentalism in the disguise of "intelligent design" theory - the alternatives proposed by these folks to evolution aren't science! Scientific presentations at a university aren't like broadcast journalism, where the so-called "fairness doctrine" applies, requiring opposing sides to be granted equal time. Perhaps Biblical versions of creation could be offered as religious seminars but they are not valid scientific alternatives to evolutionary theory. Hence, they aren't even talking about the same topics!
Furthermore, it would be absurd (although being absurd has never stopped zealots) to argue that if a famous physical geographer is invited to give a talk at OU, the advocates of Flat Earth theories need to be offered equal time. Or if a famous meteorologist comes to OU for a presentation, the proponents of forecasting by various means of divination (e.g., reading goat entrails or casting bones) should be allowed to air their views as alternative perspectives.
Unfortunately, it seems these fundamentalist legislators have no clue about how science works. If they can't see that Biblical creation myths aren't remotely close to science, it's likely because they don't understand much about the scientific process. Along the way, Oklahoma once again finds itself revealing how ignorant some segments of its society really are.
These legislators argue that evolutionary theory is inconsistent with the beliefs of the majority of Oklahoma citizens and so should be barred from state funded university campuses. Regrettably, it might even be true that the majority of Oklahoma residents deny evolution and embrace Biblical creation stories! But to say that a state university should only invite speakers who reflect the viewpoints of the majority of a state's residents is contrary to what an educational institution should be doing. If anything, universities have a clear obligation to offer controversial figures an opportunity to speak, especially when their views clash with those of the majority of its citizens! Oklahoma's students need to be exposed to ideas that shake their foundations. To a considerable extent, that's what universities are supposed to do.
I recommend that OU emulate the sentiments of the University of Wisconsin, as immortalized in the "Sifting and Winnowing" plaque affixed to Bascom Hall on the UWisc campus in Madison. The plaque reads:
Whatever may be the limitations which trammel inquiry elsewhere, we believe that the great state University of Wisconsin should ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found.The story of this landmark can be found here. OU bureaucrats would do well to offer an equivalent reaction to this controversy.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
The Red River of the North
Recently, the news includes stories of hardship and sandbagging along the Red River of the North (not to be confused with the Red River between OK and TX). It was just 1997 (less than 10 years ago), when massive flooding along the Red River produces disastrous consequences, especially for Grand Forks, ND. This year, snowmelt combined with impending spring precipitation is creating a flood problem along the RRotN once again. How many times does it take for it to sink in (pun intended) that having their cities include development within the flood plain of a flood-prone river is ... not very smart? The whole nation will help to bear the cost of massive flood-prevention efforts that may or may not suffice to prevent inundation of property and perhaps even create casualties. And the whole nation will have to underwrite much of the costs incurred as a result of flood damage. Why should we pay for the stupid choices of someone else?
This is very much comparable to rebuilding New Orleans after Katrina - that city will continue to represent a hazard so long as it remains where it is. And New Orleans is far from the only storm-vulnerable location along the Gulf coast and the East coast. Furthermore, Katrina was not the dreaded "big event" that still remains over the horizon for New Orleans. The worst is yet to come and no one knows how much longer New Orleans can continue to be as lucky as they've been for many decades.
Unlike New Orleans, however, cities along the RRotN have much more frequent reminders of the foolishness of flood plain development in which they've participated. They have even less of an excuse for ignoring the very plain messages that the RRotN has been sending every few years. And there are many other cities along many other rivers all over this nation who are equally to blame for what is going to happen to them when their rivers burst out of their banks and inundate their floodplains. Flood insurance is not the solution to this problem - it simply allows stubborn people to replace their vulnerable property and stay in the same place! We need to develop land use regulation that will move us away from this precarious position, so widespread around the nation. The RRotN is perhaps only one of the most frequent reminders of our shortsighted policies for land use.
---------------------
Reply to comment by Aaron Kennedy:
I'd be disappointed if you chose not to be completely honest! Narrow? In what way is my viewpoint narrow? I believe I understand the history of why cities wound up on rivers, but if we've learned anything in 100+ years, it should have been that developing the floodplain with structures is a costly mistake. In some years, even agricultural use will result in catastrophic losses to the farmers. Sure, floodplains are fertile, but why ask those not farming a floodplain to help pay for your losses? [Insurance companies spread their costs around all their policyholders via increased premiums.] If you took the risks, you should have to pay for it with the profits you made farming that fertile land in non-flood years.
Regarding GFK, if they've used Federal money to move out of the floodplain as a result of the 1997 flood, good for them. That's a much better use of external underwriting (either directly from the government or from insurance companies) than putting it into rebuilding in the same location after the floods recede. When we abandon developments within floodplains, we won't be paying that price repeatedly for recurring damage. If you use your flood insurance to repair and rebuild in the same location after you've been flooded, then indeed - shame on you.
This is very much comparable to rebuilding New Orleans after Katrina - that city will continue to represent a hazard so long as it remains where it is. And New Orleans is far from the only storm-vulnerable location along the Gulf coast and the East coast. Furthermore, Katrina was not the dreaded "big event" that still remains over the horizon for New Orleans. The worst is yet to come and no one knows how much longer New Orleans can continue to be as lucky as they've been for many decades.
Unlike New Orleans, however, cities along the RRotN have much more frequent reminders of the foolishness of flood plain development in which they've participated. They have even less of an excuse for ignoring the very plain messages that the RRotN has been sending every few years. And there are many other cities along many other rivers all over this nation who are equally to blame for what is going to happen to them when their rivers burst out of their banks and inundate their floodplains. Flood insurance is not the solution to this problem - it simply allows stubborn people to replace their vulnerable property and stay in the same place! We need to develop land use regulation that will move us away from this precarious position, so widespread around the nation. The RRotN is perhaps only one of the most frequent reminders of our shortsighted policies for land use.
---------------------
Reply to comment by Aaron Kennedy:
I'd be disappointed if you chose not to be completely honest! Narrow? In what way is my viewpoint narrow? I believe I understand the history of why cities wound up on rivers, but if we've learned anything in 100+ years, it should have been that developing the floodplain with structures is a costly mistake. In some years, even agricultural use will result in catastrophic losses to the farmers. Sure, floodplains are fertile, but why ask those not farming a floodplain to help pay for your losses? [Insurance companies spread their costs around all their policyholders via increased premiums.] If you took the risks, you should have to pay for it with the profits you made farming that fertile land in non-flood years.
Regarding GFK, if they've used Federal money to move out of the floodplain as a result of the 1997 flood, good for them. That's a much better use of external underwriting (either directly from the government or from insurance companies) than putting it into rebuilding in the same location after the floods recede. When we abandon developments within floodplains, we won't be paying that price repeatedly for recurring damage. If you use your flood insurance to repair and rebuild in the same location after you've been flooded, then indeed - shame on you.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Tim Marshall and the Truth
Tim and I chatting at the 2014 ChaserCon. Unfortunately, I don't recall who took this shot.
I recently returned from the 2009 National Storm Conference put on by TESSA in Colleyville, Texas. There were some great presentations there by Chris Novy and Tim Marshall.
Circumstances associated with this trip permitted me the luxury of spending some time with Tim and his wife, Kay. I really enjoyed that opportunity. Among the many things we chatted about was our involvement in the business of weather consulting, and Tim told me several disconcerting stories about how he's been pilloried by various people for his commitment to the truth. Tim's received hate mail and even death threats! I can understand easily how someone whose home has been swept away by hurricane-induced storm surge might be upset when they find out that their homeowner's insurance doesn't cover flood damage. They've found out, too late, that their damage isn't covered. It's also evident that they'd be angry about Tim's finding that the damage was done by storm surge rather than by tornadoes. Tim is uniquely qualified to do what he does - he has Master's degrees in both meteorology and civil engineering - and is recognized nationally and internationally as one of the best, if not the best at assessing storm damage. People may not like his interpretations of storm damage, but they haven't anything on which to stand when attempting to discredit him and his findings. So the opposing lawyers simply make up false and misleading things to convince a jury that Tim's testimony is dubious.
The sad fact is that anyone who has built close to the shoreline or on barrier islands has put themselves in the center of a bullseye. If they had the appropriate flood insurance, they might be able to rebuild after a hurricane, but it is more than simply foolish to do so. Rebuilding in an area hit by a hurricane is a choice to remain in the bullseye, and the insurance companies are going to pass on the costs to all their policyholders. This means that all policyholders around the country are paying extra premiums that only benefit a few foolish, stubborn people who rebuild in a location that inevitably will be hit again.
My recommendation is that all of that lovely beachfront property should either not be insurable at all, or the premiums should be so sky-high that most people couldn't afford the insurance to have permanent structures built on that property. It's well-known in the meteorology and natural hazard communities that we as a nation have overdeveloped locations such as beachfronts, that are subject to natural hazards (hurricanes, floods, beach erosion, etc.). It's outright stupid to build permanent structures in such places, and we all are paying extra for the bad decisions by developers and those who ignore or are ignorant of the hazards.
It pains me to learn that my friend Tim has been crucified for telling the simple truth. The idea that the vast devastation along the Gulf Coast by Hurricane Katrina was caused by tornadoes is so absurd that entertaining that idea never occurred to me. Tim's conclusions about this aren't the lies of an evil person selling his soul to the insurance companies - they are the truth, plain and simple. Whatever the legal system might decide about this issue in any particular case brought to trial is certainly important in the lives of those who've experienced such losses, but as should be well-known, the legal system is not about truth and justice.
Justice is not a hand-out to those who've chosen to live and operate in a danger zone. Truth is not such absurd fictions as the one that most of the damage in a landfalling hurricane is first caused by violent tornadoes in the rainbands and only secondarily by storm surge. When people choose to build permanent structures in clearly dangerous locations, they should know two things: (1) precisely what their risks are and the consequences of the choice to build there, and (2) their personal responsibility if they choose to go ahead with that decision. Although the developers rightfully share some of the blame, those who choose to buy into these developments have to bear a part of the blame as well - it's their responsibility to learn about the risks. Ignorance is no excuse.
People who tell the truth often are punished for it by people who don't like to hear that truth. My friend Tim is one among many who remain committed to the truth despite the inevitability of being criticized for telling that truth. We need to protect our nation's truth-tellers - we need desperately to learn the truth. And we need to recognize that government has an important role to play in limiting or even preventing the development of dangerous locations (such as beachfronts and flood plains) for the sake of greedy developers and ignorant purchasers of those developments. The cost to this nation is too high in these tough economic times and the unnecessary disruption of human lives (to say nothing of the outright casualties) is simply unacceptable. People directing their anger at truth-tellers like Tim Marshall are misdirecting that emotion.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
EJSSM Excitement!
I've just returned from a face-to-face meeting* with most of the members of the Advisory/Editorial Board for the Electronic Journal of Severe Storms Meteorology. I won't bore you with a tedious description of that meeting, but I came away very excited about what we hope to accomplish in the next few years. It's a great privilege for me to have colleagues as dedicated to the science as this group is.
Although introducing a brand-new journal with no organizational infrastructure support has been a slow process, it's my belief that we've already succeeded in publishing a number of excellent contributions and my hope that the future will include many, many more from diverse authors. I'd like to summarize some of the existing unique features of EJSSM:
1. Open review. Reviewers are not anonymous, which encourages a spirited but civil discussion of the comments between the author(s) and the reviewers. The substantive comments by the reviewers and the author responses are included in the final version of the paper. This allows readers to understand the review process leading to the final published form. Further, many interesting points can come up during manuscript reviews but usually never see the light of day when the exchanges between the author(s) and reviewers are not made public.
2. Multimedia. In addition to the manuscript's text, the authors can make available a diverse set of multimedia, including animations, sound files, programming code, datasets, and so on. These additions are hotlinked from the PDF files comprising the formal publication.
3. Affordable publication charges. Publication costs for files up to 50 Megabytes in size are only $50. There is no extra cost for color figures
4. Open access. Once articles are published, they are available to anyone at no cost. Readers wished to be informed about new publications can be notified by email when new papers become available.
5. Rapid turn-around. An important EJSSM goal is to have the paper proceed as rapidly as possible from submission to publication. A manuscript requiring only minor revisions after review can be published and available within a few months.
6. Diverse topics and content. Because "severe storms" has been defined by EJSSM with a very liberal interpretation, many topics other than deep convective storms are welcomed (e.g., severe extratropical cyclones, duststorms, winter weather, severe turbulence, heavy rainfall, etc.). We also solicit contributions that offer might not otherwise find a place in a refereed journal - for example, articles that are are primarily tutorial can be considered, especially when they offer insight into some heretofore unrecognized aspect of severe storms meteorology .
In addition to these features, we are hoping to introduce some exciting new opportunities to foster scientific discussions and to expand the scope of EJSSM publications.
1. An electronic "poster session". This is to become a relatively informal opportunity for severe storm scientists to post a short summary of their current research projects, in order to solicit comments from EJSSM readers. The intent is to simulate electronically the helpful exchange of ideas and feedback that can occur at poster sessions during scientific conferences, when authors have a chance to interact informally with interested colleagues prior to submitting their findings for consideration in a refereed journal (such as EJSSM). This is particulary helpful for students, who can obtain valuable input from established scientists in their research topic, but anyone can gain from this sort of informal interaction. These discussions will be moderated, in order to avoid the uncivil exchanges that can develop with unmoderated message boards. Scientific discourse is an art that requires some experience and a commitment to good science.
2. Special focus issues of EJSSM. From time to time, perhaps when a regional conference or workshop is called, the presenters want to have their presentations become formal contributions to a referreed journal. Some journals do indeed have a history of publishing whole issues devoted to the presentations from a conference, and we hope to emulate that with EJSSM. With all of the existing features of EJSSM (above), the production of important contributions in the form of refereed papers from conference presentations should be facilitated.
The board was unanimous in our hope to create a medium that fosters the notion of science as a continuing discourse, not an archive of established facts. When economic factors restrict the number of face-to-face interactions a scientist can have, the electronic options we seek to provide with EJSMM can compensate to some extent for this loss of face-to-face time. Further, we all believe that individual publications are only milestones along a path of continuous evolution of scientific ideas. That evolution is dependent on interactions among scientists so EJSSM seeks to expand the opportunities within which those interactions can happen. And we hope to allow severe storms meteorology students to begin to follow and eventually contribute to that discourse as early in their careers as possible.
____________________
*Present: Me, Bob Maddox, Roger Edwards, Elke Edwards, Erik Rasmussen, John Monteverdi, Ryan McCammon, Al Pietrycha, and the Board Chair, Jim Johnson. Absent: Brian Curran, Amos Magliocco, Bill Eckrich, Dave Schultz
Although introducing a brand-new journal with no organizational infrastructure support has been a slow process, it's my belief that we've already succeeded in publishing a number of excellent contributions and my hope that the future will include many, many more from diverse authors. I'd like to summarize some of the existing unique features of EJSSM:
1. Open review. Reviewers are not anonymous, which encourages a spirited but civil discussion of the comments between the author(s) and the reviewers. The substantive comments by the reviewers and the author responses are included in the final version of the paper. This allows readers to understand the review process leading to the final published form. Further, many interesting points can come up during manuscript reviews but usually never see the light of day when the exchanges between the author(s) and reviewers are not made public.
2. Multimedia. In addition to the manuscript's text, the authors can make available a diverse set of multimedia, including animations, sound files, programming code, datasets, and so on. These additions are hotlinked from the PDF files comprising the formal publication.
3. Affordable publication charges. Publication costs for files up to 50 Megabytes in size are only $50. There is no extra cost for color figures
4. Open access. Once articles are published, they are available to anyone at no cost. Readers wished to be informed about new publications can be notified by email when new papers become available.
5. Rapid turn-around. An important EJSSM goal is to have the paper proceed as rapidly as possible from submission to publication. A manuscript requiring only minor revisions after review can be published and available within a few months.
6. Diverse topics and content. Because "severe storms" has been defined by EJSSM with a very liberal interpretation, many topics other than deep convective storms are welcomed (e.g., severe extratropical cyclones, duststorms, winter weather, severe turbulence, heavy rainfall, etc.). We also solicit contributions that offer might not otherwise find a place in a refereed journal - for example, articles that are are primarily tutorial can be considered, especially when they offer insight into some heretofore unrecognized aspect of severe storms meteorology .
In addition to these features, we are hoping to introduce some exciting new opportunities to foster scientific discussions and to expand the scope of EJSSM publications.
1. An electronic "poster session". This is to become a relatively informal opportunity for severe storm scientists to post a short summary of their current research projects, in order to solicit comments from EJSSM readers. The intent is to simulate electronically the helpful exchange of ideas and feedback that can occur at poster sessions during scientific conferences, when authors have a chance to interact informally with interested colleagues prior to submitting their findings for consideration in a refereed journal (such as EJSSM). This is particulary helpful for students, who can obtain valuable input from established scientists in their research topic, but anyone can gain from this sort of informal interaction. These discussions will be moderated, in order to avoid the uncivil exchanges that can develop with unmoderated message boards. Scientific discourse is an art that requires some experience and a commitment to good science.
2. Special focus issues of EJSSM. From time to time, perhaps when a regional conference or workshop is called, the presenters want to have their presentations become formal contributions to a referreed journal. Some journals do indeed have a history of publishing whole issues devoted to the presentations from a conference, and we hope to emulate that with EJSSM. With all of the existing features of EJSSM (above), the production of important contributions in the form of refereed papers from conference presentations should be facilitated.
The board was unanimous in our hope to create a medium that fosters the notion of science as a continuing discourse, not an archive of established facts. When economic factors restrict the number of face-to-face interactions a scientist can have, the electronic options we seek to provide with EJSMM can compensate to some extent for this loss of face-to-face time. Further, we all believe that individual publications are only milestones along a path of continuous evolution of scientific ideas. That evolution is dependent on interactions among scientists so EJSSM seeks to expand the opportunities within which those interactions can happen. And we hope to allow severe storms meteorology students to begin to follow and eventually contribute to that discourse as early in their careers as possible.
____________________
*Present: Me, Bob Maddox, Roger Edwards, Elke Edwards, Erik Rasmussen, John Monteverdi, Ryan McCammon, Al Pietrycha, and the Board Chair, Jim Johnson. Absent: Brian Curran, Amos Magliocco, Bill Eckrich, Dave Schultz
Monday, March 2, 2009
A tribute to Yoshi Sasaki
My advisor in graduate school was Prof. Yoshikazu Sasaki, who co-founded the OU meteorology program (with Prof. Walter J. Saucier - another great individual). I've already acknowledged Yoshi's importance to my career in an essay here. He was all that I could ever have asked for as my advisor!
It's my clearly biased opinion that he is the best professor that the OU meteorology program ever had and his track record of accomplishment will be difficult even to approach. I'm very proud to have been his student and don't believe he can get enough credit for his contributions - not just to meteorology but also the city of Norman and the state of Oklahoma.
He recently turned 80 and he's still busy with all sorts of projects, including helping younger meteorologists. However, I just learned some news today (02 March) I want to share:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Feb. 27, 2009
Dr. Yoshi Sasaki Day Declared in Oklahoma
To recognize Yoshi Sasaki’s hard work and dedication as a long-time member of the Governor’s Advisory Council on Asian-American Affairs, Governor Brad Henry, by proclamation, declared Jan. 2, 2009, as Dr. Yoshi Sasaki Day in Oklahoma.
Sasaki is currently the George Lynn Cross Research Professor Emeritus within the School of Meteorology and is also one of the founders of the school.
“It is an honor to be recognized for my work within the field and within the state of Oklahoma,” Sasaki said. “I have enjoyed my time spent on the Advisory Council and have seen much progress from the efforts of all involved.”
Sasaki’s interest in storm prediction began early with his studies at the University of Tokyo. His research topic as a doctoral student was the development of a numerical and objective prediction technique to track typhoons. This area of study was prompted by a typhoon which caused a ferry to sink and hundreds of people to lose their lives because of an incorrect subjective typhoon track forecast. Sasaki and a colleague received an award from the Meteorological Society of Japan in 1955 for their research on the development of the world’s first numerical prediction of a typhoon track.
Sasaki’s journey to the United States began after he finished his dissertation at the University of Tokyo in 1955. He and his wife Koko moved to College Station, Texas, where he accepted a position at Texas A&M as a research scientist.
While in Texas, Sasaki discovered that Oklahoma had the maximum frequency of tornado occurrences in the United States in the 1950s. However, OU did not yet have a meteorology program. He saw the opportunity for advancement in tornado research.
In 1960, Sasaki headed north to Norman and joined Walt Saucier to become a founding faculty member in OU’s meteorology program.
“Tornadoes and associated disasters stimulated my scientific interest to reveal the mysteries of tornadogenesis and to help develop accurate prediction technology toward the goal of protecting people and properties from tornado disasters,” Sasaki said. “It was my great feeling that I might be able to contribute something to protect people and properties from natural disasters.”
While at OU, Sasaki became the School of Meteorology’s first George Lynn Cross Research Professor in 1974 and the second Director of the Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies (CIMMS) from 1981-1986.
Techniques developed from Sasaki’s internationally-renowned research in variational data assimilation remain a cornerstone of modern-day meteorological analysis at operational weather prediction centers around the world.
Sasaki’s students have also achieved great things within the field of meteorology. Joe Friday, one of his earlier students and former Director of the National Weather Service, played a key role in securing significant funding from Congress, working with OU President David Boren, then a U.S. Senator, to establish the successful, first nationwide Doppler Radar Network for detection of tornadoes and severe weather.
"From the time Yoshi Sasaki arrived in Oklahoma in 1960, he has been engaged 110 percent, with not only the University, but the city of Norman and the state," said John Snow, dean of the College of Atmospheric and Geographic Sciences. "Oklahoma has a stronger economy and is a better place to live because of his efforts over the last 50 years. Yoshi remains an excellent example of an outstanding faculty member fully engaged with the wider community."
Among his many honors, he has been elected as a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society, presented the Fujiwara Award from the Meteorological Society of Japan, awarded the “Order of the Sacred Treasure” by the Emperor of Japan and appointed as an Honorary Consul General of Japan.
In 2004, Sasaki was inducted into the Oklahoma Higher Education Hall of Fame for his service to OU and the state of Oklahoma.
The Governor's Advisory Council on Asian-American Affairs was established to provide advice and assistance to the Governor on policy issues related to the arts, economic development, health and human services, human resources and education affecting the Asian-American population of Oklahoma. All Council members are appointed by the Governor.
I can't begin to detail the greatness of this man in a blog, but I certainly want to take this celebratory occasion to point out what a blessing it was for me to have learned from him. He and his wife, Koko, are among the finest people it's been my pleasure to know.
It's my clearly biased opinion that he is the best professor that the OU meteorology program ever had and his track record of accomplishment will be difficult even to approach. I'm very proud to have been his student and don't believe he can get enough credit for his contributions - not just to meteorology but also the city of Norman and the state of Oklahoma.
He recently turned 80 and he's still busy with all sorts of projects, including helping younger meteorologists. However, I just learned some news today (02 March) I want to share:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Feb. 27, 2009
Dr. Yoshi Sasaki Day Declared in Oklahoma
To recognize Yoshi Sasaki’s hard work and dedication as a long-time member of the Governor’s Advisory Council on Asian-American Affairs, Governor Brad Henry, by proclamation, declared Jan. 2, 2009, as Dr. Yoshi Sasaki Day in Oklahoma.
Sasaki is currently the George Lynn Cross Research Professor Emeritus within the School of Meteorology and is also one of the founders of the school.
“It is an honor to be recognized for my work within the field and within the state of Oklahoma,” Sasaki said. “I have enjoyed my time spent on the Advisory Council and have seen much progress from the efforts of all involved.”
Sasaki’s interest in storm prediction began early with his studies at the University of Tokyo. His research topic as a doctoral student was the development of a numerical and objective prediction technique to track typhoons. This area of study was prompted by a typhoon which caused a ferry to sink and hundreds of people to lose their lives because of an incorrect subjective typhoon track forecast. Sasaki and a colleague received an award from the Meteorological Society of Japan in 1955 for their research on the development of the world’s first numerical prediction of a typhoon track.
Sasaki’s journey to the United States began after he finished his dissertation at the University of Tokyo in 1955. He and his wife Koko moved to College Station, Texas, where he accepted a position at Texas A&M as a research scientist.
While in Texas, Sasaki discovered that Oklahoma had the maximum frequency of tornado occurrences in the United States in the 1950s. However, OU did not yet have a meteorology program. He saw the opportunity for advancement in tornado research.
In 1960, Sasaki headed north to Norman and joined Walt Saucier to become a founding faculty member in OU’s meteorology program.
“Tornadoes and associated disasters stimulated my scientific interest to reveal the mysteries of tornadogenesis and to help develop accurate prediction technology toward the goal of protecting people and properties from tornado disasters,” Sasaki said. “It was my great feeling that I might be able to contribute something to protect people and properties from natural disasters.”
While at OU, Sasaki became the School of Meteorology’s first George Lynn Cross Research Professor in 1974 and the second Director of the Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies (CIMMS) from 1981-1986.
Techniques developed from Sasaki’s internationally-renowned research in variational data assimilation remain a cornerstone of modern-day meteorological analysis at operational weather prediction centers around the world.
Sasaki’s students have also achieved great things within the field of meteorology. Joe Friday, one of his earlier students and former Director of the National Weather Service, played a key role in securing significant funding from Congress, working with OU President David Boren, then a U.S. Senator, to establish the successful, first nationwide Doppler Radar Network for detection of tornadoes and severe weather.
"From the time Yoshi Sasaki arrived in Oklahoma in 1960, he has been engaged 110 percent, with not only the University, but the city of Norman and the state," said John Snow, dean of the College of Atmospheric and Geographic Sciences. "Oklahoma has a stronger economy and is a better place to live because of his efforts over the last 50 years. Yoshi remains an excellent example of an outstanding faculty member fully engaged with the wider community."
Among his many honors, he has been elected as a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society, presented the Fujiwara Award from the Meteorological Society of Japan, awarded the “Order of the Sacred Treasure” by the Emperor of Japan and appointed as an Honorary Consul General of Japan.
In 2004, Sasaki was inducted into the Oklahoma Higher Education Hall of Fame for his service to OU and the state of Oklahoma.
The Governor's Advisory Council on Asian-American Affairs was established to provide advice and assistance to the Governor on policy issues related to the arts, economic development, health and human services, human resources and education affecting the Asian-American population of Oklahoma. All Council members are appointed by the Governor.
I can't begin to detail the greatness of this man in a blog, but I certainly want to take this celebratory occasion to point out what a blessing it was for me to have learned from him. He and his wife, Koko, are among the finest people it's been my pleasure to know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
