Tuesday Primary: Full Throttle on the Campaign Trail

by Larry Mongoss, guest blogger

Another Tuesday. More primaries in a race that has dragged on longer than anyone had expected it to. I am certainly not a typical voter, but the more I get to know about people in politics the less I like them. There have been a few notable exceptions to that experience, oddly enough, and mostly for silly reasons, Ronald Reagan among them, but this campaign has not raised any from either side of the aisle.

More painful than getting to know politicians, is listening to them pander to the short term interests of voters as they try to propel themselves into office. I was not surprised when John McCain, a man who has re-declared himself “very well versed in economics” suggested on April 15^th that the federal tax on gasoline be lifted for the summer. Lowering taxes has long been a mantra of the Republican Party, and lowering them on something that every person who drives can relate directly to is that much sweeter. Some people have complained that such a move is a bad one and they are right. It will do little to help consumers in the short term. The price we pay at the pump will not fall by 18.5 cents a gallon, but probably only by a few cents as oil suppliers take more of the pie. Longer term this action does nothing to address the energy, environment and security problems we face, but will only make them worse. It is a quick would-be fix that will do no good.

Thus, I was surprised when Hillary Clinton grabbed McCain’s play and ran with it on April 28^th. As implausible as it seems, I am still not cynical enough. Barack Obama, and probably some of the would-have-beens are not going along with this notion of taking away the gas tax. Actually, Obama was politically artful in describing this as a gimmick that would only save people 30 cents per day. But the argument about why this is a bad idea is an intellectual one; it does not have the visceral impact of offering someone an extra $2 in change every time they fill up.

All of this is obviously old news, and politics as usual in America, and really almost every country in the world, has a fair bit pandering policy statements (read my lips). What is interesting this time around is that the race is close, and prominently putting forth bad policy may have flipped Indiana into the Clinton column, and even makes North Carolina seem unsure. Clinton has proven herself a tenacious candidate and it would be a mistake to count her out. But wouldn’t it be ironic if clearly bad policy promulgation keeps her in the game. If it does turn out to be a winning strategy, we are in for an absolute treat this fall.

Extinguishing the Olympic Torch of Hope

by Larry Mongoss, guest blogger

It is often said that all effects are side effects and that seems to be true for the passage of the Olympic torch. The tradition of running the torch through different countries is intended to promote the games, show the inextinguishable nature of the Olympic spirit and, of course, promote the host country. I have never followed the torch relay very closely in the past, but was still struck by how worrisome it must be for those bearing the torch to not let it go out. I picture myself doing it, falling face first in a mud puddle valiantly holding up the torch only to have it put out by the water splashing up as my face goes under. The whole world gasps and I am the link that breaks the chain that holds together the games.

The pressure, it turns out, is not quite so great. There is a backup plan, a “real” torch that is kept burning in a nice dry place just in case the bearer has a mishap. Likely the backup has been invoked before, but it was not until the recent chaos in France that I found out about the dirty little secret. Symbolism – if it is going to be real shouldn’t it have to be fragile too?

That is a different topic, the side effects I am talking about relate to the goals of giving voice to the “Free Tibet” movement and embarrassing the Chinese government. By striking at that oddly honored Olympic symbol, this primary goal did meet with some success. The embarrassment, however, was not restricted to the Chinese government and the International Olympic Committee. Many people in and from China, especially young people, have taken these statements very personally. Intended or not, they see the whole thing as an attack on their motherland, not just the government that controls it. The words “Shame on China” go directly to the heart.

Worse still, and I think this is one reason the anger is so great, they see it as racial statement against Han Chinese. Though many were hoping that the Olympics would be an opportunity to increase freedom and curtail human rights abuses in China, that inclusive goal has been lost. The loud voices no longer carry a global message. Instead, what comes across loud and clear to Han Chinese is that they are being blamed for the conditions of other ethnic groups within China. When perceived in this way it suggests that the rights of those groups, especially ethnic Tibetans, trump any claim that Han Chinese have on free speech or other civil liberties. Given this interpretation, I am not surprised that so many people in China seem to be so mad.

Some, presumably a small portion, of young Chinese activists have become quite extreme in voicing their anger. They are hunting a particular protester and declaring people (including some of their own) enemies in a manner reminiscent of the Cultural Revolution, an event they are too young to have any firsthand knowledge of. Whether this worrisome behavior is condoned by their majority remains to be seen. Still, the young people of today are the rulers of tomorrow and the attitudes currently being engendered will be with them when they come into power.

So far, the anger generated seems to be directed at those directly involved in helping mire the torch in the mud. I am relieved at this; the scale of suffering that ethnic retribution within China could cause is overwhelming. But that anger, and its focus on outside influences is still troubling. The Olympics may indeed be the catalyst that aligns the attitude of the Chinese government with that of the Chinese people. Unfortunately, the emerging alignment is that the people are remonstrating against the rest of the world with exactly the same voice that the government has had for decades.

There is a tendency, especially prevalent in America of late, to label countries as good or bad. You can try to finesse that by saying what you will of the people making up that country but what comes across is: America (or substitute your country name) is evil! It is kind of hard not to be upset by such a blanket statement. Such absolutism, absolutely is bad.

I am not sure who will bring home the Golds at the upcoming games, but I have a feeling many of us have already lost. #

Also by Larry Mongoss:

Finding Silver in the Cloud of CO₂
Paterson the Blind New Governor
Also on Literal and Literary Truth
Disagreeing with Smart People
Decreasing Readership among the Corn-Fed

Finding Silver in the Cloud of CO2

by Larry Mongoss, guest blogger

China has taken the lead as the world’s biggest producer of carbon dioxide. Actually, according to some estimates, that title should have been granted in 2006, a year in which China’s CO₂ emissions increased 9%. More important than the quickness with which China managed to pass the United States for this dubious honor is that speed with which emissions of CO₂ are increasing. That is exponential – in the mathematically correct sense of the word – and 9% per year is a very big number.

The implications of this for global greenhouse gases are staggering. Were China to continue at a 9% exponential growth rate, and every other country hold to current output levels, worldwide output of CO₂ would double from the levels of today in about 18 years. Of course what everyone is looking for is a way to decrease total CO₂ output. If the rest of the world manages to reduce CO₂ production by 5% per year then world output won’t double for 22 years. Little comfort that.

These calculations are very back-of-the-envelope, though these days it is an email-envelope. Others, with fancier, or at least more convoluted, math have concluded that we have at more like 35 years to a doubling. But while developed countries are looking at, if not embracing, technology to reduce carbon emissions, the developing world is trying to develop. When those lesser developed countries were economically tiny, how they developed did not much matter, but it does now. China is not going away, India is riding close behind, and the rest of the underdeveloped world would love to be on the same trajectory. The pressures to grow economically are stronger than those to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and, most importantly, they are driven from within. If good things are going to happen for the environment, it will take more than thoughtful science and demands from the international community.

My purpose in pointing this out is not to be an alarmist, however strongly the warning bells may be clanging. Rather, I am looking for opportunity – a silver lining in the billowing clouds of coal smoke and concrete dust. The disquieting rate of emissions growth in China is the result of widespread development in places with limited access to modern technology. China has an impressive educational system that is churning out bright people who can do amazing things, but those amazing things are strongly focused on the big cities, often with an eye toward producing for the developed world. When it comes to something like turning coal into electricity in rural Fujian, there is not a great deal of intellectual firepower at hand. The plants built are inefficient and use technology that was out-of-date when it was developed in the 1950s. The Soviet influence on China has not disappeared entirely.

Turning such dirty inefficient power plants into somewhat less dirty and less inefficient plants would have a huge impact. Orchestrating the construction of clean and efficient new plant would have a bigger impact still. So what does it take to get high-tech into areas that people with skills and smarts are desperately trying to get out of? Engineers without borders?

Perhaps this is an opportunity for developed countries to export workers, instead of jobs. Engineers and skilled construction and industrial workers, together with the technology they bring, cooperating with the local people now on the job might be able to produce wonders. Such efforts would, in part, need to be a sort of foreign aid but China is sitting on a stunning accumulated trade surplus that they might be willing to part with for the right reason. Since the money would be spent on higher quality infrastructure, with a fairly limited direct impact on the domestic economy, the inflation and economic overheating pressures would be minimal.

There really is an opportunity to improve not only global environmental footprint, but the long run quality of life in China, and other developing countries. In addition, the demand for engineers and skilled production workers to support such projects will keep developed countries in their own economic games by improving the skill base. Any shared cultural understanding that might result would simply be a bonus.

The world is facing some interesting, and probably difficult, times. We can all defend our corner and push for others to reform, but the results are dismally predictable. Alternatively, we can put down the gloves, drop some of our ideological baggage, and scratch our heads together. Freely providing technology to China is as likely to be an anathema to American politicians as accepting significant foreign stewardship on development is to Chinese politicians. And China and the US are far from having a monopoly on political vitriolic. Still, with so much at stake, it seems like it would be worth the indigestion. #

Also by Larry Mongoss:

Paterson the Blind New Governor
Also on Literal and Literary Truth
Disagreeing with Smart People
Decreasing Readership among the Corn-Fed

Paterson the Blind New Governor

by Larry Mongoss, guest blogger

It makes great headlines, but never comes as a big surprise, when some politician is accused of a crime. I was a little bit disappointed when the latest rendition of that was performed by Eliot Spitzer. I have always perceived him as a pretty dour individual, and never could tell whether his aggressive prosecutions were the result of some burning sense of justice, or just the desire to spread his unhappiness more evenly. Still, he seemed like one of those guys that could be depended on to walk the talk. Hope burns eternal I guess.

The really interesting thing, however, is that David A. Paterson will now be filling his shoes. Before the Spitzer story broke I have to admit I had never heard of Paterson, and everyone seems to be making a big deal out of the fact that he will become the first African American Governor of New York. But the cool thing about Paterson is not the color of his skin, it is in his eyes. People seem to mention only in an under breath that the man is blind.

Peterson does not sound like a man that considers his blindness something to hide in the margins. According to Wikipedia (and how can I doubt that) he ran the New York City Marathon in 1999 and is on the board of a track club for disabled people. I can remember fencing with blind people when I was in college – at the time it surprised me that they would want to do that but after a few bouts with a blindfold (for me) I could understand it. They were doing it for exactly the same reason I was – it was fun (I was always a pretty noncompetitive competitor).

So why politics? Perhaps it is more about importance than fun but being blind does mean using other senses. Most importantly, Paterson will have to listen to what people say and that, all by itself, is pretty special in his trade. I hunted around a little bit and did find a list of American Politicians with Disabilities. There aren’t any blind Governors in the list and I couldn’t find any mention elsewhere so Paterson likely is the first blind Governor. Now the question that raises for me, is what happens if he wants a second term?

No matter how good a job Paterson does as Governor, in a high profile campaign his blindness is likely to weigh him down. Irregardless of how well he can capture his audience in person, when facing the end of a camera it is a different game. We are used to looking people in the eyes as they deliver their messages in our family rooms and won’t be able to do that with Paterson.

I will listen to Paterson’s progress with interest. He may be a great Governor, or he may be terrible. Ironically, through, it will probably not be his performance in office for which he is remembered. If he can keep the public ear and mount a successful reelection campaign, people will hold that feeling for some time to come. If not, his footsteps will fade to nothingness before his replacement is sworn in. Politics is usually a visual game, let’s see if substance can triumph. #

Other posts by Larry Mongoss (guest blogger):

Also on Literal and Literary Truth
Disagreeing with Smart People
Decreasing Readership among the Corn-Fed

Also on Literal and Literary Truth

by Larry Mongoss, guest blogger

Did you read the story in the New York Times – “National Enquirer Article a Fabrication?” I can’t remember what the article being referred to was about, something to do with the founding of Rome I think. Still, I was astonished that a nationally distributed periodical would knowingly publish something containing falsehoods.

After that, when I read the story about Misha Defonseca admitting that her book, Misha: A Memoire of the Holocaust Years, was made up I was not nearly as surprised as everyone else seems to have been. I have not had a chance to read the book but in it four year old Misha’s parents are taken to a concentration camp by the Nazis and she wanders for several years in the woods until she is adopted by a pack of wolves.

OK, I guess I can understand that the temptation to believe a story like that. A few internet searches do turn up modern day Moglis. From the girl found in Cambodia after, some claim, 10 years in the jungle to a boy raised by dogs in Russia, these stories appear often (there is actually a website devoted to such children). Unlike Mogli or Tarzan though, these people do not present as well adjusted mentally healthy individuals. They are, in fact, stunted and traumatized to the point where most can never function as a member of society.

Anyone with even a little bit of common sense reading Defonseca’s book must have known it was not literal truth; the question then is whether it is literary truth. In this case the real source of distrust probably arises from the fact that her parents were not taken to a concentration camp, but underground movement members caught and executed. Does that discredit every, or most, insights into the human condition that one can get reading the book?

When James Frey’s book went through a similar turn I read it with just that question in mind. The book fascinated me, not so much because of the rich, and fabricated, storyline, but more because of the disdain it showed for the AA five step program. I have always been struck by what I perceived as a lack of dissent on that program. Frey’s book provides that dissent, but is it legitimate?

The whole question of literal and literary truth has been, and continues to be, heavily debated among writers. An article in the November issue of Harper's, “A Lie that Tells the Truth” by Joel Agee, looks at this, concluding that some license is reasonable. When you approach this question from the perspective of the reader, however, different issues are at play. First, and foremost, everybody lies. Be it a memoir, a textbook or a newspaper article expecting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth seems pretty naive.

Thus the question of legitimacy is not one for Frey, or Defonseca, or really any writer to answer, it is for the reader to decide. Literary, and most human, truths have to depend on a preponderance of evidence. In short that means you have to read more than one thing. If anyone ever tells you there is only one book you need to read on a topic, run the other way and read none, or plenty. A great writer should be loved, but never trusted. #

Related posts:

Disagreeing with Smart People
Decreasing Readership among the Corn-Fed

Disagreeing with Smart People

by Larry Mongoss, guest blogger

Charlie Rose, as he is wont to, did a retrospective on William F. Buckley Wednesday night, running together conversations from the many interviews he had done with him over the years. The show, and the passing of Buckley, made me reflect on my own dilemma: How do I think about people who are both brilliant and insightful while at the same time embracing ideals that seem to be an affront on common sense.

Listening to Buckley talk is an absolute delight, but thinking of him as the intellectual father of modern American Conservatism is frightening, made ever so much more so because he, apparently, was proud to be seen that way.

The more urgent dilemma, however, may be why there is a dilemma at all. When stupid people say stupid things it does not bother me. I shrug it off as a curiosity or, if I am feeling particularly empathetic, try to understand how they might have arrived at those views. But when smart people say stupid things it bothers me. Instead of trying to understand how they arrived at their views, I try to understand what mistake they made in arriving at their views.

That intolerance is more than a product of getting grumpy and set in my ways. Public discourse, especially political public discourse, more and more looks for a one dimensional rating system. When Hillary Clinton claimed that Barack Obama was to the right of George Bush because he did not support freezing interest rates on subprime ARMs, I was astonished. I just can’t fathom in what sense picking a position on the best way to deal with foreclosures is a left-right choice, I would have hoped there would have been some talk of effective versus ineffective.

In the face of this one dimensional worldview, I think it is more important than ever to listen to the people you disagree with, especially when they are talking about the things you disagree about. It is true that some disagreements are big enough that all the understanding in the world won’t change anything. But there are lots of disagreements that are not like that and by listening more thoughtfully, we might get closer to the truth. If in doing this we end up needing seven dimensions by which to identify ourselves so be it.

So thank you Mr. Buckley for everything you have said that I disagree with. Perhaps it is time for me to read more of your 55 books.

Decreasing Readership among the Corn-Fed

by Larry Mongoss, guest blogger

I have to admit that I often fall asleep reading. Sometimes it is intentional, reading can be a lovely way to wind a day down, but sometimes it just happens. Ursula K. Le Guin, in her recent Harpers article “Staying Awake,” condemns the publishing industry for having lost sight of the business they are in, as well as for being stupid.

Le Guin’s main thrust is that the perceived demise of reading is probably overblown, and probably more due to changes in measures of success than reading habits. She likens the mindset of publishers to corn producers trying to find ways to keep increasing demand. She never got to ethanol, but suggested that much of the heavy processing of food done today was driven by a need to keep growing the corn industry.

She had me really hooked at that point, and I wanted to know what the analog had been, or was going to be, for books. Pigs eat corn so selling pork instead of corn requires more production to fill a table. Does something like this happen with books? Can you publish books that have to be read and digested in order to write more refined books that can be presented to the final consumer? Or better yet can we make reading lots of books a requirement for writing scripts for TV shows and ads so that we can deliver an even more refined product?

Clearly there is a fallacy in my reasoning here, which is probably why Le Guin did not pursue the analogy as entertaining as it might have been. Books are not really like corn. A book can be fed to a writer, and still be available to a reader. She notes that “Books are social vectors,” and it is not really their mass production but rather their ability to maintain and transmit information that is valuable. And that fundamentally is the reason she feels the publishing industry is not doing what it should. For big publishers “a ‘good book’ means a high gross and a ‘good writer’ is one who’s next book can be guaranteed to sell better than the last one.”

Books, movies, drugs – it is all the same everyone is after the blockbusters, ignoring the steady income available from the solid performers. There are actually lots of social reasons for this, which Le Guin does not go into in detail, but she is right to point out that they probably make little business sense.

Her general conclusion is that the publishing industry is both hindering our literacy, and making our literacy look worse that it is. That it has always been the case that lots of people don’t read, and that for all the machinations of publishers, “writers and readers, even as they suffer from it, regard it with amused contempt.”

Though I don’t really disagree with her conclusions, I am not sure that I was that swayed by her arguments. I would have found it much more persuasive if she had been able to back up her statements with more historical statistics. Then again, had she done so I probably would have fallen asleep. #

Related articles:

Goodbye to All That - The decline of the coverage of books isn’t new, benign, or necessary

Staying Awake - Notes on the alleged decline of reading