European-American blog

An Interview with Newt Rontorumney, the 2012 Republican Presidential Candidate

2012-02-12T17:27:00.000-08:00

By Tom Kando

By August 2012, the GOP has finally settled on its presidential flag bearer. He is Senator Newt Rontorumney. Here are a few excerpts of a conversation he conducted recently with famous TV interviewer Matt Lauer:

Lauer: “Senator Rontorumney, what do you propose to do about the millions of American homeowners who are under water? That is, people who owe more on their mortgage than their house is worth?”

Rontorumney: “Well Matt, you see, it’s all about individual responsibility. If an individual acts responsibly, he’ll be alright.”

Lauer: “I see... but is there any sort of assistance that might be provided?”

Rontorumney: “I am opposed to class envy. That’s not the American way.”

Lauer: “Sir, could you explain that a bit more...”

Rontorumney: “Yes. Ultimately, it all comes down to the idea of freedom. This country was built on freedom. That’s what it’s all about!” (Loud applause from the audience).

Lauer: “Thank you, Mr. Rontorumney. Now let me turn to health care. You have stated that you want to repeal Obamacare. But what do you say to the 50 million Americans who then will have to forego health insurance again?”

Rontorumney: “Matt, my father always taught me: If you keep the faith, if you keep believing in the goodness of people and if you keep believing in yourself, you’ll come out alright...”

Lauer: “Thank you, Senator. As you know, part of the current health care debate is about contraception. You are Catholic. Do you oppose all forms of birth control?”

Rontorumney: “Matt, have you ever read this document (he holds up a copy of the Constitution): did our Founding Fathers include a constitutional right to birth control?”

Lauer: “...uh...I don’t suppose they did, Senator. There, you have me trumped...”

Rontorumney: “... and the reason why they did not include such a right is that it would violate religious freedom.”

Lauer: “Okay. Now what about unemployment: Millions of Americans have been looking for a job for a year or longer. How will you address that issue, if you are elected?”

Rontorumney: “There again, Matt, my mother and father taught me that faith, belief in God and in yourself are essential. If you truly believe in yourself, you can accomplish anything. As they say, God helps those who help themselves (haha).”

Lauer: “So you don’t believe that the government has a role to play in reducing unemployment?”

Rontorumney: “The only role for the government is to get out of the way. The free market creates jobs. Business creates jobs. Freedom creates jobs.”

Lauer: “I understand, Senator....”

Rontorumney: “And let me amplify: This country needs to return to the principles of the Constitution. Those principles are clear: Marriage is a sacred vow between one man and one woman; a human being begins at conception. We must take the country back and return to the truths which made America great. Freedom and responsibility.leave comment here

Rightward Ho! (Again)

2012-02-07T17:09:00.000-08:00

By Tom Kando

I never anticipated the country’s unending rightward movement. When I went to school and taught as a professor, from the 1950s until recently, I assumed that progress, by and large, meant that society gradually becomes more just, more rational, more pragmatic, more democratic, and that people hopefully enjoy increasing material comfort, physical health and the other benefits of science. I assumed that this was the long-term trend, despite some major relapses such as Fascism and Communism.

But lo and behold, the opposite is happening.

The retrogression is not just political. It is also cultural. And that’s worse, because it is more widespread. It affects the people, the whole society, not just a small self-serving elite.

Let me be specific:

● Whether it has to do with the “culture wars,” with science, with projects such as mass transit, or with criminal justice, we seem to be returning to the 19th century. Instead of focusing on bread-and-butter issues, millions of voters are more concerned about identity politics such as outlawing gay marriage.

● Since the most obvious expressions of racism are now illegal, new forms emerge. They include bogeyman such as the rise of a “Califate” in the US, and an irrational hatred of President Obama. This hatred is so out of proportion with his mildly liberal policies, that it is obviously based on deep-seeded racism.

● Religious fundamentalism is making a strong come-back, from Islamism overseas to evangelicals domestically.

● Abortion is under the gun. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Supreme Court outlawed Roe v. Wade one of these days. Even birth control is opposed by a growing number of zealots. (See the recent polarizing Komen-Planned Parenthood flap). To its credit, Obamacare will require that all health insurance plans offer contraception to whoever desires it. This will also apply to the plans offered by Catholic schools and hospitals to their employees.

However, some argue that this is government tyranny, and an assault on religious liberty. (See for example Kathleen Parker, Sacramento Bee Feb. 4). But that’s absurd: The law will only require that birth control be available. No Catholic will ever be forced to use it. Of course, many Catholic women might, as do millions of them in Ireland, France, Italy and elsewhere. It is the opposite which would violate the separation of church and state: If Catholic employers were allowed to use (government-subsidized) health plans which differed from those for the rest of us.

● The reaction takes place in many other areas: The number of people who believe that global warming is a hoax has doubled over the past 10 years. Similarly, “Intelligent Design” is gaining on Darwin. Scientific facts? Who cares!

● Mass transit, public transportation, more wholesome ways to travel? Forget it: California’s high-speed train is dead or moribund. Judging from letters to the editors, opposition to it is nearly unanimous. Create bike lanes on city streets? Opposed by most of the public as a waste. Biking is only for fools.

● What to do about prisons, juvenile halls, parking lots, not to mention pensions? privatize, privatize it all.

● Unions are in decline and under attack everywhere.

● Then there is the disastrous Citizens United Decision by the US Supreme Court, which transforms corporations into people, and completes the transition of our democracy into a corrupt plutocracy.

● On the other hand, the more casinos and gambling there are, the better. This is one of the most effective ways to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich.

● And God forbid that some international or “foreign” source would dare to comment on one of America’s internal problems, as when a United Nations agency recently criticized Sacramento’s cruel neglect of its large homeless population. Nothing infuriates Americans more than a perceived infringement of their sovereignty, any hint of “world federalism.” God forbid that we would some day have a unified world and peace among nations!

So there you have it, folks. The Luddites and the know-nothings are winning. Pseudo-issues trump real issues such as poverty (as candidate Romney said, we don’t need to be “very concerned about the very poor.”) Well, maybe this is just another hiccup, another temporary relapse. Let’s hope so.leave comment here

Do We Really Want a High Priest in the White House?

2012-02-05T13:40:00.000-08:00

by Madeleine Kando

A lifetime ago, back when I still lived in Europe, I was already well acquainted with 'Mormons'. These clean cut young men, with their spotless white shirts and black ties, frequently rang our bell in the heart of Amsterdam. They handed us their glossy pamphlets and the only way to make them leave was to shut the door in their face.

I read somewhere that there are fourteen million Mormons worldwide and that Mormonism is one of the fastest growing religions in the world. Their global distribution is extremely wide-spread. Aside from China, some countries in Africa and most of Greenland Mormons are found pretty much everywhere.

All religions have an element of fabrication in them, but the one that tops them all is certainly Mormonism. Its founder, Joseph Smith, was a charlatan and the whole religion is based on pure fantasy and is a figment of this man's imagination.

Smith, who was a clever con artist, claims to have discovered and translated the 'Lost Book of Abraham' from an Egyptian scroll which he bought from a traveling salesman. If you delve into the details of this episode in Mormon history, you realize how much of it is false. It was impossible for him to have read and understood the hieroglyphics because no one at that time had any knowledge of Egyptian writing.

The Book of Mormon, which was also 'revealed' to Smith, is full of idiotic facts that no one of sound mind could accept as true. For example, it says that Mormons are really descendants of one of the lost tribes of Israel who moved to America. These Hebrews left scriptures written in Egyptian, but Israelites didn't speak Egyptian, they spoke Hebrew. This is as absurd as claiming that American history would have been written in Russian.

The most repulsive aspect of the Mormon Faith is its past practice of Polygamy, which was established by Joseph Smith himself, after his wife discovered that he was having an affair with a 17 year old girl. He conveniently decided to tell her that God had given him instructions to have multiple wives. One of his 'plural wives' was a 14 year old girl. Before he died, Smith managed to 'marry' (it was called 'sealing' in those days) forty-eight wives, many of whom were still married to their legal husbands. Not surprisingly, he was eventually murdered. How can anyone follow a religion with such a scoundrel of a founder?

Romney doesn't like to talk about his family history for very understandable reasons. Many members of his family were polygamists, including Parley Pratt, his great-great grandfather who had twelve wives. Pratt was murdered by Hector McLean, the legal husband of one of his wives. Romney's great grandfather Helaman Pratt was also a polygamist. He had at least four wives. Romney's entire ancestral family had to flee the United States and settle in Mexico because of this practice. They became outlaws.

There are already fifteen Mormons in Congress, and now we have a Mormon running as a Republican Presidential Candidate. Romney supporters like to remind us that it is un-American to focus on a candidate's religion and they compare the current situation with the time when JFK was running for President. Because Kennedy was a Catholic, people at the time questioned whether his allegiance would be to the Constitution or to the Pope. His religion notwithstanding, he turned out to be fine President.

Romney, however, is not just any Mormon. He is a High Priest in the Mormon Church. That is the equivalent of a Catholic Bishop. Would people not have raised some questions if JFK had been a Catholic Bishop?

The Mormon church's stance on staying out of politics does not include what church leaders feel are 'moral issues'. We saw an example of that during the Proposition 8 campaign in 2008, when same-sex marriage was banned in California. Mormons contributed more than 50% of the campaign funds even though they only make up 2% of the population. It was similar to a Fatwa issued by the Ayatollah of Iran. Romney is oath-bound to abide by his Church leaders' edicts and he is quoted as saying: “I believe in my Mormon faith, and I endeavor to live by it." Does that means that he endeavors to live (and govern) by his faith and not by the American Constitution?

While Romney, in his speech on religious freedom, said that no one religion should dictate our laws, he made it very clear that he believes religion in general should play a role in state affairs, saying that, “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.” I agree that religion requires freedom but why would freedom require religion?

It is said that people get what they deserve, especially when they are ignorant of the facts when it comes to electing presidential candidates. But all this information is available. If Romney makes it to the White House, it will be one of the saddest days of my life, but we will all be complicit in having let him get there. leave comment here

Note: I have tried to be accurate, but if any of the facts in this article are incorrect, please let me know. I am not a scholar and do not claim to be an expert on Mormonism or Romnyism.

How Should Children be Raised? Should they be Punished?

2012-02-03T17:53:00.000-08:00

By Tom Kando

The physical punishment of children is an issue often joined by politicians and social scientists. Most forms of physical punishment of children are already illegal in some countries (e.g. Sweden) and in some states. In California, rep. Mickey Conroy proposed in 1996 to regulate the parental punishment of children, and in 2006, another State representative proposed to outlaw all spanking.

Can the social sciences shed light on this issue? There is no scientific consensus as to the best forms of parenting, but there is some good research. For example, Murray Strauss at the University of New Hampshire has documented the negative effect of just about any form of physical punishment.

There is consensus that the consistency of discipline is more important than its kind (See for example UCLA’S Travis Hirschi’s article in the Journal of Contemporary Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1, the books Origins of Crime by W. McCord, J. McCord and I. Zola, and The Marriage and Family Experience by B. Strong and C. De Vault). In other words, parents can raise their children in an (1) authoritarian, (2) permissive or (3) authoritative fashion, and it is not clear which is the best.

An authoritarian style demands strict obedience, and it is associated with working-class culture. The permissive style emphasizes freedom and autonomy, and it is more typical of the middle class. The authoritative style is based on positive reinforcement and infrequent punishment, and it is found more frequently in the upper strata. While it is said that the authoritative approach is the most effective one, the more important point is that whichever style parents use, they should be consistent.

Experts also agree that “harsh treatment is less damaging to children and to their self-esteem than lack of interest and lack of consistency” (See Tommie Hamner and Pauline Turner in Parenting in Contemporary Society). Jack Bynum and William Thompson also point out that “while parental violence is linked to delinquency, strict discipline by parents is not.” (Juvenile Delinquency, 1996: 233). Similarly, Travis Hirschi stresses the importance of parental discipline for the socialization of children into decent human beings (The Causes of Delinquency, in Families and Crime, Current, July-Aug. 1983: 14-19).

There is no consensus among experts on the issue of mild corporal punishment. The difference between permissiveness and authoritarianism is also a clash between old-fashioned values and modern values, which are held by professors, the media, social workers, psychologists and other opinion leaders. Predictably, the states which still permit corporal punishment are the more traditional states of the South and the Midwest.

According to Murray Strauss, the optimal amount of physical punishment is zero. On the other hand, there is no proof that a rare, mild, “symbolic” spanking causes low self-esteem, psychological maladjustment, delinquency or suicidal tendencies. Some research suggests that at least in one group, namely African-Americans, mild occasional spanking is associated with improved behavior.

As to self-esteem, that cult finally seems to be waning. For decades, the child-development establishment took it as axiomatic that high self-esteem was a pre-requisite for achievement. For years, I have been arguing the opposite: That achievement was a pre-condition for positive self-esteem. It now turns out that I may be winning the argument.

In conclusion, whether to spank or not to spank is at least partially a cultural question, not a scientific question. The impact of any “intervention” often depends on the meaning attached to it. It may be that spanking has a positive impact among African-Americans because they believe that it will.

I don’t mean to trivialize child abuse. I am merely saying that we will never understand how discipline works , whether mild forms of corporal punishment are harmful or not, until we recognize the distinctive nature of the human experience. All human experience is interpreted. It is never a given. The impact of a stimulus is in large part what is expected from it.

When social scientists share with us their conclusions, they are also urging us to accept their interpretations, not just their scientific facts. When they discourage us from using physical punishment, they are campaigning against child abuse, campaigning to change our culture.leave comment here

The Battle of The Super Rich

2012-01-29T15:44:00.000-08:00

by Madeleine Kando

Romney is rich. He is very rich. He is fifty times richer than Obama, ten times richer than George Washington and 1,800 times richer than me. He also pays less taxes than you or I. How is that possible? Don't we live in a country with a (somewhat) progressive tax code?

I know what you are going to say: it's because he gets his income from dividends rather than from honest, hard work. Thanks to former President George W. Bush, the capital gains tax was lowered to 15%. If paying 15% taxes instead of the usual 30% isn't bad enough, Romney accuses people who are not in his league of suffering from envy. **

Every month or so I hear a report that income inequality is still increasing in this country. I am supposed to accept it, as if it was a law of nature. But I know that the majority of Americans are against such extreme inequality. Don't we live in a democracy? Isn't universal suffrage what this political system is supposed to be based on? Since the 99% wants more economic equality, why is the reverse taking place?

The democratic process is supposed to guarantee that everyone participates in who gets elected, but I realize now that it doesn't automatically mean that we have the power to influence political decision making.

What you and I are up against is the power of money that the few rich have. And it looks like the power of money is winning out. Big time. No matter how many 99%-ers there are, if your net worth is only 1,800th of the net worth of the likes of a Romney you can kiss your income equality dream good-bye. In his brilliant essay on Oligarchy and Democracy, Professor Jeffrey Winters explains that there are two types of power at play in a democracy like ours. The more money you have, the more 'Material Power' you can wield in politics, pitting it against 'Participation Power' of the many. The Material Power Index shows that people with extreme wealth have an MPI 10,000 higher than an average citizen.

They have used this power to rewrite the tax code. When taxes were first introduced in this country, only the richest 10% of Americans were being taxed but they have managed to shift the burden of taxation downward ever since. This is where Mr. Romney comes in. He makes no bones about what he stands for: protecting the interests of his class.

What makes me even more upset is having to witness the battle between the rich and the super-rich during the Republican debates over the past weeks. Romney, the 'super-rich' (net worth $250 million), battling Gingrich, the 'merely rich' (net worth $6.7 million). One being accused of vulture capitalism, the other of having profited as a 'lobbyist' for Freddie Mac. How exactly, pray tell, does that help me and the rest of the non-rich?

This infighting in the Republican party gives the excesses of capitalism a bad rap which it deserves, but it mainly shows that, whereas in the past the rich and the super-rich were in the same camp, they are now finally starting to attack each other. The mountain top is not that big and everybody wants to stand on it.

Let's face it, America is an Oligarchy and oligarchies are bad for democracy. I think this country should adopt the ancient Athenian system of 'Sortition', the drawing of lots from a large group of adult volunteers for selecting government officials in order to counteract a tendency toward oligarchy in government. We do this when we select juries. Why not do it to select our government?

As the situation stands now, no matter how many crooks in high places we expose, there are no repercussions for them. What is the point of exposing the bad guys if we don't have the power to do anything about it?

It is said that Americans do not hate the rich, but admire them. That they see them as a role model. But who wants to be governed by someone whose net worth is 2000 times more than yours? There is a limit to what even Americans will tolerate in terms of inequality. Up to now, the very rich have been smart enough to not be too much in the political limelight. It is much more effective to use your money in the background to influence politics. But with someone like Romney in the White House, things would be different. He would become the new Royalty and we, the 99% would be the serfs and farmers, like in ancient Rome. Is that what we want this country to become? leave comment here

** Whenever the 99% (we) criticize the 1% (them), their pat reply is that we are engaging in “class warfare.” This works very effectively, because in America, anyone accused of “class warfare” is considered as evil as a socialist. But President Obama had a great reply to this: he said that it’s not “class warfare,” it’s math!

Racism: The American Variant

2012-01-27T18:03:00.000-08:00

By Tom Kando

Madeleine wrote a fine piece about Eugenics. Eugenics and racism are indeed ugly blemishes on America’s past.

Yes, America did participate in the racist Eurocentric oppression of “the other” of the past 300 years. Yes, America was guided by its belief in “Manifest Destiny.” Yes, America committed genocide against the native Americans. However, I think that America differs in significant ways from the other major perpetrators.

Why? Because this country is arguably the most diverse ethnic society on earth. It is therefore an IMPOSSIBILITY for America to ever emulate not only what Germany did in the 20th century, but also what happened in Japan, Russia and dozens of other countries. While the Holocaust will probably (and hopefully) hold the world record for ever, no country holds a monopoly on pogroms and other forms of genocide. The British invented the concentration camp in South Africa.

But those models do not fit American reality. What we have in America is multiple tribalism. Racism, too, of course, but not the same sort of monolithic racism as in many other places in the past. The largest and most powerful tribe in America is still the white European. It is now actually becoming even more reactionary, precisely because it is losing ground, it is threatened.

Auguste Comte said that “demography is destiny.” In many places, (e.g. in California) non-Hispanic whites are already a mere plurality (the largest group) and no longer a majority. As the browning of America progresses, the white dominance can be expected to decline further.

To be sure, a sociological minority is not always the same thing as a numerical minority. The best example of this was South Africa under Apartheid: 4 million whites controlled 40 million blacks, who were the sociological minority even though they were the numerical majority. So a dominant group whose numbers dwindle can hang on to power and continue to oppress a growing majority. This happened in the former Yugoslavia, where an ever smaller number of Christian Serbs oppressed the growing Muslim population in Bosnia and Kosovo.

But back to America: In a democracy, power relationships eventually tend to reflect demographics. At least, that is the hope.

So, what I am saying is that, yes, racism is part of the fiber of American society, but no, there cannot be genocide or holocaust. Who would exterminate whom? Monolithic Germany had the Jews. Ruanda had the Tutsis. But America has many competing tribes, and not just ethnic ones. The gay-transgender community, public employees, deists, atheists, you name it. We are doomed to co-exist, whether reactionary backlashes such as the Tea Party and the “ birthers” like it or not. leave comment here

If we Reject High-speed Rail, at least Let’s Know the Facts

2012-01-19T18:24:00.000-08:00

By Tom Kando

The January 15 issue of the Sacramento Bee contains an excellent article, “Spain’s Trains Hold Lessons for California.”

Clearly public opinion, aided by the likes of Dan Walters (otherwise usually a reasonable man), has turned against the project. Chief Executive Roelof Van Ark has resigned from what increasingly appears to be a losing battle. The handwriting is on the wall.

The main reason for the project’s probable failure is ignorance - among the public and among opinion leaders. The ignorance stems from Americans’ increasing insularity. Most people in this country are unaware of the fact that the rest of the world is moving forward, because they do not visit or give a damn about the rest of the world.

My own personal experience is different: I was a European for the first third of my life, and since my immigration to the US I have been back about 50 times. I spent 10 years in France, 10 years in the Netherlands and my relatives live in Spain, in the UK and in Hungary. My family and I have traveled by regular train and by high-speed train dozens, maybe hundreds of times. I have also used the high-speed trains of Japan and Korea.

Most Americans have no conception of the efficiency, comfort and all-around advantages of this form of transportation. This is ironic, because high-speed trains are perfect for long distances, i.e. for a vast country such as the US.

When I want to go from my mother in Amsterdam to my sister in Malaga, nearly 3000 kilometers to the South, I chose high-speed train over driving, which would be an ordeal, and even over flying. The French TGV is especially phenomenal, and it is used massively.

Europe’s economic future is now cloudy. Spain is in trouble. But the high-speed infrastructure which it built for $60 billion over the past 15 years is a lasting step forward. Whatever happens in the future, things would be bleaker without it.

But America suffers from a loss of vision. For the short term, the doomsayers may be correct. We are broke. $100 billion is a lot of money (why did Spain do so much more for so much less money, by the way?).

But my God, how have we come to the point where two dozen other countries have adopted high-speed rail (Japan has had it for over 40 years), where every year additional countries join the list, but the country that landed men on the moon cannot move into the 21st century? It is as if, 100 years ago, the US would have said, “no thank you, we’ll stick with horse carriages.”

If Americans decide that they can’t afford high-speed rail and that other priorities are more important, so be it. But then, they must understand that the rest of the world is moving forward. In addition to the 11 countries listed in the Sacramento Bee article, the following countries also have, or are building high-speed systems: Austria, Bulgaria, Norway, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Uzbekistan and even an African country - Morocco!

Maybe the naysayers are right. Others can have this, but Americans cannot. Or Americans don’t need it. Whatever. If this is our decision, it should then be accompanied by great humility. And above all, it should be informed. We should know the score.

At least, if we decide not to join the rest of the world into the 21st century, we will do so while knowing the facts. leave comment here

See also: Should we Build High Speed Rail in California and if so How?

Eugenics: A Dark Page in America's History

2012-01-15T19:50:00.000-08:00

by Madeleine Kando

I recently heard an announcement on public radio that the victims of forced sterilization in North Carolina were going to be compensated. That made me curious about the subject because I had not known that, until fairly recently, forced sterilization had taken place on a nation-wide scale in the Unite States. I assumed those were things that happened in other countries, like Nazi Germany.

Forced sterilization was part of a wider movement called ‘Eugenics’, a bio-social movement which advocated the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population. The word ‘Eugenics’ was coined by Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin. He reasoned that, since many human societies seek to protect the underprivileged and weak, those societies are at odds with the natural selection responsible for extinction of the weakest. This movement, which started in England as a subject of scientific curiosity, soon found its way across the ocean, and became very popular in America in the early 20th century.

The proponents of Eugenics said that society should encourage the procreation of desirables, by getting rid of its undesirable elements, and forcibly (by sterilization) discourage them from procreating. But who were these 'undesirables?' The ones deemed unfit to reproduce were the mentally ill and the epileptics, teenage mothers and survivors of rape or incest. Some ‘undesirables’ only had committed the crime of having low IQs, and some were gay.

Over thirty states adopted compulsory sterilization laws, which led to more than 60,000 sterilizations of disabled individuals. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1927 Buck v. Bell case that the state of Virginia could sterilize those it thought unfit. Eugenics was not a fringe movement. It was regarded as a respected, scientific approach to population control and a means to guarantee a superior ‘gene-pool’. It had the financial backing of people like Andrew Carnegie, Edward H. Harriman and John d. Rockefeller. (see: Funding the Eugenics Movement).

But the popularity of Eugenics and forced sterilization was not unique to America. Many Northern European countries believed that society could be improved based on the largely ‘junk science’ of eugenics. Norway, Denmark, Finland and Sweden had sterilization programs. Sweden sterilized more than 62,000 people between 1934 and 1976. That was 0.1% of the population! Nazi Germany perfected the art of ethnic cleansing and took first place by sterilizing hundreds of thousands of men and women between 1930 and 1940.

The U.S. Eugenics program in California, where more than 20,000 sterilizations were performed between 1909 and 1950, was taken as proof by Hitler that ethnic cleansing worked. In part, Eugenics became so popular because there was a huge influx of immigrants at the time. Twelve million immigrants arrived between 1890 and 1910, mostly from southern Europe, and eugenics was trying to preserve the white Anglo-Saxon dominant group in the American population.

One of the leaders of the Eugenics Movement was Paul Popenoe, an army venereal disease specialist. I downloaded his book ‘Eugenics Applied’ from Google and the foul smell that emanates from the pages makes me almost want to vomit. In the chapter on the ‘coercive and non-coercive methods’ of restricting procreation amongst the ‘feeble-minded', he writes:

‘The first method which presents itself is execution. Its value in keeping up the standard of the race should not be underestimated’ and: ‘It is possible to render either a man or woman sterile by a much less serious operation than castration, which is sterilization’.

Later on he discusses the problem of alcoholism: ‘The way to solve the liquor problem is not to eliminate drink, but to eliminate the drinker: to prevent the reproduction of the degenerate stocks and the tainted strains that contribute most of the chronic alcoholics.’

Many states have apologized for their mistakes. The ‘Indiana Eugenics: History and Legacy’ website is a good example of an intelligent response to the crimes committed by this movement, by educating the reader and the voter.

Eugenics was a monstrous idea. It was one of the darkest chapters in the history of the Western world and belongs to the same practices as medieval witch burning and Roman crucifixion. It seeks to apply the biological principles of Darwinism to Sociology and to Politics. It seeks to “weed out” groups perceived to be inferior. It is also highly racist. The problem with such theories is that they are based on a ‘Naturalistic fallacy’, which means that they are trying to derive an ‘ought’ statement from an ‘is’ statement. Darwin’s theory of the ‘survival of the fittest’ in nature is something that IS. Applying it to human society is an OUGHT. People ought not to be mentally ill, epileptic, alcoholic… but they are. Trying to eradicate imperfection by causing suffering will always backfire. leave comment here

** You can download the book via this link for free.

Who Will Save the World Now, If Not America?

2012-01-09T13:05:00.000-08:00

By Tom Kando

I was just re-reading the history of World War One. It’s clear that from 1917 onward, the world took a new turn, due to America’s entry into that war.

Until then, history was largely the history of Big Power Politics. These were primarily European. the UK, France, Germany, Austro-Hungary, Russia - plus two newbies: the USA and Japan. Most other countries were either colonized, or otherwise less powerful.

For some reason, the Big Powers decided to commit collective suicide. It was largely Germany’s fault, but that’s irrelevant here.

For the next three years, the world experienced the greatest bloodbath in history. Single battles such as Verdun cost 800,000 lives - twice the total deaths of the entire American Civil War! This went on for no apparent gain to either side.

One Great Power kept its sanity - the US. America’s special position was clear to the combatants: for three years, both sides repeatedly appealed to President Wilson to please mediate and help put an end to the slaughter. In essence, they were begging America to save them.

They appealed to America because, coincidentally, that country had become a powerful giant which now dwarfed the other “Big Powers.” Only one country was (1) civilized and (2) powerful enough to save the world from itself.

Finally America acquiesced, reluctantly. It went about it by tipping the balance and putting an end to the stalemate and the bloodbath.

The Peace Treaties show the enormous influence of the US and of President Wilson. His 14 points, self-determination and the League of Nations were all his initiatives. The idea (alas not the reality) of world government and thus the end of war was born.

We all know what followed. Another, even bloodier war. Then a Cold War, with the threat of nuclear Armageddon. Again, America did its best to save the rest of the world, for example through the Marshall Plan (which was even offered to Stalin, who turned it down) and by promoting European unification.

We are now approaching a century of American-led world order. It has been far from perfect, but better than the alternatives.

The world has avoided global conflict for two thirds of a century. The Cold War ended without conflagration. The idea (alas not the reality) of world government progressed, via the United Nations. Global capitalism has produced enormous inequities, but there has also been decolonialization and economic development. The primary beneficiary has been the Western world - the “core,” in World System Theory parlance. But others are also benefitting.

This has been the logic of world system development: bring more and more countries on board. First South Korea and the other Asian Tigers, now the B.R.I.C. countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China), then others. (See for example Alice Amsden’s "The Rise of “The Rest”).

It is America who started this ball rolling. Its assistance and intervention were the sine qua non to rebuild Europe and Japan.

The entire “core” has reaped the rewards of the existing world system, but it is America which has done most of the heavy lifting to safeguard it. For nearly a century, it is primarily the US which has safeguarded the world order - flawed as it is.

Let me be provocative, and say that America has saved the world.

Saved it from what? You probably ask, horrified by my statement.

Simple: from the chaos which would have prevailed in the absence of a world cop. From even more mass suicides such as World Wars One and Two. What America did in the first World War, it did a fortiori in the second one: defeat the forces of international lawlessness.

You disagree?

Again, I offer the evidence of the absolute necessity of a world cop who is willing and able to intervene: No sooner were the 1919 Peace Treaties signed, than various regimes launched lawless rampages: Japan in Manchuria, Italy in Abyssinia, Franco in Spain, Stalin in Poland and Finland, Hitler everywhere. Within 5 years after World War Two, North Korea invaded its neighbor. Plus perennial aggression by smaller potatoes everywhere.

America was able to save the world - for a while - because (1) it is relatively civilized and because (2) of its economic might. There are many other very nicely civilized countries - wonderful little countries in places like Scandinavia. There may also be countries which will develop great economic might.

But the 20th century American one-two punch of power and wisdom was unique. This is scary. Will the world descend into greater chaos and lawlessness, as America becomes increasingly fallible and limited?

The ultimate goal is of course world federalism, peace and stability. President Wilson’s vision gave us the League of Nations and then an improved version - the United Nations. But without the backup of power, such institutions cannot play a meaningful role.

The American century may be coming to an end. The world may become “multi-polar” again. China? Who knows. Many rejoice at this, as many welcomed the fall of Rome. Be careful what you wish for.leave comment here

Who Needs the Post Office, DMV and All the Other Services?

2012-01-06T17:29:00.000-08:00

By Tom Kando

This picks up where I left off a year ago: Then, I questioned the near-universally accepted cliché that the private sector does everything better than the public sector. The perception that government is the problem, not the solution; that government is exceptionally corrupt; that public pensions with defined benefits are ruining the country, and that everyone should switch to defined contributions instead (i.e. stock market-based) retirement plans; that unions are much too powerful.

While these right-wing beliefs are strongest among conservatives and Republicans, they are increasingly accepted by others as well - people who think of themselves as “reasonable.” They are also propagated by a-political and ignorant comedians like Jay Leno and Jimmy Fallon.

Nowadays, when someone cracks a joke about the inefficiency of the Post Office, or government waste, most listeners laugh approvingly. “Haha, you are so right!”

Pundits claim that there is a vast difference between the economically depressed 1930s and the current Great Recession: Back then, there was widespread support for President Roosevelt, for his New Deal and for his public projects. Most Americans agreed with him that “if we don’t hang together, we will hang separately.” People saw the government as part of the solution, not the principal cause of the problem. Not so today.

So when the US Post Office announces that it will shut down several hundred offices, some people clamor that it should be abolished altogether. Who needs the post office?, they ask. It loses money, and it is inefficient. UPS is way better. We should privatize all mail delivery, they say. Same with Amtrak. Get rid of it.

But this is all based on the preposterous view that private companies do a great job, i.e. deliver goods and services cheaply, efficiently and honestly, whereas government agencies do everything badly.

Surely your experiences refute this, no? During the recent holiday season, I saw many postal trucks deliver mail and packages on Sunday. Our local post office is always immensely busy. It processes thousands upon thousands of customers every day, efficiently and amicably. Passport renewal? Done very efficiently.

Same with the Social Security and Medicare administration. I wish all businesses with which I deal had the same phone system as that agency: When you call, instead of putting you on hold, they record your number and call you back!

A few weeks ago, we found a wounded black bird in our backyard. Within one hour, animal control came over and rescued the bird - on Sunday!

Despite cut-backs, law enforcement response time is still impressively rapid. I know this from personal experience.

Dare I say it? In my experience, even the IRS is relatively user-friendly.

Your dealings with Amazon, with the Bank of America, with Delta and United Airlines, with Intel, with Apple, with Verizon, with your insurance company are so much better? They are so much more helpful? You enjoy talking to the help desk in New Delhi? You enjoy choosing between being on hold for 45 minutes or being forced to navigate company websites for hours? You enjoy having to do everything yourself - assembling, downloading, programming, learning - after you purchase something?

Give me the good old Post Office, DMV, the INS, SS, the local police and sheriff departments, Animal Control, Parks and Recreation, the School District. Kicking these institutions may get Jay Leno some laughs, but starving them and dismantling them is idiotic.leave comment here

Kando's 2012 NFL Playoff Prognostications

2012-01-03T16:40:00.000-08:00

By Tom Kando

Dear Readers: Now that the regular NFL season is over, I offer you Kando’s 2012 post-season predictions:

1. Wild-card round (Jan. 7-8)
Houston vs.: Cincinnati: Houston.
Pittsburgh. vs. Denver: Pittsburgh.
New Orleans vs Detroit: New Orleans.
Atlanta vs. Giants: Atlanta.

2. Divisional Round (Jan. 14-15)
Houston vs. New England: New England.
Pittsburgh. vs. Baltimore: Pittsburgh.
New Orleans vs. San .Francisco: New Orleans.
Atlanta vs. Green Bay: Green Bay.

3. Conference Championships (Jan. 22)
AFC: Pittsburgh vs New England: New England.
NFC: New Orleans vs. Green Bay: Green Bay.

4. Super Bowl (Feb. 5)
New England vs. Green Bay: Green Bay.

I don’t remember exactly how I did last year, except that I was (slightly) better than 50%. Let me know your opinions.
leave comment here

Pragmatism and Idealism

2012-01-02T10:23:00.000-08:00

by Madeleine Kando

Ever since my oldest daughter’s visit last week,I have been obsessed with the concept of ‘pragmatism’. If I had to choose one word in the English language to describe her personality, that would be it. My husband likes to describe her personality as ‘Dutch’, as if she was a piece of cheese, but that does not do justice to her OR Dutch cheese. There are hundreds of types of Dutch cheeses, just as there are many flavors of pragmatism and calling someone pragmatic is just as vague as calling someone 'Dutch', but for lack of a better word I will stick to that description.

The word pragmatic comes from the Latin word ‘pragmaticus’ (being skilled in law or business) and the Greek root ‘pragma’, which means a thing done, a fact. There is a wonderful interview on NPR with historian Robert Richardson, author of ‘The Heart of William James’, which describes some of the ins and outs of Pragmatism as a philosophy.

I personally like the following definition of a pragmatist: ‘One who acts in response to particular situations rather than upon abstract ideals; one who is willing to ignore their ideals to accomplish goals.’

Well, in that sense, aren’t we all pragmatists by default? The question is not whether you are willing to ignore your ideals in the face of reality, but how far you are willing to go.

It is often said that the American character is quintessentially pragmatic. American inventors like Thomas Edison, and Alexander Graham Bell epitomize Pragmatism and the Yankee spirit of tinkering. Pragmatism says: Try something and see if it works. Pragmatism means that you experiment, and you find out the results. America itself was a (successful) experiment. Pragmatism judges whether something is good by its consequences. Pragmatism means = practical. Science is pragmatic. Pragmatism says that there are no absolute truths. Nothing is sacred.

For example, is it pragmatic to steal a car so you won’t have to walk to work? Well, according to one of the founders of pragmatism, William James, pragmatism is what works for the majority of people. If everyone started to steal cars, it wouldn't be good for the people whose cars got stolen (or for the car thieves who go to jail), so in the long run, stealing a car to go to work is not pragmatic.

If pragmatism is so American, how come we have so many 'principled' politicians in government? The current grid-lock is a direct result of falsely-interpreted idealism on both sides of the isle. From the Republicans' 'no raising taxes' pledge and anti-abortion zealots to the unwillingness to compromise on the Democratic side. It's all very non-American, if you ask me. The only pragmatist in the entire political body is Barack Obama.

Did Americans forget their own philosophical tradition? Even though William James was talking about religion when he said that values should be judged 'by their fruits…not by their roots', it does apply to politics as well.

But I won't venture further into the murky world of Pragmatism as a philosophy because I am not knowledgeable enough and it would be more pragmatic to avoid being called an 'ignoramus'.

I know what my husband was trying to say when he said that my daughter is 'Dutch'. She is what they call 'nuchter', translated as 'solid', 'sober' and sometimes even 'passionless'. Yes, the Dutch are ‘nuchter’. In fact, the Dutch are the world’s designated drivers according to this World map of drunk and sober.

My daughter is certainly solid, not always sober (living in San Francisco is bound to make you intoxicated some of the time since it probably has the most bars per capita in the entire country) but she is definitely not passionless. You might get a better idea of what 'nuchter' means by looking at its opposite: someone who is floating on a cloud, wishy washy, airy-fairy or full of hot air.

I see my daughter as a symbol of what is good and strong in America. It is still a country where idealism and pragmatism can co-exist. Just like I, the idealistic, airy-fairy mother can learn from my pragmatic, 'nuchter' daughter, so can she, hopefully, get inspired by my idealistic view of the world. leave comment here

Astronomy is about BIG things!

2011-12-30T15:32:00.000-08:00

By Tom Kando

Nowadays, cosmology and quantum physics are moving into unfathomably mysterious directions.

The Higgs Boson, which is supposed to be the means by which things in the universe obtain mass, is said to maybe have been observed for the first time recently - at CERN’s large Hadron Collider in Geneva. And scientists there, together with the “OPERA” team in Italy, are said to have detected faster-than-light (muon) neutrinos - maybe.

Of course, quantum theory has long said things which are difficult to comprehend for the lay person. There is Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, Schrodinger’s “cat” thought experiment, which describes a paradox whereby a cat in a box is both dead AND alive, as long as it remains unobserved. Nowadays, people speak of parallel universes and multiverses, of which ours is only one. One hears statements such as “if anything CAN happen, it DOES” (in some universe or another, presumably).

I don’t know anything about such things. But I have always found the universe fascinating - the one universe which we know, the one in which we live. Its sheer size always astounds me. Here are some facts which may impress you, or at least interest you:

First of all, do you have any idea how far a light-year is? Well, light travels 299,793 kilometers per second. (Let’s say 300,000). Or if you prefer miles: 186,282 miles per second. There are 31 and a half million seconds in a year (31,536,000). So a light-year is 5,874,589,252,000 miles. Nearly 6 trillion miles. Six followed by 12 zeros. If you were a ray of light you would have to travel around the earth 250 million times in order to cover the distance of one light year.

The known Universe is 26 billion light-years in diameter. That’s 15 x 10 to the 22nd power. Or1,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles. What’s the word for such a number? After quadrillion comes quintillion, then sextillion, then septillion?

The sun is 80,000 miles in diameter, i.e. ten times the earth. Its mass is over 300,000 times that of the earth.

Here are the solar planets, listed in order of distance from the sun: Mercury, Venus, Earth (remember, Third Rock from the sun, the TV show?) Mars, Saturn, Uranus (No, don’t say it), Jupiter, Neptune and poor Pluto, recently demoted from planet to.... what? Asteroid? “Body”? Rock? No wonder nobody loves poor Pluto, it’s almost three billion miles away from us!

But even though Pluto is the most distant (former) planet, it is practically our next door neighbor, compared to stars.

Stars are very, very far. The closest stars are Proxima Centauri, Serius and Alpha Centauri. They are 4 light years away, which is 24 trillion miles! It is unlikely that humans will ever be able to physically travel to any star.

But compared to galaxies, even these distances seem small. Our own galaxy, the Milky Way, is 100,000 light-years across. Captains Kirk and Picard may be shooting across the galaxy in hyperwarp, but only on television.

And what about beyond our galaxy? There, the distances become even more unimaginable. We have a “neighbor” galaxy called Magellan. And you know how close this neighbor of ours is? Hundred and sixty thousand light-years!

You think that the sun is pretty big? Actually, it is a smallish fourth-class star. They even call it a ‘dwarf.’

Some stars are incomprehensibly large. They are called red giants. For example Antares and Betelgeuse. Betelgeuse is so large that if its center were the sun, its outer surface would reach Jupiter, which is five hundred million miles from the sun. This star measures a billion miles across, which is 125,000 times the earth! Just to complete one orbit around Betelgeuse with, say, something like our space shuttle would take our astronauts 172 years. Getting to Betelgeuse, which is nearly five hundred light-years away, would take till the end of time.

Here is a miniaturized version of some of the above: If the earth were a sand pebble on a beach in California (say one millimeter), the moon would be one inch away from our “pebble” and it would be half a millimeter in diameter. The sun would be the size of a peanut, and it would be about 20 yards away from the sand “pebble”. Pluto, the most distant (former) planet would be a third of a mile away. One light-year would be about five hundred miles from the beach in California: about where Salt Lake City is. The closest star - Proxima Centauri or Serius - would be like Chicago from our beach. Our galaxy, The Milky Way, would be fifty million miles across, or 250 times the distance earth-moon. Magellan, our “neighbor” galaxy, would be 80 million miles away.

Now put all of this on the surface of an inflating balloon (because we live in an expanding Universe). The distances between every galactic object increases at an accelerating rate so that all these figures will soon be doubled. Wow!leave comment here

HAPPY NEW YEAR

2011-12-22T12:31:00.000-08:00

Dear readers:

We wish you all a happy holiday season and a Happy New year, in many interesting languages:

Happy New Year
Bonne Année
ka Hauʻoli Makahiki Hou
Gelukkig Nieuwjaar
शुभ क्रिसमस (Hindi)
Felice Anno Nuovo
наступающим Новым Годом
Danistayohihv & Aliheli'sdi Itse Udetiyvasadisv (Cherokee)
聖誕快樂新年快樂
Prospero aňo nuevo
Ευτυχισμένο το Νέο Έτος
ein gutes neues Jahr!
Barabu Baraba
సంతోషకరమైన క్రిస్ఠ్మస్ ! (Telugu)
boldog űj évet
QISmaS DatIvjaj 'ej DIS chu' DatIvjaj (Klingon)
חג מולד שמח ושנה טובה
أجمل التهاني بمناسبة الميلاد و حلول السنة الجديدة
gōngxi fācái
Maupay nga Pasko (Waray-Waray)
கிறிஸ்துமஸ் மற்றும் இனிய புத்தாண்டு வாழ்த்துக்கள் (Tamil)
leave comment here

Theism or Atheism: Does it Matter?

2011-12-21T14:49:00.000-08:00

by Madeleine Kando

Christopher Hitchens died last week. His book 'God is Not Great' was a best-seller and put him on top of the list of a hand-full of famous Atheists that include three of my favorite authors: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Steven Pinker. He was passionate in his attacks on religion and his wit and gift for words made him an incredibly fascinating debater.

He did not shy away from stepping into the lions' den of the Intelligent Design community where he debated people like William Lane Craig, a particularly aggressive theologian. Because of Craig’s eloquently distorted views on issues such as morality and 'scientific' proof of the existence of God, it was not an easy task.

Intelligent Design is based on the following circular argument: Complexity can only be created by design. Biology is complex, therefore biology was created by design. But many complex systems are created by chance, not by design. A good example is my desk where I am typing this essay. It is so complex, in fact, that it takes me hours to find anything at all. And it certainly hasn't gotten that way by design.

Half of Americans do not believe in evolution. They do believe in religious dogma. So there is no lack of ‘believing’ on their part. But they cannot accept the fact that blind chance and the absence of divine purpose is what makes the world go around.

Hitchens was not just an Atheist. He represented a world-view that I share. He was a Secular Humanist and believed that rational thinking is better at explaining the world than religious dogma.

Because, according to Darwin, evolution has no goal or purpose other than reproducing and following the law of the ‘survival of the fittest’, humans chose to give life meaning. This is because that was how they evolved: giving life meaning was an adaptive device by an otherwise purposeless natural selection.

This is an amazing statement, if you really think about it. Life and survival have no purpose. They just ARE. Isn’t that an incredibly liberating idea?

But what about our sense of morality? Creationists like to argue that without God all bets are off. Good and bad are up for grabs and that is why they call unbelievers 'lost souls'. Without God, everyone is at each other's throat. Mayhem, debauchery, Sodom and Gomorrha will be the result.

Socio-biologist Edward O. Wilson talks very clearly on this issue. Our sense of right and wrong, he says, has a biological basis. How this sense of right and wrong is applied depends on which society and culture you live in, but it is a universal human trait handed down through evolution. *

The Creationists have it backwards, you see. Take incest, for example: it is bad for biological reasons, not because it displeases God. In a primitive society the individual, the family and the clan have to adopt moral values to survive. Only when societies become more complex does the idea of a 'law-giving God' come on the scene to conveniently keep the ruling class in power. **

But the ultimate question is not whether religion or science, Theism or Atheism are 'true'. As we become more and more aware of our place in the larger context of things, as we now realize that in order to save our species we are also obligated to save our planet and all that depends on it, we have to figure out our priorities.

Because religion is such an important part of the majority of people's belief system, it would be wiser if we could harness this energy and postpone the debate on the merits of religion and secularism until we have achieved a much more pressing goal: saving life on earth. leave comment here

* Source: "The Biological Basis of Morality" by Edward O. Wilson, Atlantic Monthly.
** Source: "The Science of Good and Evil", by Michael Schermer.

The European Disunion

2011-12-13T13:04:00.000-08:00

by Madeleine Kando

"Once upon a time there was a large family with lots and lots of children. They were always fighting with each other and causing a lot of trouble. One of the children, whose name was Gertrude, was a little bigger than the others and quite aggressive by nature. She wanted all the other children’s toys, so she broke into their respective rooms, beat up the children and stole their toys.

A distant uncle by the name of Sam, didn’t like what was happening in that family and decided to put an end to it. He went over there and kicked some ass until Gertrude had to run back to her room with her tail between her legs, so to speak.

After Gertrude was duly punished, the children realized that they had made a mess of things, always fighting and breaking things. It would be in everyone’s best interest if they were nicer to each other. So three of the children by the name of Ben, Ned and Lex started a Fan Club. At first only a few of the children joined, but as they saw that being a member of the Fan Club had many advantages, like access to good restaurants, good schools and good hospitals, many of them wanted to join.

The rule was that you had to give up fighting though. And you had to behave yourself. In return you got lots of money to buy yummie food. One of the children, her name was Minerva, really liked to eat. She might even secretly have had an eating disorder, but no one really knows for sure.

After a while the other children noticed that Minerva had put on a lot of weight, but she didn’t look so good. She started to develop a tummy ache which, in turn, became a highly contagious stomach virus. The other children didn’t want to get infected, so they gave Minerva more money to buy medicine and told her to stop eating so much. Minerva didn’t like being told what to do. She threw a temper-tantrum and threw up. That really got the infection going. Two of her brothers, Ira and Portnoy, became infected too and they also needed lots of medicine and were told to go on a very strict diet.

All this throwing up and trying to stick to a diet made the children even sicker. Soon two of the older children, Gertrude and her twin brother who were dubbed the ‘Merkozy’ twins took the lead in dictating the rules for this crisis. Another brother named Iain didn’t want anything to do with the epidemic (yes, it had become an epidemic by this time) and said that he wasn’t going to go on a diet OR take the medicine. He stomped out the door never to be heard from again.

By now the whole family had turned into a full-blown sick-ward. Coughing, throwing up, gagging, the whole shebang. It eventually got so bad that a measure of last resort was taken. Remember good old Uncle Sam? Well, they asked him to come back and put an end to the mess once again. But alas, Uncle Sam had the runs himself. Caught a bug when he was asked to fix another problem somewhere else. So he was not able to help the sick family.

Everybody thought that most children would die or at least become very thin and debilitated. But then something strange happened. The virus took its toll, but once it got what it wanted from one child, it went on to another member of the family, giving the stronger children time to recover. Now the post-virus children were nice enough to take care of the pre-virus healthy children that were now infected.

They nursed each other back to health, and the Merkozy twins made sure that this time the rules for joining the Fan Club would be a lot stricter. Diets were immediately imposed on secretly bingeing Fan Club members and money for food was not doled out so freely any more. In the end, the family survived.

By the time the next stomach virus appears the children will have grown into adults. Who knows, maybe they will be wiser by then. leave comment here

The End of Europe (again)?

2011-12-08T15:43:00.000-08:00

By Tom Kando

The European sovereign debt crisis is becoming scary. The dominoes are falling. The contagion has spread from Greece to Italy and beyond. Even France’s credit-worthiness has begun to crumble. No one is safe any more. Even Germany does not have the limitless resources required to bail out the rest of the Continent. There is a vicious cycle of increasing borrowing costs for everyone, a decrease in the availability of credit, a slowing down of the economy and a decline in the governments’ solvency.

So we now hear from highly knowledgeable economists that the dissolution of the Euro is at hand. The dream of a unified Europe comes crashing down. Personally, I find this terrible. It gets me angry. As I see it, the European collapse is undesirable and unnecessary.

Facts: Overall European indebtedness is less than half of what it is in the US and in Japan! The combined debt of the 17 governments in the Euro Zone is 8.6 trillion, or 87% of their combined GDP. Much less than America’s or Japan’s. The average government deficit is 4.4% of GDP. America’s and Japan’s are twice as large.

But Europe is the one that is breaking up. Why? Because Europe isn’t a country. Unlike the US and Japan (or Britain), when a European country - mostly the “PIGs, countries such as Portugal, Italy, Greece, Ireland, Spain - runs into debt trouble, it can’t print money to get out of its difficulties.

It is anarchy. It’s as if two spouses shared a bank account, but when the wife overspends far beyond her means, her husband is not responsible for her debts.

There is one solution to the “Euro” and the “Europe” problem which seems unbelievably simple, yet it is opposed by many people, both on the PIG side and on the side of strong countries such as Germany and the Netherlands: It would be the further political and economic unification of Europe.

There is only one alternative to Europe’s break-up, and that is much more Europe. In other words, the integration of Europe. Europe must become one country, comparable to the US and Japan. To begin with, the debt would be shared. There would be Eurobonds, similar the US Treasury bonds.

Sorry, you guys in Holland and Germany. I know, you have been good, and the Greeks and the Italians have been bad. But are you therefore prepared to abandon the dream of a unified Europe, a return to the continent’s dark and fractious past?

Even now, German Chancellor Angela Merkel says that she finds Eurobonds unacceptable, that there cannot be “a common liability for the debts of others.”

I am reminded that the situation is not so simple, and that I overlook the other side of the issue: For one thing, pooling the debt together will not force the pig countries to borrow less and to balance their budgets. It will intensify their borrowing and make things worse. The only way Eurobonds would work is if all countries gave up a large part of their sovereignty, letting Brussels dictate how they will spend the borrowed money. Which is unacceptable to most European countries.

Maybe a smaller EU is not such a bad idea. It was too ambitious to begin with. Greece (and others) could re-apply when they have proven to be responsible members. What’s so holy about preserving the Euro, anyway?

So there you have it - two perspectives. Will we see the emergence of a strong club of, say, Holland-Germany-Finland, and a bunch of weaker clubs/countries in the South?

To me, this would be a tragedy. The correlation between European unification and its unprecedented level of prosperity, peace and stability is unquestionable. Unification has brought immense benefits. It transformed the Continent from a ravaged, violent, starving, war-torn region into one which enjoys the world’s highest quality of life (superior even to America’s). The fragmentation of Europe puts all this at risk.leave comment here

The Best and Worst Cities in the World

2011-12-06T12:57:00.000-08:00

By Tom Kando

The annual 2011 Quality of Living Worldwide City Rankings by Mercer (London) has just come out.
The Mercer survey ranks 420 cities of the world. The report I saw lists 221 of them. These cities are ranked in terms of overall quality of life. This is based on several dozen factors, such as physical health, environmental pollution, standard of living, education, housing, crime, etc. Here are some of the results that were of greatest personal interest to me:A. Best city in the world: Vienna.

B. Worst city in the world: Baghdad, ranked #221.

C. 8 of the best 10 cities are in Europe, including: #1: Vienna, #2: Zurich, #4: Munich, #5: Dusseldorf, #7: Frankfurt; #8:Geneva, #9a: Bern and #9b: Copenhagen.

D. The other two in the top 10 are: #3: Auckland (New Zealand) and #6: Vancouver.

E. While I am talking about Europe, here are some other ones: #12: Amsterdam,
#17: Berlin, #26: Dublin, #30: Paris, #38 London (the highest ranking British city), #42: Milan, #52: Rome, #69: Prague, #73: Budapest (the two best East European cities), #199: Moscow - one of the lowest cities in the world, close to Dhaka, Bangladesh (#204) and Baghdad (#221).

F. The Americas: Dominated by Canada, including #5: Vancouver, #14: Ottawa,
#15: Toronto and #22: Montreal.

The US: Best cities: #29: Honolulu, #30: San Francisco, #36: Boston,
#43: Chicago, #47: New York City.

Latin Am.: No city in the top 50, and many near the bottom, such as #218: Port-au-Prince (Haiti).

G. Asia-Pacific: #3: Auckland (New Zealand), #11: Sidney, #25: Singapore
(the highest Asian city), #46: Tokyo, #70: Hong Kong.

H. Middle East and Africa: #74: Dubai and #78: Abu Dhabi are the 2 highest ranked cities of the Middle East, and #88:Cape Town is the highest city in Africa. #99: Tel Aviv. Eighteen of the bottom 25 cities of the world are in Africa.

Articles about the Mercer report give brief descriptions of these cities.

For example:

Vienna is described as “Austria’s cultural, economic, and political center with a population of about 1.7 million. It experiences 4 seasons in a year with a mild summer season and a rather windy and rainy winter season. It has an extensive transportation system and a very reliable health system. The country’s political stability also makes it a place worth living. Life expectancy in Vienna is 79.5 years.”
Vancouver is described as “...an amazing coastal city and a perfect place to live with a well developed and well established infrastructure, brilliant tourism spots, high educational standards and great health care system. The city has a population of 578,041 and an average life expectancy at birth of 81.16 years.”

Many of you will say right away that this stuff is very subjective. One person might put Amsterdam on top because of its red light district and cheap dope. Someone else remains forever attached to the city where he grew up - (in my case, Paris). And so forth.

But efforts such as the Mercer rankings deserve to be taken seriously. They are based on a great many objective criteria and pretty good methodology.

All in all, the report confirms what many of us already sort of thought, knew, or experienced. It is no surprise to see that an overwhelming majority of “bad” cities are in the Third World, first and foremost in Africa. Economics, obviously.

We also already knew that Eastern European cities are still struggling, even though they are progressing, hopefully.

That so many of the world’s highest quality-of-life cities are in Western Europe (Germany, Switzerland and Austria dominate) is probably irritating to many Americans and to other non-Europeans, and it could cause Europhiles such as myself to gloat. This is absolutely not my intent.

As to the Anglo-Saxon world, it is interesting that Canada, New Zealand and Australia appear to excel, but the US and the UK less so.

I hope that you find this interesting. Interpretations, anyone? leave comment here

Shadow Work

2011-12-04T09:05:00.000-08:00

by Madeleine Kando

When I was little, technology was in its infancy. There was no internet, no email and people still drove to brick and mortar stores to buy things. We had ‘electric’ inventions, like sowing machines, vacuum cleaners and refrigerators, but 'electronics' was just beginning.

In the sixties and seventies it all started to change when many new marvels were about to pop out of their incubation period. I came of age to benefit from the birth control pill, the invention of the pantyhose, soft contact lenses and Teflon. My very first Macintosh computer which came on the market in the early 1980’s, was a major stepping stone towards the age of enlightenment.

Looking back it was an exciting time, everyone was convinced that the future would bring about the 'leisure society' in which an endless supply of mindless, tireless 'robots' would free us from the drudgery of daily tasks. We would sprawl out on our couches, guiding our 'electronic slaves' to do our dirty work. In the words of 1960s guru and psychologist Abraham Maslow, mankind would finally be able to self-actualize and move to the fulfillment of its higher needs.

Forty years later, with a lot more gadgets on the market and wrinkles on my face, I am trying to figure out what happened. Where is the Utopia that we were all waiting for?

Daily life has become a lot more complicated. I spend an obscene amount of time getting rid of spam before I can read my email. The daily virus threats make me feel like I live in a trench on a battlefield, and the never-ending learning curve to keep up with more sophisticated software is exhausting. Weren’t things supposed to get easier? What happened to the robots?

And that’s just the ‘computer’ stuff. I used to take it for granted that, once I unpacked a newly bought appliance, I would have the satisfaction of using it right away. Nowadays, it takes me a week to figure out how to use a puny remote control. We live in an age where it’s not just food that requires preparation. Even buying furniture takes hours of assembly, with the inevitable rise in blood pressure when screws don’t fit or the instructions are printed in Chinese.

Not only are things increasingly complicated, but there is a lot more that we have to do ourselves. Automation has created more “shadow work” for the consumer, a term coined by Austrian philosopher and social critic Ivan Illich in his book ‘Shadow Work’. We are spending time doing things that were done by others before.

Technology has forced us to take on the job of bagger at the supermarket, of bank teller as we pay our bills online, of gas attendant as we pump gas in the freezing rain, of booking agent as we buy our tickets and check ourselves in, and of tax accountant as we file our taxes. All this is ‘shadow work’ for which we don’t get paid. The robots are here, but they benefit the producers and distributors of goods, not us.

Soon, mail delivery will be a thing of the past as there is already talk of closing many post offices and mail routes. We will have to haul our own trash to the dump, repair our own cars, teach ourselves calculus and who knows what else.. So don’t take anything for granted and enjoy the little service that we still get while it lasts. ‘Shadow work’ is here to stay and will only increase over time. leave comment here

I got inspired to write this article by reading: ‘Our Unpaid, Extra Shadow Work’ by Craig Lambert in the New York Times’.

What Osama Bin Laden Achieved

2011-12-02T16:15:00.000-08:00

By Tom Kando

The Aug./Sept. issue of the Dutch magazine Maarten!, contains an article by Max Westerman which I feel compelled to share with you. It’s depressing and aggravating, but I am afraid that it rings terribly true. Sorry. Here is an excerpt:

Ten years after the 9/11 attack, Ground Zero and Memorial Plaza are developing beautifully, and becoming an inspiration. What Al Qaeda did on 9/11 should never be forgotten or trivialized.

However, the greatest damage to America resulted from the subsequent War on Terror, i.o.w. from America’s reaction to 9/11:

Sure, Al Qaeda is a total failure. There is no worldwide Islamic Caliphate, no following whatsoever among Arab youth.

But by some measure, the 9/11 attack by 19 soldiers armed with box cutters can be viewed as the most successful military operation in history:

1. It brought the world’s greatest superpower to the edge of bankruptcy.

2. It caused America to weaken many of its liberal ideals.

3. It created a permanent feeling of angst, fear and paranoia. George W. Bush put Osama Bin Laden on a pedestal, as if he possessed the power to threaten the Western way of life. The President announced a struggle without end against terrorism, and dragged the rest of the world along.

No mean achievement, for a bunch of cave dwellers!

Look at what else America wrought onto itself:

4. Two exorbitantly costly wars, one of which had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, the other one still dragging on at a cost of $2 billion per week.

5. Is America entering a period of stagnation? Is it now even more likely to be overtaken by China in the near future? Has Bin Laden speeded up American decline? The answers are not clear, but the questions are valid.

6. America has transformed itself into a national security state. There are 1,270 government agencies and 1,930 companies spread over 10,000 locations involved in the fight against terrorism. 30,000 employees do nothing but monitor telephone calls. Homeland Security produces 50,000 reports per year. Nobody knows how many people and how much money are devoted to Homeland Security, or how many organizations, many of which duplicate each other.

An example of the paranoia which has overtaken the authorities: After the Katrina hurricane, the feds built a prison in New Orleans more rapidly than they came to the rescue of the victims.

The probability of an American dying from terrorism is 1 in 6 million - far lower than accident, illness, a stray bullet or almost anything else.

At least, if all of this worked! But it often doesn’t. It took a Dutch passenger to overpower the Detroit underwear bomber on Christmas 2009, after the authorities had missed him.

Terrorism must be fought through pinpointed commando action. That is how the single greatest success of the war on terror was scored - killing Bin Laden. Had America heeded this lesson, it could have spent the wasted $1.2 trillion on its crumbling infrastructure, its growing poverty, its unemployment - all the things which threaten to rob it of its number-one status.

Now, ten years later, change is in the air. Perhaps the cranes and the steigers at ground zero can inspire America to return to the constructive spirit which made it great. leave comment here

Immorality

2011-11-27T19:04:00.000-08:00

By Tom Kando

The Census Bureau recently released data showing that 51 million Americans are “near-poor.” (See Sacramento Bee, Nov. 19, 2011). Add these to the 50 million who are BELOW the poverty line, and you get a total of 100 million Americans - one third! - who live in poverty or are barely above.

The near-poor are not your stereotypical and dysfunctional underclass: half of them live in households headed by a married couple, 28% have full-time jobs, 42% have private health insurance, nearly half are white, 18% are black and 26% are Latino. Many of them own homes.

I don’t mean to rehash the universally recognized polarization of income and wealth in America, and the growth of poverty. What galls me is the callous response by the rest of America, as witnessed by the right-ward political trend, the Tea Party and Republican electoral gains.

I see this all around me, sometimes at a personal level, sometimes in the angry responses to our blog. I know many people who live extremely comfortably on $150,000 to $200,000 a year. People who are now retired from life-long, well-paying professional jobs, some private, many public. People who enjoy excellent pensions, many of them public. Many of these people are double and triple dippers: They receive a state pension, plus social security, sometimes combined with a federal retirement benefit as well. They own their houses free and clear. They go on cruses to Tahiti, the Mediterranean, Saint Petersburg, they travel overseas two or three times a year, domestically many more times, they refurbish their half million dollar homes, they drive Lexuses and Mercedes.

And then, you hear them talk:

“Most of our problems are caused by the government! The government is corrupt and incompetent! Income taxes are a rip-off! Social Security and pension systems are a boondoggle! Obamacare is socialism and unconstitutional!”

And they go on ranting:

“Those damn young people today! They’re making a mess of things! They have lost all sense of individual responsibility! Those lazy college kids, who want a free education. And the Occupy Wall Street bums! When we grew up, we knew that there is no free lunch! We didn’t expect government hand-outs. We relied on ourselves!”

On a personal note, I find it obscene to hear such tired old lectures about self-reliance, and pulling oneself up by one’s bootstraps, especially coming from people who overcame far less hardship than I have. I stepped off the boat in New York as a teenager in 1960, with $25.00 in my pocket. I didn’t know a single soul in the New Land. One of my first nights in New York, I slept on a bench Central Park. Later, I got myself a PhD and became a university professor. So don’t lecture me about individual effort. But must it exclude compassion for others?

And then, I have to hear that today’s young people deserve what they get. That they shouldn’t expect anything from the older generation.

But who has been living high on the hog since World War Two? Which generation has bankrupted the country, making us indentured servants of China?

To these people, any mention of income re-distribution, mutual aid, raising taxes on the rich and on corporations is anathema. A stupid “kumbaya” idea, as one of them said recently to me.

I used to think that this mentality was due to brainwashing. But now I believe that there is more to it than that: These affluent older folks WANT to believe these things. They WANT to believe that if you are poor, it’s your own fault. This conveniently supports their selfishness.

Those who have struggled the most tend to have the greatest compassion in their heart. But these people have had it relatively easy. They have enjoyed family money and other perks. They have never known true hardship. Yet they preach individual responsibility to others. What hypocrisy! leave comment here

Bad Days Ahead

2011-11-21T15:54:00.000-08:00

By Tom Kando

Republicans have deliberately made the Super Committee fail. This was the congressional committee which was supposed to help the federal government tackle the budget deficit, take the first steps out of our ruinous indebtedness, and start the road towards long-term economic recovery.

But to Republicans, none of this mattered. To them, failure is success. With the 2012 elections around the corner, their plan is to complete the electoral sweep. And of course, the worse the economy is, the more Obama gets the blame. So the Republicans plan to take over the Senate and the White House. The House and the Supreme Court they already got.

Once the Republicans control all branches of government, there is only one thing left to the people: the streets. The OCW movement and campus demonstrations such as the one at UC Davis, just down the road from where I live, will look like a picnic in comparison. A repeat of the 60s?

But what actually happened in the 60s? The protest movement resulted in the election of conservative Republican Richard Nixon! I campaigned for Eugene McCarthy in 1968 (and also for George McGovern in 1972). Both elections were won by Richard Nixon!

Nixon was shrewd. He diffused the protest by abolishing the draft and by winding down the Vietnam War. The latter was a slow and painful process, primarily Henry Kissinger’s project. Nixon’s divide-and-rule strategy worked well for him, at least until Watergate.

In his classic Politics of Mass Society, William Kornhauser discusses the factors which generate totalitarianism. In times of crisis, the working and lower classes tend to move to the Left (Communism), while the middle class veers to the Right (Fascism). That is how middle-class people tend to respond to downward mobility and economic frustration.

Today, the new Republican front-runner is Newt Gingrich. Two of his recent statements are that “the OCW demonstrators should get a job, after they take a bath,” and that “school kids should be hired to clean the schools’ latrines for pay,” (in other words, let’s abolish our child labor laws). Appropriately, Gingrich’s critics have dubbed him the new Marie-Antoinette.

However, the problem is that there may be more people who agree with Gingrich than those who support OCW and the UC Davis students. Alas, this includes many of my own acquaintances. During the days following the UC Davis pepper spraying incident, a majority of the letters to the Sacramento Bee supported the police!

The classic example of Right-wing totalitarianism triumphing in response to downward mobility and economic frustration in a largely middle-class society was Nazi Germany. During the 1930s, Fascists and Communists confronted each other in the streets of Germany, and the Fascists won.

I am not saying that America is going to turn fascist. Everything in life is a matter of degree. The question is not whether, but how far to the right the country is going to move. Whatever happens, I am afraid that we can expect strong elements of a police state in our future. If I am proven wrong, I’ll be hilariously happy to apologize. leave comment here

In Search of the Past

2011-11-20T08:26:00.000-08:00

by Madeleine Kando

I have been away for the past three days. I haven't been here, in the present. Since I stumbled upon my family tree as I was googling something else, I have been traveling in the past. Because my parents had to flee Hungary after the war, I never knew much about my roots, so when I saw my distant relatives adorn my entire computer screen I knew I had discovered a real treasure.

The tree was enormous. There were generations upon generations of ancestors all connected with little lines, dating back to the 17th century. The red boxes were the wives, the blue ones the husbands. I didn't know where to start but I thought it best to find someone I knew, like a great-uncle or something.

It was a challenge because it being a family tree, everyone's last name was Kando and my ancestors really lacked imagination with first names. There were Josephs and Magdas all over the place. When I thought I'd found my great-aunt Agi, I realized I was looking at an Agi that was born in 1723. Wrong Agi.

I was being tested for endurance by my ancestors, I am sure of it. They wanted to check me out. To see if I was made of the right stuff. After all, not everyone is cut out to be an Egerfarmosi Sztregovai Marcali Kando. In old Hungary it was customary to add the property you owned to your name, so we were the Kandos of Egerfarmos, of Sztregova and of Marcal.

I scrolled up and down the tree, crawled up the side branches until I finally recognized my great-grandfather Geza. He was sitting there in his lacquered shoes, his stockinged legs dangling off the branch, as if he had been waiting for me to come and pay him a visit after all this time. His face was a blank outline, and I felt a bit sorry for him to have to sit on a branch without a face for all eternity.

I told him I would undoubtedly be back asking for more directions, but I was in search of his father, Joseph Kando. Could he please tell me what year he had died, so that I wouldn't have to go on a wild goose chase amongst all the Josephs in the tree.

The further up I climbed, the more siblings I saw. My great-great grandfather Joseph himself had to share his branch with eight other kids! I easily recognized him, neatly lined up with a slew of Janoses and Esthers.

By the time I got to the seventeen hundreds I had lost track of which branch I was on so I had to climb back down. I felt like Hansel and his sister Gretel, except I had forgotten to bring pebbles to mark my way back up.

Three days later I finally made it to the 1600's, where I found my uhr-uhr grandfather with his wife Szusanna. His box said Jakab Kando. He didn't have much to say for himself. No date of birth, no date of death. Neither one of them had a face, and above them it only said 'mother of Jakab' and 'father of Jakab'.

I was in awe of all the work that must have gone into creating this incredible structure. Someone must have spent years researching documents and archives, sifting through birth, death and marriage certificates, writing to family members and visiting graves. It blew my mind. And I was the beneficiary, my roots were coming to light and all I had to do was turn on my computer. I found out who this genius was. Her name is Judit Marta Kando. Her great-great grandfather Ferenc is sitting next to my great-great grandfather Joseph. Are they looking down on us smiling as they see that we have found out about each other's existence?

I am very tired. I am not a very social person by nature, and meeting all these family members at once was exhausting. But I am glad I took the journey. Maybe some day, in a couple of hundred years from now, one of my great-great-great grand-children will stumble upon me sitting on my branch, and wonder which one of the many Magdas they are looking at. But I'll be grateful for the effort they took to climb all the way up to me and say hello. leave comment here

Do you want one of these people to lead us in the world?

2011-11-17T15:17:00.000-08:00

By Tom Kando

The Republican candidates are making mega blunders in their debates and media appearances, displaying astounding ignorance, especially in the area of foreign policy. A few examples:

In a November 2 televised interview, Herman Cain said that he was worried about “China developing nuclear capability.” His defenders say that he meant “further developing.” Hmm. To me it sounds like the man didn’t know that China has possessed nuclear bombs for nearly half a century. Oops!

Then there was Rick Perry’s widely publicized recent “oops” moment, when he forgot which three federal departments he wanted to abolish. He remembered Education and Commerce, but couldn’t come up with a third one. Others tried to help him, suggesting, “EPA maybe?” What about the Department of Energy? Perry wasn’t sure. All he could say was, “Oops!”

A few days ago, an interviewer asked Herman Cain what he thought about President Obama’s handling of Libya and Gadhafi’s ouster. Cain’s answer was incoherent. He said that he disagreed with Obama, but then added, “nope, that’s a different one...I’ve got all of this stuff twirling around in my head...” Later he explained that he favored Ronald Reagan’s policy of “peace through strength.” How helpful!

Recently, Michele Bachmann said that Hetzbollah could have bases and training camps in Cuba, clearly a preposterous notion.

A few months ago, interviewer Chris Wallace asked Herman Cain how he felt about the Palestinian “right of return” question.
Cain’s reaction: “Right of return? Right of return?” Clearly, he had never heard the term. After Wallace explained it to him, Cain said: “Yes, they should have a right to come back. I don’t think Israel has a big problem with people returning.” The man doesn’t even understand that the quarter million Palestinians who fled Israel in 1948 have meanwhile multiplied ten-fold, making right-of-return a hugely nettlesome issue.

At the latest Republican debate, Rick Santorum suggested that the US should establish better relationships with allies such as Pakistani President Musharraf. The problem is: Musharraf hasn’t been President since 2008. He lives in exile in London.

Candidate Cain has suggested that the US should punish Iran by stopping importing its oil. Problem is: we don’t import any Iranian oil.

There are too many such embarrassments to mention - from Cain referring to Uzbekistan as Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan (funny?) To Bachmann’s utterly ungrounded allegation that China is arming the Taliban, Perry’s suggestion that the US army invade Mexico to fight the drug cartels, and Mitt Romney agreeing to reset foreign aid and start at zero.

What amazes me more than these folks’ radical ideas is their international illiteracy. I almost miss Sarah Palin, who sounds like a Rhodes scholar in comparison. This would all be comical if it weren’t so dangerous. Can America afford the next President to get on-the-job training? (Some of this material is derived from articles in The Atlantic, Nov 14 and 16).
leave comment here

Personal Space

2011-11-13T14:33:00.000-08:00

by Madeleine Kando

I met a very nice woman in my writing group the other day. Her name is Grace. She has beautiful red curly hair and a smile that could melt an iceberg. She is jovial, engaging, smart and funny. In short she has all the qualities that made me want to become her friend.

So, after the meeting I walked over to her and struck up a conversation. Who knows why some people gravitate to each other and not others? It’s one of those mysteries that makes life interesting.

But then it happened. A familiar feeling of unease came over me as I was talking to her. I couldn’t figure it out. Was she so different up close? Was it the freckles that had been invisible from a distance? I like freckles, so that cannot have been the problem. I like red hair and especially friendly smiles. I like friendly smiles at any distance.

She turned and stepped back a little to talk to another group member and I suddenly felt a sense of relief. Ah! I knew what was the problem. She had just been standing too close to me as we were talking. I hear you think: ‘Well, that’s pretty neurotic, to get upset by such a minuscule variable’.

But you have no idea how important ‘personal space’ is in human interactions. We are all carrying a personal space bubble around us and mine tends to be quite large. It’s as if I was wearing invisible, oversized Charlie Chaplin shoes and every time someone steps into my personal space I think: ‘Hey you! Don’t step on my shoes, that’s rude!’

Regardless of size, these invisible shoes serve a very important function in human society. Can you imagine if we didn’t carry these personal space bubbles around us? We would bump into each other willy-nilly. We would spend all day saying: ‘Oh, excuse me for bumping into you’. And as you stepped back you would bump into the person behind you, and you would have to apologize again and so on. What a mess it would be.

I am sure you have experienced being crammed in an overstuffed elevator. What do you do to try to salvage the pitiful remnants of your precious personal space? You suddenly show great interest in the ceiling or the elevator floor. You direct your gaze anywhere except at the person who is standing on your Charlie Chaplin shoes.

I am amazed at the intricacies of the personal space rules in society. Children as young as two already wear their little Charlie Chaplin shoes. Some two-year olds take refuge behind their mom as extra protection, but then for reasons only known to them, they fly into your arms and gone are the shoes entirely.

I lived in Spain for a while and there, stepping on each other’s invisible toes is a national pass-time. I found myself doing a backwards two-step with my interlocutors at parties, me backing up, the other person closing in, until a wall or a table stopped me and I felt sweaty and uncomfortable the rest of the evening.

In Japan personal space is not a luxury, it is to prevent bodily injury. People who bow when they greet each other, need at least three feet between them. If you don't go by the personal space rule, you risk knocking heads and you would end up with a nation full of brain injured individuals.

In a sensitivity training class I once took we were told to allow group members to approach until we started to feel uncomfortable. Before I realized it I had stopped the whole group at around three feet except this one tall, handsome Sean Connery look-alike whom I had stopped only when he was about to touch my nose.

You probably have recognized my description of personal space as Edward T. Hall's study of 'proxemics', the science of measuring distance between people as they interact.

The use of personal distance depends on several aspects of culture, one of which is the way you are raised. If you grew up sharing a space, as many families do in Asia, you might actually feel uncomfortable when you find yourself alone in a public space. In India for instance, if you are sitting in an empty movie theatre and someone else comes in, they will sit right next to you. Let them try that here. The first thing you would do is call the police on your cell phone and tell them someone is trying to mug you.

It gets curiouser and curiouser. When population density increases (crowding), the need for personal space also increases. You might have to share your country with more people but your Charlie Chaplin shoe size also increases. Doesn't that remind you of one of the fundamental laws of physics? The more pressure is applied to an object, the more counter pressure it generates? Mmm.

Wouldn't it be nice if we all generated some kind of beep every time someone entered our personal space? Animals are much better at showing their boundaries: they show their fangs, start to growl or their hair stands on end. I could bear my teeth at Grace, the next time we talk, but something tells me that that would eliminate any chance of creating a future friendship between us. leave comment here

Should we Build High Speed Rail in California and if so How?

2011-11-08T15:03:00.001-08:00

By Tom Kando

The November 6, 2011 issue of the Sacramento Bee contains an excellent article about the bullet train issue by Richard Tolmach, President of the California Rail Foundation.

I agree with Tolmach that (1) “high-speed rail must be part of California’s future,” and that (2) “the High-Speed Rail Authority has been a great disappointment.”

Discussion about high-speed rail in California began many decades ago. Planning for it started 14 years ago. Since then, the Authority has spent more than $800 million (!) of public money without producing a single mile of service, without the first shovel being picked up to actually start building the thing. $800 million spent on planning.

Predictably, there are the retrograde reactionaries who then say, “scrap the whole thing. Who needs high-speed train? It’s a boondoggle and a waste.” This is a tempting response, in our era of severe budgetary shortfalls, but it is terribly wrong.

Japan has had high-speed rail for 40 years (!). France, and Germany for several decades. Each year more countries acquire it - recently China, Spain and Poland. But America can’t?

What if we had reacted the same way 60 or 70 years ago? Then, countries were starting to build vast networks of divided turnpikes to accommodate exploding automobile traffic. Is it even conceivable that America could have said, “super-highways may be okay for Europeans, but here we don’t need them and we can’t afford them...” ?

Far from urging us to drop our plans for a bullet train, Tolmach makes the sensible proposal to dismantle the current Authority and to start all over again from scratch, this time learning from those who already have a successful track record, i.e. the Japanese and the Europeans.

I am no expert, but I have ridden high-speed trains both in Japan and in Europe - dozens of times. They are the best mode of transportation I know of. They are more comfortable, more efficient, safer, environmentally more benign , and less costly that flying, driving your private car or taking a long-distance bus.

The current California plan arrives at a $98 billion bottom line for the entire project. It uses a per-mile building cost three times higher than the European building cost. It wildly overestimates projected ridership, assuming that more people will board the bullet train in Merced than the number of people boarding Amtrak in New York, and by assuming that the California bullet train will carry twice as many riders as does the Paris-Brussels TGV.

It’s simple: We need to do it, and we need to do it right. And what better way is there than to learn from those who have already done it right? Let’s use those highly successful systems in Japan and Europe as models.

The European TGV only reaches high speed in unpopulated areas, where tracks are built safely on solid ground. Only 2% of their track is elevated (Tolmach). The California plan includes many tunnels and elevated tracks to allow trains to race through cities at 200 mph. No wonder the plan is prohibitively expensive.

European projects are international. Eurostar goes from Paris to London, Thalys goes from Paris to Amsterdam. Wouldn’t a national rather than state-by-state effort have more chances of success? Think of the Interstate Highway System, initiated by President Eisenhower in 1956 and completed 35 years later at a cost of $425 billion. That worked out pretty good, didn't it?

Tolmach, like everyone else, advocates a public-private partnership for this project. Of course. But I would just add one important question to this: what should be the public and private proportions in the financing of California’s bullet train?Again, why not look at overseas models to find out how they did it so successfully?

Maybe you’ll say: “We can’t just copy the Europeans and the Japanese. Conditions differ.”

Okay, so they do. But to me, this reeks of an excuse. My basic question is: If they can do it, why can’t we? If we conclude that we can’t do what, for example, Poland can do, then we are a sorry lot. This is not about “staying number one.” It’s about staying in the pack of moderately advanced countries.

(see Madeleine’s recent post: 'That Used to be Us').
leave comment here

Why Republicans Continue to Win, and Obama is Likely to Lose

2011-10-30T12:48:00.000-07:00

By Tom Kando

We have 10% unemployment. Therefore 90% are NOT unemployed. Of course, there is a lot more than 10% hidden unemployment. Still, no-one could argue that an absolute majority of the labor force is unemployed. So by this measure, a majority of the people are more or less “okay,” even though, there is more and more inequality.

Same with having a roof over your head, be it owned or rented. Most Americans are not homeless. By this criterion, too, a vast majority of Americans are “okay.”

By “being okay,” then, I mean: You have a job of some sort, a roof over your head, you eat three decent meals a day, you send your kids to school, you drive a car, you are not being preyed upon by criminals, and you are better off than those who are below the poverty line and those who have lost their job.

In this sense, those who speak on behalf of the folks who are “not okay,” - the “Occupy Wall Street” crowd, progressives, President Obama - do not speak for a majority.

Here is how the majority thinks: “I have to look out for Number One. Now more than ever. Life is a zero-sum game. I can’t afford to pay more taxes. Things are already hard enough for me and for my family.”

If life is a zero-sum game - the stupid but prevailing attitude - then what’s good for the 10% to 15% who are NOT okay, is not good for the 90% who ARE. Sharing is not part of the majority’s thinking.

What if 20% of the people were not okay? Or even 30%? That would still leave a large majority who would feel that sharing is not in their interest.

And what are the chances of even 30% of the population becoming “not okay?” This has never happened in our history, and it is absolutely unlikely to happen in our future. It has hardly ever happened in the history of the world. It is almost an impossibility.

Think of some disastrous cases: Mexico looks pretty bad right now. But a majority of the Mexican people still lead relatively normal lives. Today, I can only think of one failed state where most people probably no longer "have a life" - Somalia.

In the past, who knows. Maybe the depth of the Dark Ages, the Merovingian era, the collapse of the West Roman Empire, the Black Death. I suppose there have been periods when human life was “short nasty and brutish, ” - jungle like. But by and large, most of the time, most people do “have a life.” They are okay. And that is certainly so today.

So when we say that “things are terrible,” there is now a “Great Recession,” and in the thirties there was a “Great Depression,” what we mean is that the number of people who are “not okay” has grown to an unacceptable 13% of the population, or at worst 25%. In civilized society, we are prepared to accept a 2%-to-5% level of misery, but not 15% to 25%. Even during the Great Depression of the 1930s, unemployment was “only” 25%. Never in the history of the US has a majority of the labor force been unemployed, or lost its home, or lost everything it had.

...and neither will it happen now. We’ll keep hobbling along.

So why would people rally around Occupy Wall Street, or President Obama, or any progressive cause? This would require sharing. But since most people see life as a zero-sum game, and since it is now more important than ever to “look out for number one,” sharing is not what the large majority of the people is about to do. That’s too bad.leave comment here

The Case against Libertarianism

2011-10-29T13:00:00.000-07:00

by Madeleine Kando

As part of an on-going series on economic inequality in America, PBS NewsHour's economics correspondent Paul Solman asked Libertarian Lawyer Richard Epstein: 'Does U.S. Economic Inequality Have a Good Side?'

According to Epstein, a clear advantage is that it creates an incentive to produce wealth and innovation. He gives Steve Jobs and Bill Gates as examples of people who have created products whose value to society far outweighs the compensation they have received.

When asked about attempts to raise tax rates on higher income, Epstein said that it would stifle innovation and affect the production of goods. (Would Steve Jobs not have created the Ipod if the tax rate on his company had been higher? I don’t think so. Saying that Jobs was in it just for the money isn’t very nice, especially after Jobs' post-mortem ascendancy to semi-sainthood.)

The interview started me on a soul-searching journey because everything that Epstein said sounded off-key. It made me wonder what kind of person would come to the conclusions that greater economic inequality creates more overall welfare? It certainly doesn't seem to apply to our current situation.

To a libertarian, property is sacred, any government is bad, capitalists are noble heroes and the poor are pampered good-for-nothings. They place 'liberty' of the individual and the protection of the 'free market' above all else.

Any outcome of the market is morally right, whatever the consequences for society. They call it Social Darwinism. But Darwin’s laws are valid for biology, not for societies. All of human history represents man’s gradual emancipation from the laws of the jungle. It goes by the name of 'progress'. Social Darwinism is a bad idea.

And this is just the beginning of the inconsistencies in the Libertarians' philosophy. In the free market, the individual doesn't have any 'liberty'. If I, as an individual, am boycotting the consumption of meat, cows and pigs will still be slaughtered. Libertarians are against any kind of collectivism, the individual rules. But the market itself is, be definition, collectivist, and libertarians submit themselves to the autocracy of the free market.

Libertarians are for political freedom, no government interference. But they have no problem asking for government protection of the free market against terrorist attacks and internal Occupy Wall Street revolts.

If there were no government, what would libertarians protest against? The dangerous aspect of libertarian politicians like Ron Paul is that they propose a political alternative that can never be tested for its supposed merits. Government will always be there, in some form or other. They attack a system that is obviously not perfect but at least exists in the real world.

There is no nuance or logic to their single-minded attack on government. Society is complex and it needs many institutions to distribute power equally so that no one will monopolize and abuse that power. A free market without other institutions to keep it in check will abuse its power. The food industry will poison us, the health care industry will make us sick by denying coverage and businesses will create hazardous products.

What is most distasteful to me in the Libertarian world view is its lack of compassion and sense of social justice. The rich do not need help or protection. They don't need advocates like Ron Paul and Epstein. Libertarians are like snotty teenagers who feel entitled to their affluence, owing nothing to the community they were born into. They have never visited slums in India, or seen the raging famine in Africa. They are spoiled brats.

Epstein ended his libertarian interview on PBS by quoting Lincoln: "You do not make the poor rich by making the rich poor" (which, by the way, Lincoln never said).

I would like to end this essay by quoting Franklin D. Roosevelt: "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. leave comment here

Much of the content of this post was inspired by an excellent essay written by Mark Rosenfelder: 'What's wrong with Libertarianism?'

The One Percent War *

2011-10-25T11:38:00.000-07:00

By Madeleine Kando

We’ve finally done it. Our troops are coming home. Does that mean we have declared peace? You would call it ‘peace’ if this had been a ‘traditional’ war. A war where two opposing armies fight each other. When you declare peace, you usually stop fighting and the warriors lay down their arms, go home and pick up their interrupted lives. There is a peace treaty. The vanquished have to pay, the conquerors reap the bounty.

Unfortunately, this time there is no one to sign a peace treaty with. The enemy is remote. The enemy explodes bombs in a far away place. It kills randomly to ‘prove a point’. Even though it is a lethal enemy, to most Americans it is abstract, an enemy you read about in the papers and hear about on the news. Some people even go as far as to say that the enemy was invented by the conquering army.

When I was very very young, there was a war going on in Europe. It was a big war. I knew there was a war because there was no food, there were bombs, there were dead horses floating down the rivers. My mother had to steal or barter silverware for potatoes. My father had to sneak out and dismantle railway tracks for firewood. My siblings and I had to wear false ID’s so we wouldn’t get deported to Auschwitz.

But this war is invisible to me. I don’t see dead horses in the streets of Boston, I don’t hear detonations in the distance. I don’t see empty shelves in the supermarket.

You see, I don’t belong to the one percent that fought this war in one form or another. Nobody even asked me to contribute financially to the war effort. Even though I never understood why we are at war in Iraq, I am baffled and silently ashamed. I am part of the 99% that has not participated in this war (and I am not talking about the 99% that occupies Wall Street). I didn’t lose a loved one in the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers, I don’t have a son or a daughter fighting in Iraq. I am one of the 99% that goes about their daily lives pretending that there is no war going on.

The one percent that fought this war are the ones that saw dead horses, dead children, dead fathers and mothers, dead platoon buddies and now they are coming home. Are we going to have parades? Are we going to wave little American flags as the troops rumble down the avenues of our cities? Are we going to throw flowers and climb on their tanks to hug them with tears in our eyes?

The McNeill Lehrer report has been faithful all these years by ending their program with a few minutes of silence as they air photos of fallen soldiers. So, yes, once a day, I am reminded that we are at war. But the word ‘we’ sounds false, because it doesn’t include me. I didn’t contribute to the war and I don’t contribute to the peace. I am just one of the 99%. leave comment here
* Thomas Friedman's words in 'That Used to Be Us'

Was the Gilad Shalit Exchange too Expensive?

2011-10-24T11:53:00.000-07:00

By Tom Kando

On October 18, the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit was released by Hamas, after more than 5 years of captivity, in exchange for 477 and eventually 1027 Palestinian prisoners. The young man’s return home was accompanied by great national celebration. There is much rejoicing. I share the joy, and I want to see this in a positive light.

The government of Israel has pledged to its people, whose children must ALL serve in the military, that it will do “EVERYTHING” to secure their freedom in such cases.

The Netanyahu administration is proud to have succeeded in this exchange, where its predecessors failed. However, here are some things to consider:

Can there be such a vow of “doing everything”? What is “everything”? Next time, does Israel hand over half the country for the release of Israeli prisoners? Maybe you’ll say, “well, they meant ‘everything within reason’.”

And that is precisely my question: Was the exchange of ONE prisoner for 1,027 prisoners reasonable? A certain proportion of the released Palestinian prisoners are mass murderers. Releasing dozens of such people may result in future deaths of innocents, as more cafés and schools in Tel Aviv and Haifa get bombed (and more Palestinians are killed in reprisal). Several of the released Palestinian terrorists/freedom fighters have already vowed that they will resume their attacks.

Naturally, to the Palestinians, these released prisoners are not mass murderers. They are freedom fighters. Some participants in a Dutch opinion poll put it this way: “compared to 60 years of Israeli terrorism against the Palestinians, Gilad Shalit’s 5 years of incarceration were meager punishment.” Besides, there are still 5,000 (some say 10,000) Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons.

On the other hand, much of Israeli public opinion feels that this was a pretty expensive exchange.

That’s how it feels to me, too. Does this deal reflect the bargaining skills of Hamas and of the Israeli government? If so, Israel is in big trouble.

Don’t misunderstand me: I am not saying that Gilad Shalit should have been abandoned. And don’t come at me with the cliché, “what if it were YOU (or your own child)?” This is the non-sequitur argument I heard from many of my students whenever we discussed issues like euthanasia and capital punishment. All I am focusing on now is: 1 vs. 1027, and I think, “wow!”

It would be nice if this prisoner exchange gave Israel at least a MORAL victory. Perhaps world public opinion could say, “They did that? Gave up 1027 prisoners for ONE of their sons! That’s very, very nice of them!” Sort of a sympathy vote.

Don’t hold your breath.leave comment here

That Used to Be US

2011-10-20T16:03:00.000-07:00

How America Fell Behind in the World it Invented and How We can Come Back

Reviewed by Madeleine Kando

Although it is one of the most depressing books I've read in a long time, as a historical document, 'That Used to be Us' co-authored by Thomas Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum, is very informative. The first half explains in concise, well-written prose how America, since the end of the Cold War, has made mistake after mistake by misreading global events and reacting to them in the wrong way. This is partly a result of America's tendency to believe that it is the center of the world and that it is better than other countries. This breeds complacency and creates a skewed view of reality.

After the gloom and doom of the first part of the book, one would expect the second half to include some inspiring revelation on how to fix America. Even though things are really bad, 'We can Come Back', right? "Our big challenges today require the kind of national responses that wars have evoked” they write. But all they come up with are lots of examples without a general formula.

The fact is that the authors are part of the problem, not the solution. Friedman and Mandelbaum are part of the American elite, the establishment, and, even though they speak from a liberal platform, which is commendable, their book is addressed to the elite, not the average Joe. Page after page, they urge Americans to 'go the extra mile', to not just be an average assembly-line worker, but an exceptional one. So that we can compete, both as individuals and as a nation. Doing your best is not enough any more. You have to become 'the best of the best' at whatever you do.

But isn't that what brought America down in the first place? Trying to be the best? Why do we have to be number one all the time? Why do we have to be the ones to create a democratic state in the Middle East? Aren't we fleecing our own country in the process? What happened to not being the best but just enjoy being second best?

Why do we have to be what we used to be? Is it healthy for a nation to always have to be the leader, the top dog? Look at many European countries. They have thrived in their position as second fiddlers. It allowed them to accumulate wealth while the top dog was sweating it out, trying to protect the pack. America isn't about to disappear from the world map. It might not be at the front of the pack any more, but maybe that is not such a bad thing.

The authors are so concerned with maintaining America's 'exceptional' status in the world that they don't even realize that that time has come and gone. They mourn what we used to be, a global leader. Their description of how America 'invented' the world is, in one sense, accurate. (The whole world is wearing Levy's and playing rock and roll music). But is that still a viable goal in today's world?

It's hard on the ego to see someone else surpass you in achievements: China now has the fastest bullet train and the fastest computer, not us. The question is: at what price? The Fins have a better educational system. That's true but their system grew organically, it wasn’t' a result of self-denial or trying to be the best of the best.

Countries do what they can to be half-way decent places to live. America is no exception. If Friedman and Mandelbaum want us to be superhumans in order to remain number one, let them ask the same from other countries.

The reality is that our political system, even though it is dysfunctional at the moment, is the only one we have. Friedman's pie in the sky suggestion, that a third-party guru will materialize to create harmony and cooperation, is unrealistic. Let's focus on the mess we are in and try to avoid worse disasters.

I wish the authors were more honest in their intentions with this book. Who are they really talking to? Their message to the politicians, that it is imperative that we fix our infrastructure and our educational system, is the right one. If we don't, we'll not just be number 25 in the world, but we will become a Third World country.

Their message to the rest of us, however, that we should become superhuman to compete, rings hollow. We are already doing a superhuman effort just to survive.

play an audio clip of the book
leave comment here

Progress

2011-10-17T13:06:00.000-07:00

By Tom Kando

It is October 17, 2301: I am commuting to work across the Oakland Bay Bridge, driving on the temporary structure used for traffic while the real Oakland Bay Bridge is being fixed. It was damaged by the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989. Repairs are approaching completion.

A short while later, I come by the site where they are planning to start America’s first high-speed rail. They haven’t begun building it yet, but the news said recently that a commission is studying the proposal. The first line will be experimental. It will run from San Francisco to Concord, at a cost of $30 billion. It is predicted to be completed by 2353.

I stop at a Starbucks and check the headlines on my I-Like while drinking my $58 tall decaf Americano. Here are some of today’s major stories:

● Negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians have resumed. Prospects for a peaceful settlement and a two-state solution have improved.

● The European Union is developing plans for a more unified and integrated economic policy, reducing the autonomy of member states.

● The Federal Government has announced plans to develop new fuel and energy alternatives, and to reduce the country’s dependency on foreign sources.

● In Sacramento, California, prospects for building and financing a sports arena have improved.

● The unemployment rate is down to 9.5 % and the Dow Jones Index has climbed over 12,000, indicating that an economic recovery is at hand.

● The US Supreme Court will soon rule about the constitutionality of Obamacare.

● A new sociological study shows that the children of two-parent families fare better than those raised by a single parent, suggesting that it is important to strengthen the family.

● The European Community is considering admitting Turkey as a member state.

● The US Supreme Court will soon rule about the constitutionality of the death penalty.

● The lawsuit filed by the victims of Bernie Madoff is nearing settlement.

● The US is considering closing some of its military bases in Germany and Korea.
leave comment here

An Ode to Vermont

2011-10-13T06:23:00.000-07:00

by Madeleine Kando

We are in beautiful Vermont for Columbus Day weekend. It's that time of year again, when all of New England explodes in an orgy of colors. Indian Summer has come late this year and we have to chase it up the mountain slopes, driving on curvy rural roads, flanked by red barns, black cows and tall silos. The beauty of Vermont is that it is a blend of manicured pastures and majestic hills covered with dense vegetation that is now ablaze with reddish colors in the warm autumn sun.

In August Vermont was hit by hurricane Irene. Roads and bridges were completely wiped out and even though we came to ogle at the beauty of the foliage, we ended up taking many pictures of houses half buried into the ground, bridges dangling in mid-air and river beds filled with fallen trees.

Vermont has achieved something so miraculous that it is worth writing about on this blog. In six weeks' time, this state has recovered from one of the worst natural disasters since the hurricane in 1938. Our host at the bed and breakfast in North Shrewsbury explains some of the reasons for this success story.

Vermont is a farming state which means that all the equipment that was needed to haul debris, repair broken asphalt and dig trenches was readily available. Trucks, pipes, shovels and plows are in everyone's backyard to work the land and so are the people who are used to heavy physical work.

Unlike what happened in New Orleans during hurricane Katrina, people here didn't wait for FEMA to step in. They organized local volunteer crews and started repairs as soon as the water receded. Permits to re-direct rivers and build bridges were appropriately applied for, but the residents didn’t wait for an answer. 'We’ll apologize later' said a Jamaica resident. 'This needs to be done NOW”.

In other words, Vermonters just went ahead and took matters in their own hands. They got together, neighborhood by neighborhood, repaired local roads, borrowed money that later would be repaid by the government's disaster fund, rescued the elderly and the sick and relied on themselves to get things done.

As we drive on to chase the colors of our cherished Indian Summer, traces of the disaster are clearly visible: every mile or so there is a patch of recently repaired highway. Many of the bridges are gone and in some villages, half of the houses are under re-construction. But Vermont made sure that its road infrastructure would be accessible, knowing how important leaf-peaking season is to its economy. They did all that in record-breaking time. I am so impressed, I can barely pay attention to the beauty around me.leave comment here

Nonsense

2011-10-11T14:40:00.000-07:00

By Tom Kando

We often visit friends overseas, and sometimes they visit us in the US. There is no end to the misunderstandings, disagreements and nonsense between us. A few examples:

Recently, our European friend Rob and his wife Trinette came to see us. Since we live on the West Coast, they had to fly not just over the Atlantic, but also over the U.S. During dinner, Rob observed:

“I noticed when flying over your Midwest that American fields are all square and rectangular, not like European farm fields, which are all crooked and come in all irregular shapes.”

And then came his profound analysis:

“These strictly geometric fields reveal America’s wild pioneer past, and its genocidal war against the native Americans...”

“Hmm...I don’t quite get that,” I said, in a mild demure, “To me, it seems more logical that the tidy American fields reflect order rather than chaos, no?”

“Not true,” Rob replied, “ you see, it’s a subterfuge. Overcompensation for your violent history...”

“I see,” I said (but I didn’t), whereupon I swallowed a large swig of red wine to ease my pain.

Later that evening, the small talk touched upon a recent tragedy: A few weeks earlier, two Austrian travelers had died in Death Valley. Misled by their Garmin GPS, they had gotten lost and stranded, then they began to walk, and they died in the heat. Rob’s analysis of this event was as provocative as his interpretation of American farming patterns:

“You see, Tom,” he pontificated while picking his nose, “such a tragedy could never happen in Europe, because we don’t use air conditioning. Air conditioning is unhealthy and dangerous. The two Austrian tourists who died were misled by the car rental company. With the air conditioning on full blast, they had no idea how hot it was outside their car. Their families should sue the company.”

I complimented Rob for his creative thinking and poured him another glass of Merlot. The conversation meandered to other topics. At one point, my wife mentioned that our visit to Europe next summer would include Berlin.

“Great,” said Rob’s wife Trinette. “Berlin is a lot of fun. Do you know yet where you’ll be staying?”

I mentioned that we did indeed already have reservations at the Berlin Marriott on Potsdamer Platz, adding:

“It’s very central. We’ll be close to many of the major attractions...”

“That’s bullshit,” she replied, “Berlin has no center.”

“Well,” I tried to explain, “Our hotel is within a block of the Berlin Wall, the Sony Center, and within walking distance of the Reichstag, the Brandenburg Gate, the Central Station and many other attractions.

“You don’t know what you are talking about,” she retorted. “Haven’t you heard? There is no Wall anymore!”

My God! I thought. Are these people intent on the will to misunderstand? There was no way to carry on a regular conversation. I decided to have some fun:

“Really? I didn’t know that. What happened to the Wall? Did the Nazis burn it down?”

“Whaaat?” Now I got them confused. They had no idea that I was just bullshitting.

“Well,” I went on, “ you know, like they burnt down the Reichstag,” I said, barely able to keep a straight face.

“Do you even know what you are talking about, you stooopid American!” Rob shouted, slurring his words.

“Wait, wait,” I said, feigning being taken aback, “tell me, then: was it the Communists or the Nazis who burnt down the Wall?”

My wife was on to me. She winked and jumped in to help me. She said:

“No honey, don’t you remember? We did it. President Reagan ordered the burning of the Berlin Wall, back in 2003, in retaliation.”

Our guests still thought that we were serious. I pushed on:

“Thank God for President Reagan. He should have nuked the Great Wall of China, too, while he was at it”

I raised my glass and made a toast:

“Down with all walls! Walls are only for communists and for Nazis!”

What the heck, I figured, now in a drunken stupor. You want absurdity, I’ll give you absurdity. In vino veritas. leave comment here

Fixing America

2011-10-06T11:43:00.000-07:00

By Tom Kando

There is a new book by Thomas Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum titled “That Used to Be Us: How America Fell Behind in the World It Invented and How We Can Come back.” (Reviewed by Trudy Rubin, Sacramento Bee, October 5, 2011).

Unfortunately, “the book doesn’t deliver on the last part of the title.” So let me tell America how to solve its problems:

First, a summary of Friedman and Mandelbaum’s diagnosis. It is familiar (and correct): America has failed to adapt to globalization, we have neglected our infrastructure and our education, our immigration policies have become counter-productive, the federal surplus of the Clinton years has been squandered into a gigantic deficit.
But the most important aspect of the disease is the fact that the American people still don’t get it. They are seduced by slogans like “take our country back” and a Republican Tea Party that rails against big government. Such remedies are the equivalent of medieval bloodletting. They don’t cure the patient. They make him sicker and end up killing him.
The media are no help. They are confused and cacophonous (this includes the Sacramento Bee)

Since Friedman and Mandelbaum are short on solutions, let me help:

1. Never vote for Republican candidates and policies. While there are some nice Republicans, the Party’s very identity and reason for being are wrong: It stands for smaller government and lower taxes, when we need the opposite. It stands for freedom, competition and individualism (praiseworthy values in another era), when we need more justice, collectivism and cooperation. Today Republicans - moderate or not - harm America.

2. Taxes must be raised. On the rich and on the rest of us. Everyone must sacrifice. We are in a fix, and we won’t come out of it without pain. There is good pain and there is bad pain. Right now, we experience the bad pain of 10% unemployment, loss of home, etc. Bad pain gets you nowhere. But higher taxes which lead to more jobs, better schools, better roads, better health and less poverty are good pain.

3. Collective bargaining must be strengthened. The percentage of unionized Americans is half what it was in 1980, and Republicans are trying to eliminate unions altogether.

4. We have no other choice but to vote for Obama and for other Democrats. A third, more progressive Party sounds nice, but right now, it would hand over the Presidency (and the Supreme Court) to the Republicans, the way Ralph Nader robbed Al Gore of the Presidency and gave it to George W. Bush. In time, yes, this country needs a much more progressive party.

5. The media must become intelligent. There are only a few intelligent venues right now, for example NPR. But these are struggling financially (Republicans want to defund NPR).

6. We must become intelligent. There is no hope as long as we are seduced by morons like Glenn Beck and Rick Perry. This can be done through education and more responsible media.

7. We need a massive social movement. It worked in the 60s. The current Wall Street protests are a good beginning. Even Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke approved of them! This is the only way to counterbalance the noisy Tea Party, because the stupid media only cover sensationalism. A recent labor rally in Washington drew 100,000, yet the media barely reported it.

8. Stop focusing on Identity Politics (sexual preference, transgender rights, ethnicity, etc.). It’s not about heterosexuals oppressing gays, one ethnicity oppressing another, men oppressing women. The TRUE problem is the plunder of the working class by the plutocracy. It’s all about bread-and-butter. The rest is distraction and division.

9. Stop blaming politicians. You elected them. YOU are the problem.

10. Stop thinking that the problem will go away. It’s worse than you think. We hear a lot about Greece and the imminent collapse of the Euro, but think about this: Greece’s sovereign debt is 140% of its GDP, and ours is already at 100% of GDP. Furthermore, there isn’t a single country on earth whose trade imbalance comes even CLOSE to ours: We hemorrhage half a trillion dollars per year that way. Out of 191 countries, we rank 191st. The next closest countries (Spain, Italy, etc.) run trade deficits about one tenth ours!

(See: List of sovereign states by current account balance)

leave comment here

The Harrowing Road to Sarlat

2011-10-04T21:39:00.000-07:00

By Tom Kando

My wife and I go to Europe a lot. This time we decided to check out the Dordogne for a week, and finish with a week in Rome. We checked out this beautiful region, including its prodigious prehistorical paintings. Replicas at Lascaux, but originals elsewhere, for example in the caves of Ruffignac.

We flew from Amsterdam to Bordeaux, where we landed at 7:00 PM. I had reserved a hotel room in Sarlat. I figured that this town was about a two-hour ride from Bordeaux. So I expected to reach our hotel by 9:30 PM. Not great, but do-able.

Lately, we have been using my Garmin for GPS in Europe. Over there they call it a Tom Tom. We begin our two-hour drive thinking we are in good hands (foolishly, as you will see shortly). Of course, I also have a map as back-up.

I plug the Tom Tom into the car. It’s a Citroen Picasso. When the Hertz woman gave me the key, I joked that I would have preferred a Toulouse-Lautrec, in whose home region we now are. She didn’t laugh.

We take the Autoroute and leave Bordeaux as the sun sets over the Gironde - the immense estuary of the Garonne river. Soon we are driving across Aquitaine/Gascony. These two names refer to nearly coterminous areas of Southwestern France. “Aquitaine” has generally been used throughout history as a province of ancient Rome, and later with reference to Eleanor and her husband Henry II, the Hundred Years War, etc.

“Gascony,” on the other hand, evokes images of the 17th century cloak-and-dagger sagas immortalized by Dumas in the Three Musketeers and Rostand’s Cyrano de Bergerac. More recently, Robert Merle has written a priceless series of 13 novels, Fortune de France ( written in Rabelaisian French!) in which his chief protagonist Pierre de Siorac experiences all the fascinating adventures of that turbulent era.

And all of this takes place in the region through which we are now racing as night falls. Signs indicating towns such as Bergerac, Cadillac, Cognac, and Siorac-de-Riberac give us a clue that we are, indeed, in Musketeer territory.

There is hardly any traffic on the autoroute. Alas, we hit our first obstacle: a toll booth. Sometimes, these can be hellish things. You see, toll booths in France are rarely manned by real people. But woe unto you if you have any difficulty navigating one of these, and traffic starts piling up behind you!

The first toll booth is no problem. The machine just spits out an entry ticket. The problem is usually at the other end, when you have to pay to exit the autoroute.

An hour or so later, we approach the exit booth. Signs tell you which lane to choose. I choose the lane/booth that says “credit card,” because I don’t have much change. My entry ticket says that we owe 13.60 Euros.

I try to pay. I insert my credit card 4 different ways, exhausting all possible positions and permutations. It doesn’t work. It keeps spitting it out. Ah, there is a help button.

A French voice answers: “Oui?”
“My credit card doesn’t work and I don’t have the exact change.”
“You must punch in ze peen numburr.”
“I don’t have a peen number. This is a credit card requiring a signature.”
“Oh, Monsieur, I am sorry, ve do not use zat in Franhce anymore...”

How stupid of me to bring a quaint old American credit card without a pin number!

“Monsieur, you must go to ze cash lane and put ze cash in ze machine.”

I don’t have enough change, and I don’t see any slot for bills. I get out of the car, walk around the machine, in the dark. I finally detect a slot for bills and insert a 20 Euro bill. If I don’t get back any change, hey, it’s better to overpay than be the prisoner of the autoroute. Ha! The gate opens up. We are free to go.

We drive for a half hour or so, and then we hit another toll booth. What the hell? We never went through a booth to get an ENTRY ticket, so how can we pay to exit now? I don’t even know how much we owe!

I shove another 20 Euro bill into the machine. Surely that should cover half an hour on the road, no? Thank God, the machine regurgitates some change. I have no idea how much I paid.

It’s after 10:00 PM. We are still on the autoroute. Madame Tom Tom keeps “recalculating.” She commands me to take a right to get off the autoroute and get on the secondary road to Sarlat. The problem is that we see no exit. Her digital brain sees the roads we are overpassing but to which the turnpike doesn’t connect, and she thinks that we can fly onto it. She screams, “turn right!”

I suddenly see the BACK of road signs, signs which are apparently meant to be read by ONCOMING traffic! Am I driving in the OPPOSITE lanes of the divided autoroute?

My God, we are going to die! The latest toll booth snafu must have so confused me that I somehow ended up on the wrong side of the turnpike!

I move over as far to the right as possible, driving on the shoulder trying to avoid the first car coming our way which will surely crash into us head-on.

A few kilometers further, signs make me realize that I am not, after all, on the wrong side of the autoroute, driving suicidally into oncoming traffic. I just had a panic attack.

Madame Tom Tom keeps ordering us to go back. The dumbass doesn’t know that you can’t make a U-turn on a superhighway. We need to find an exit. But none is in sight.

Finally, almost 30 kilometers further, we find an exit and we decide to ignore Madame Tom Tom’s advice...

And right after we get off the turnpike, a stroke of luck: A road sign says “Sarlat.” Hurray!

We are now driving on dark, desolate, empty, zig-zagging mountain roads, occasionally coming by a farm house or a small hamlet. Madame Tom Tom keeps babbling “turn left, turn left!” But I am no longer listening to her. I will just go by the road signs. After 15 kilometers, there is another Sarlat sign, straight ahead. And she wants me to take a left! She must have it in for us!

I finally disconnect Madame Tom Tom. I feel that I am performing an execution. Well, she deserves it. She was trying to kill us.

We reach Sarlat after midnight - 5 hours after landing in Bordeaux. The hotel night clerk lets us in. We tell him our adventure. What a guy: He goes to the kitchen, prepares an entire meal and brings it to our room! Who says Frenchmen can’t be classy?

The rest of our sojourn in the Dordogne was delightful. leave comment here

Blogging

2011-09-28T14:10:00.000-07:00

by Madeleine Kando

I have been spending an awful lot of time lately getting this blog ‘optimized’. It is, of course, a never ending process, especially for someone like me, who has an obsessive compulsive nature.

I am starting to feel the side-effects of too much web searching, too much sitting on my posterior. I have forgotten what blogging is really about – writing good stuff for those of you out there, who seem to enjoy it.

But even blogging is a term that needs to be put under a magnifying glass. 'Web logging' is the original term. So, what exactly are you logging, when you web log?

I can understand the word ‘logging’ in the context of a world explorer, like Christopher Columbus. He logged his journey, so that, in case he shipwrecked, there would be a record of his attempts at discovering the other half of the world. But logging what color lipstick you are going to wear to a party? Is that worthy of anyone’s reading time?

Let's be honest, except for the few outstanding blogs out there in whose category I will never dare put myself, most blogs are really diaries with a whole lot of ballony and very little substance. On a blog you can voice any trivial thought that would have gone unsaid under the old rules of the printed page. The cost of printing was a safeguard against b.s.

Besides, most bloggers don't want to read other blogs, they want others to read THEIR blogs, including me. After all, aren’t we all the center of the blog universe?

My husband, who doesn’t blog, doesn’t comment on blogs, doesn’t read blogs (except mine, after we’ve had a fight and he is trying to kiss up to me), is the smart one. He knows that other people’s diaries are just random thoughts that should really be kept in a blogger’s head rather than have them pollute the internet. I mean, one of the first things babies have to learn is not to defecate all over the place. The same should apply to bloggers.

I know what you are thinking: ‘look who’s talking?’ Yes, I guess you are right. I am the worst offender. Here I am, ranting about blogging, while I am blogging.

But at least I am conscious of my own egomaniac personality. My ‘diary’ has helped me get things off my chest without constantly harassing my husband. It has been a place to ‘pretend’ write. Will I ever write for real? Like a story that is longer than a two-page rant?

Aaah, now that I have got THAT off my chest I can continue with my attempt at 'optimization'. That way you can all benefit from my infinite wisdom on the futility of blogging. leave comment here

Language and Colors: Now you see Them, Now you Don't

2011-09-23T07:04:00.000-07:00

by Madeleine Kando

Not too long ago, people believed that the ability to see colors was a trait that was inherited over generations. Even as recently as 1858, the British statesman William Gladstone theorized that Homer must have been color-blind because his texts don’t mention the colors blue or green. He concluded that full-color vision had not yet developed in humans at that time.

People in the 1800’s still thought that physical changes during one’s life-time could be passed on to the next generation. In Rudyard Kipling's ‘Just So Stories', the elephant gets his long trunk because an alligator pulls and pulls on it, until it is permanently stretched. Every child understands that this is just a fairy tale and that we cannot pass on acquired characteristics to our off-spring. Even if you spend your entire life dieting, trying to make yourself thin as a rail, your children will not be born like anorexic models. The only reason elephants have long trunks is due to natural selection.

Many primitive tribes don’t have words for blue or purple. So the experts assumed that these people couldn’t see certain colors (nature) because their language (culture) didn’t have words for it.

English (as far as I know) doesn’t have a word for that part of the face that is between the nose and the mouth: does that mean that we don’t see it? That is what Gladstone said about Homer. He didn’t use the word ‘blue’, therefore he couldn’t see blue.

I have read somewhere that eskimos have many more words for 'white' than we do. Does that mean that they actually see more gradations of white? Does speaking ‘Eskimo’ change the way you see reality?

In French, everything is either feminine or masculine. ‘la lune’ (the moon), ‘le soleil’ (the sun) etc. I must confess that I assign a more masculine personality to the sun than to the moon. Is it because French is my first language and I learnt early on that everything in the world is either feminine and masculine? Does a particular language influence how we think? Are English speakers more egalitarian and less sexist because they only know things by the article ‘the’?

I know from personal experience that I feel like a different person depending on which language I speak. French forces me to be eloquent and poetic. When I speak Dutch something urges me to be practical and non-emotional. When I speak English I somehow relax, become a pragmatic and no b.s. type of person.

So, which is it? Does language determine how you see yourself and the world, or does the world around you determine how you use a certain language? Chomsky said that there is something universal about language and that is as basic as walking or breathing. Others talk about ‘linguistic relativity’, which means that the language you speak influences how you see things. I believe that it is both. What do you think? leave comment here

** If you are interested in this subject I recommend Guy Deutscher's 'Through The Language Glass'.

What do Christianity and Marxism have in common?

2011-09-13T03:23:00.000-07:00

By Tom Kando

At the risk of offending some/many people, I would like to draw a comparison between two ideas/ideologies/"systems,"call it what you will, and point out some similarities:

2,000 years ago, one of the greatest men in history launched a new movement, based on admirable moral idea(l)s. Jesus Christ's revolution was incredibly necessary, as the Roman world had become increasingly cruel and unjust

Then, over a number of centuries, Christianity gradually took over control, and it became the new power system. It bred its own oppression, injustice and above all a stifling dogma which prevented intellectual and scientific progress for over a millennium. From a noble idealism, it turned into the number one cause of world retardation.

In the 19th century, a new thought emerged - Socialism. Its many spokesmen included Karl Marx. Today people throw around the epithet "Marxism" recklessly, even though Socialist thought is complex and varied enough to fill a library. But I'll follow suit and use the vulgar short-hand term "Marxism" myself.

Christianity was based on love. Jesus' aphorisms were brilliant and to the core: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven," "Turn the other cheek," "love thy enemy." Nevertheless, it is this magnificent idea which then produced the Inquisition, the Auto Da fe's and the Crusades, in sum the Dark Ages.

And what about Socialism/Marxism? How can anyone be against equality, justice, abolishing poverty, a government organized for the good of the people instead of the plutocracy? Lofty ideals too, no?
But this system also turned into a nightmare: Stalin, the Soviet Gulag, Mao's Cultural Revolution, etc.

It's clear, isn't it: Both systems began as a set of noble ideas and ideals, and then their implementation went haywire.

But wait, this is not the end of the story: Today, many Americans say about Socialism: "Bah, it may be a good theory, but it doesn't work in practice." But if we had said the same thing about Christianity, we would have junked it long ago. Yet, after Christianity's excesses of the past, it is now the faith of hundreds of millions, and viewed as benign even by non-Christians such as myself.

So the question is: Do you throw the baby out with the bathwater? We did not do this with Christianity, even though it was a bloodthirsty monstrosity when it had a monopoly on power. I believe that Socialism deserves a similar fate. Despite the horrors of Soviet Communism, Pol Pot and all the others, we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. leave comment here

Europe is Not in Decline

2011-09-12T04:31:00.000-07:00

by Juliette Kando

I have just come from Amsterdam via London, back to Southern Spain and I do not see a decline in Europe apart from perhaps fewer Real Estate agents in Spain. Generally the people in Europe are almost as fat as in America, they drive new cars, I do not see any beggars or poor people. In Holland house prices have risen by 30% since last year! Yes everyone moans about the "economy", but isn't that to a great extend just talking about the news?
I repeat: The news bears little relevance to the reality we see around us. How can we, educated middle class Westerners moan about hard financial times when our bellies and shopping malls are bursting at the seams? I don't get it.

Collapse of the EU?
This is the kind of statement you find in the media: "Because of the economic crisis, there is a threat of re-nationalization and the collapse of the EU."
The people of Europe need time to get used to being interested in a unified Europe. It takes time to let go of nationalism, to cease caring only about your own country. It will take one or two more generations for all Europeans to "feel" European. But we sure won't go back to passports, visas, different currencies and more stringent export and import rules.

Never Been Done: What Europe has done has never been done before: They have conquered a vast territory without colonizing or making war. Instead they said to all the poor countries around them like Spain, Eastern Europe etc:
"Get your act together, and then you may qualify to join us." Brussels doled out billions to Spain to ameliorate Spanish infrastructure, highways and airports. Southern Spain is now the "Florida of Europe". West Germany has painlessly absorbed the burdens of its Eastern poor sister. My Slovenian friends spend their winters here working. They don't need a work permit. Most Europeans, especially the younger generation couldn't conceive of things going back to the old ways, it's impossible. We still have a long way to go, but the idea of Europe going back to individual nations is preposterous.

To Sum Up: I believe that with strong long-term planning and learning from past mistakes Europe is going to be fine. We, Westerners could more readily accept the positive sides of Arab culture and recognize our own faults. Then, give or take a couple of generations of intercultural communication at grass roots level, we'll all find a way to live together happily ever after. At least until the Martians come. leave comment here

Has the 9-11 Attack Changed Anything?

2011-09-10T01:07:00.000-07:00

By Tom Kando

It is incumbent to post something about 9/11, on the decennial anniversary of the attack. Let me try to come up with something non-superfluous, something beyond the platitudes uttered by the media at this time.

I am in Holland right now. (From where I flew back to California by way of Newark on 9/10, 2001, incidentally! Can you believe it?)

Maybe I can say something positive from this vantage point. In the US, of course, the commemoration is important.

First, the BAD: Besides the attack itself and the 3,000 civilian deaths, there have been enormous additional costs. America's response to the worst attack it has ever suffered in its entire history has been halting, flawed, confused, incredibly costly, questioned and questionable in many ways. We have waged at least one misplaced war, the victim compensation process and the redevelopment of ground-zero have been marked by litigation, contention, delay, cost overruns, inefficiency and disunion (although the ground zero memorial park which is finally taking shape now is magnificent and deeply meaningful).

The political climate has changed. Some of the country's rightward drift and its xenophobia can be attributed to 9/11. Right-wing nativism has also grown elsewhere in the Western World, for example Geert Wilders here in the Netherlands.

The dual war has cost the lives of more than 5,000 US soldiers, those of more than 100,000 Iraqi and Afghan civilians, TRILLIONS (not billions) in expenses, and incalculable additional direct and collateral costs.

The country's response to 9/11 has often been compared to its reaction to Pearl Harbor, which is often said to have been guided by greater moral clarity and to have been "better" in many other ways, occurring at a time when the country was less confused. Who knows.

But it is wrong to dwell on the negative. I prefer to see the glass as half full:

The Spring issue of the Dutch magazine "Maarten" contains an article titled "No, the World has not changed after 9/11."

The article is almost correct. Its main conclusion is that "the changes of the past 10 years are not the consequence of 9/11, but of how the West reacted to it."

All in all, Americans should feel good about several things:

1. As Maarten notes, none of the hyperbole expressed at the time has come to pass. 9/11 was not the beginning of World War Three - cold or hot. It has not lead to a "Clash of Civilizations" (Samuel Huntington). It was not the beginning of a new era in world history.

2. American civilization and civility have survived. We have not become a police state. There has been no significant erosion of civil rights. There have been no pogroms against Muslims who live among us.The only thing that's become a little bit more of a
hassle is flying. But we have adapted to this brilliantly - testimony to man's infinite ingenuity.

3. As President Obama winds down our two wars in the next couple of years, we can expect the country to improve on its priorities.

4. America's relationship to the world has improved (somewhat). Here in Holland, for example, there is quite a bit of coverage of the 10th anniversary of 9/11.

The virulent anti-Americanism which existed in most of Europe during the Bush years is gone. It has not been replaced by love, but by a mixture of indifference, continued sympathy for Obama, and some empathy (not sympathy), in the sense that more Europeans now realize that America is fallible, not all-mighty, sort of like Europe itself.

5. Remember that dozens of US allies, abiding by NATO's article Number Five, have fought on America's side in the two retaliatory wars upon which it embarked a decade ago. They have done this sometimes reluctantly, and generally in an auxiliary role. Even so, many hundreds of European soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade.

I am not talking about the merits of the wars, or lack thereof.

6. The US's diminished role, its limits, its less-than-superpower status are a blessing in disguise. When new problems surface, they are not necessarily America's responsibility. Libya? Let others deal with it. And so France, the UK and others do, with America playing the auxiliary role. Perfect.

7. The Arab Spring? The verdict isn't in yet. It may be a positive phenomenon. Maybe it will somehow reduce the world's polarization between Western Crusaders and Middle-Eastern Jihadists (as long as it doesn't make Israel's position untenable).
Who knows...

So, let's try to be positive about the world on September 11, 2011, and about America's relationship to the world. Nine Eleven was a terrible attack, the monstrous and unforgivable murder of three thousand innocent civilians who had done nothing bad to Muslims, to Arabs, or to Middle-Easterners. Our subsequent rage and our continued tears are justified.

At the same time, we can see, a decade later, that it did not lead to armageddon, and insofar as the world order has changed a little, it may be for the better. This is certainly not what the terrorists were counting on, but it may be what has happened, unwittingly. At least, this is my hope. leave comment here

The Proof is in the Pudding

2011-09-07T05:48:00.000-07:00

by Madeleine Kando

In his book 'The Tyranny of Guilt', Pascal Bruckner explains the causes of Europe's guilt complex vis-à-vis the rest of the world. The best approach to living conscious-free is to become a passive observer. Europe stands on the side-lines in fear of repeating the atrocities it has committed in the past.

Is there an analogy to be drawn here between nations and people? Does old age inherently imply that one is more careful, less adventurous, less confident about the future and one's ability to affect it?

Youth, on the other hand, is quick to act, certain that it has the answers to any problem. Bruckner points out that America is now in the driver's seat, not because it wants to, but because it still believes in itself, in its ability to change the course of world events. Compared to Europe, America is the offspring. Europe looks on, a passive, critical, judging parent, but does not want to get involved.

He has good advise for Europe: let it teach America to restrain itself, to become more critical of its own actions, to not be so intoxicated by its own vigor. Exactly like a wise parent would do with an unruly teenager. But Europe is still licking its wounds and cannot exercise the wisdom that it has acquired after all its suffering.

Europe's days of colonialism were full of atrocities, injustices and insults to the colonized. But it also gave those former colonies a way to look at themselves through the eyes of a culture that respects the rule of law, individual freedom and democracy.

Introspection is the hallmark of maturity. That is what the West has accomplished. Introspection and an ability to tolerate contradictions. The ability to acknowledge its faults. Islam, on the other hand, does not tolerate ambiguity. It is a safe-haven against too much liberty, too much freedom and too much equality.

Europe and America can tolerate the scrutiny of the light cast upon them by the press and still remain intact. That is what Muslim fundamentalists despise the most in us. That is what is most threatening to them. A light shining on an imperfection with all its ugly truths revealed, for everyone to see, to judge and eventually, to forgive.

Bruckners' advice for Europe is to stop wallowing in shame and move on. There is plenty of injustice in the world that needs fixing. Nobody is served by having a catatonic giant sit on the benches watching the game while wallowing in self-pity.

I would add that Europe now has a real chance to prove that it can let bygones be bygones. Because of the economic crisis, there is a threat of re-nationalization and the collapse of the EU. The stronger nations (in particular Germany) should step up to the plate and do what’s right by ‘Europe’, not by their own countries. leave comment here

The Cancerous Growth of Capitalism

2011-09-04T03:36:00.000-07:00

By Tom Kando

If there is anything regarding the western world’s current economic problems about which there is almost total consensus, it’s that economies must grow. No politician, economist or opinion leader questions this. But I do.

First, a personal note: why should I have to make and spend more money every year? I don’t need new things all the time. I don’t need a new car, even though the average age of my 2 Hondas is 12.5 years. They both run superbly. My friends drive BMWs and Mercedes, so the only reason I would need to upgrade would be to please them.

I-phones? I-pads? Kindles? Androids? My cell phone works just fine (in Europe too, by the way, where the Verizon I-phone does not work). I have everything I need. A beautiful house, overseas travel, Friday night out to dinner and a movie with my wife. I don’t need to “grow economically.”

And what about national economies?

The consensus is that there is only one way for the (Western) world to get out of the Great Recession and out of the debt crisis, and that is to GROW out of it. However, there is a difference between the US and the rest of the Western world: In the US, it is axiomatic that the only action required is to cut government spending. Elsewhere, people agree that the solution consists of both spending cuts and increased taxes. Not only are Europe’s weak sisters (Greece, Portugal, etc.) required to do both of these things, but even an economically healthy country such as France is about to deal with its deficit problem in both of these ways, i.e. by cutting government spending and raising revenue. So has the Conservative Cameron government in Britain. There is only one country where any talk of increased taxation is anathema - the US. I don’t get it. Isn’t what’s good for the goose good for the gander?

Not to mention the fact that recessions require government stimulus spending. The Republicans’ insistence on cutting instead of stimulating the economy reminds me of the medieval medical practice of blood-letting: More likely to kill the patient than to cure him.

So in the US, the epicenter of Capitalism, it’s all about cutting public services, all about hurting the little guy. Nowhere else in the Western world is the emphasis so stark. And not surprisingly, nowhere else in the Western world is there as large a gap between the poor and the rich.

Meanwhile, the dollar continues to decline. This sure shows how strong the US economy is, and how confident the world is in our currency. Ha!

But reduced taxes (at least those of the rich and of the corporations) are supposed to create jobs and to grow the economy. No matter that the rich are more likely to spend their money at Tiffany’s, and that the corporations are more likely to out source jobs.

“Growth” is the universal mantra, however arrived at. Opinion leaders right and left bemoan that the US only grew by 1.5% over the past years. Everyone agrees that we must grow much more, including Obama, Democrats, not just Wall Street. Why?

Growth primarily means more consumption. That’s how GNP and GDP are measured - how much do the people of a given country spend and buy.

But we don’t need to grow. Growth is bad for the world and bad for our girth. We have grown enough. You can’t grow for ever. Once you have grown from childhood to adulthood, you must stop growing. Do you want to gain weight for ever? You want to weigh 400 pounds?

The modern capitalist world’s problem is over supply! We are forced to over consume. We are like the geese being stuffed to make goose liver paté. Advertising is the very essence of our culture: the masses being made to consume what they don’t need. The trinkets, the I-phones, the I-pads, the kindles, the I-pods, the androids, annual new fashions, the planned obsolescence, a country vastly overbuilt with strip malls and commercial properties. You go see a movie at a multiplex, and they show films to audiences of 6 people.

We don’t have a demand problem. There is no scarcity. Do you see lines in front of stores, like in the Soviet Union in the seventies? We consume too much, not too little. Capitalism has become a system for producers, not for consumers. It relentlessly maximizes production and enlists the consumer to buy, to consume and to go broke, ruining his pocket book, his health and the environment. leave comment here

America, the Beautiful

2011-09-01T09:57:00.000-07:00

by Madeleine Kando

I have been sitting in this airplane seat for the past two hours, flying from San Francisco to Chicago. Mine seems to be the only window whose shade isn't down. Most passengers are either reading, watching t.v. or sleeping. What on earth possesses them to ignore this unique opportunity to witness one of the world's wonders up close? For me, flying cross-country is still an incredible adventure.

This plane is like a claustrophobic, smelly movie theatre, showing a super-sized, five hour long movie. The scene is continually changing. What is that, over there in the distance? A hazy yellow patch and next to it, tiny specks which must be houses. Is it sand, salt or just a dust storm the size of a small town?

How can one single country contain so much empty space? An enormous brown and golden colored expanse that reminds me of a painter's palette. Criss-crossed by rivers, mountain ranges, lakes, salt and sand flats. The sheer size of it makes me dizzy. Nothing but mostly uninhabited space, as far as the eye can see. Here and there some traces of human interference in this otherwise untouched territory. I see gashes that look like someone took a blunt carving knife and hacked out a piece of the landscape. Those must be huge copper mines or some other type of fossil fuel ripped out of the earth’s crust. I should feel outraged. Isn’t that what destroys our planet? But they look so small and insignificant in the midst of all this space. A mere blemish.

A line as straight as an arrow cuts through what must be hundreds and hundreds of miles of desert and prairie. Tiny, slow moving white specks give it away as a road. I am not sure where I am: Utah? Colorado? Wyoming? Why the hell don't they have a tour guide on board? I am tempted to pull on the flight attendant's sleeve as she walks by and ask her, but she is too busy serving juices and overpriced sandwiches. Does she know how privileged she is, if she only bothered to stop and look outside?

The scene has changed to farmland. Green pancake shaped patches dot the landscape. As if someone had taken a giant compass and drawn circles to pass the time, like I used to do in school.

The colors have changed from deep red ochre to pastel green. Rivers, lakes, roads, mountain ranges come and go. I am literally getting high on the view.

But highs never last. We are entering a low pressure zone and bit by bit, all the colors on the palette are covered by a fluffy white blanket that resembles sheep's wool. I am back in the real world. My back hurts, the person behind me is snoring and somewhere, a baby is crying.

I will have to wait for another flight out west to get my next fix. In the meantime I will make do with the knowledge that I live in one of the most beautiful countries in the world. leave comment here

Are There Too Many People?

2011-08-28T12:43:00.000-07:00

By Tom Kando

Today, I am traveling to the Netherlands again. Every time I arrive, what strikes me most forcefully is how crowded this place is compared to the US:

By some measures, the Netherlands are still one of the most, if not THE most densely populated place on earth: The Netherlands have 1,100 people per square mile. That’s 13 times more than the US density of 83 per square mile. (The world as a whole, incidentally, has 35 people per square mile)

Comparing regions: California has 235 people per square mile. In the province of South Holland, there are 3,165, and in North Holland there are 2,535. That’s 11 to 13 times more.

Only two countries in the world are more densely populated than the Netherlands - Bangladesh and South Korea - and NONE more than North and South Holland. Only city-states such as Monaco, Singapore and the Vatican are.

China? Only 363. India? Only 950. Japan? 870.

What an admirable people, the Dutch! Despite their enormous density, the country is spacious, agricultural, incredibly CLEAN and ecologically viable. They are the world’s number one exporters of dairy and flower bulbs. And their solution to land scarcity? Reclaim the sea. Sure beats military conquest to satisfy one’s hunger for Lebensraum, doesn’t it? Today, the country is 15% larger than it was when I lived there. I sometimes joke that one day they’ll reclaim the sea all the way to New York harbor.

A few years ago, I was interviewed by a student who was doing research on overpopulation and its effects. Here are some of her questions, and my answers:

1. What do you think of the U.S. compared to other countries in terms of overpopulation? Is there a difference? The US has a little over 300 million people. For a country of this size (three and a half million square miles) that's not so much. Most countries of the world have much greater densities - e.g. Holland, Japan, etc - and many of those countries are doing well. Of course, the US wastes more energy and consumes more than anyone else, and its growing population is taking a toll. Ideally, we would stop growing and stabilize our population. But all in all, we cannot say that the US is overpopulated. If we make a mess of our environment, it's because of bad policies, not because there are too many people.

2. Is overpopulation a worldwide problem? Worldwide, the problem is very different: The Third World's population is growing way too much - from 2% to 4% per year, depending on the country, compared to 1% for the US and 0% in much of Europe. So the world's population is growing by 80 million a year. This is happening precisely in the poorest countries of the world, which can afford it the least. This is a disaster.

3. Do you think that overpopulation is a serious problem that needs to be fixed? If so, is there any way to fix it? Yes, overpopulation is probably THE most serious problem the world is facing (but again, remember, the US is not part of the problem. In fact, it's part of the solution, since we absorb over a million immigrants from poor, overpopulated countries every year.
Obviously, birth control is one of the two solutions. The other one is economic development, so that the Third World can go through the so-called Demographic Transition, as the Western World did earlier. China is making a good dent in the problem, through both of these methods.

4. What kinds of problems accompany overpopulation? They are the Malthusian problems - war, starvation and disease. Look at the world today: war and violence in the Middle East, starvation in Africa and disease in Africa and Asia. These are the Malthusian checks which will drastically reduce the population if we continue to have too many babies.

5. Is anything being done to help control overpopulation? Third World countries are encouraged to practice birth control, but without economic development, it doesn't work very well. As to economic development, that's not going too well in many places.

All in all, though, the world's rate of population growth has already slowed down significantly - from 3% to 1.7% - so there is hope for the future. leave comment here

Europe's Growing Pains

2011-08-26T19:01:00.000-07:00

by Madeleine Kando

There is a lot of talk lately warning about the impending downfall of 'Europe'. Forbes Magazine has an article: The End Of Europe: A Civilization Built On Sand, basically saying that, since there is no unifying force to hold Europe together, it has no army, no common language and no common religion, Europe is bound to end soon.

But how can a continent disappear? Short of the earth's crust splitting open and swallowing it whole, Europe is here to stay. What they are really talking about is the European Union, of course.

The European Union was set up after the Second World War to prevent further bloodshed between neighboring countries. It was officially established in 1993 with the Treaty of Maastricht. So, when these writers talk about 'Europe' they are talking about something that is only eighteen years old!

In her article 'The Decline and Fall of Europe', Rana Foroohar explains how Europe is going to disappear because the political will to stick up for each other in hard times is not there. The big brothers (Germany and France) are not looking out for the little sisters (Spain and Greece). As proof of selfishness and lack of unity she points to the rejection of a European Constitution when it was put to a vote by referendum. I believe if it had been given more time in a less 'top down' approach, it would have succeeded.

Naturally there is great resistance to sacrifice part of your own welfare for the common good. If New Mexico defaulted on its debt and if Massachusetts and New York were asked to bail it out, would they willingly do so, no questions asked?

Yes, 'old' Europe, as we like to call it is in its infancy. Everyone is desperately trying to make it grow up much too fast, including Europeans themselves.

But I admire Europeans' sensible, patient approach to the process. The riots and protests amongst the young are shocking to watch, but casualties are rare and it's not like America doesn't have its share of violence on the streets.

No European country, in their right mind, would want to see the EU disappear. It has made many things possible: excellent infrastructure, good education and an affordable health care. I am sure that Europe will not throw out the baby with the bath water.

There was a time when every European country thought they were superior to their neighbor. And although there is an increase in nationalism in some European countries, others have grown closer. I believe we should give credit where credit is due and not expect miracles from a 'country' that has barely had time to realize that it exists. leave comment here

Which are the World’s Best Universities?

2011-08-23T12:38:00.000-07:00

By Tom Kando

I just came across a fascinating article about the University of Shanghai’s annual ranking of the world’s 500 best universities (It’s actually 1,000, but the readily available data only cover 500).
Here is the site: Academic Ranking of World Universities 2011.The research and the methodology have good credibility. The criteria are the usual ones - the quality of education, research output, Nobel laureates, etc. Here are some of the results:

1. Top ten: Harvard, UC Berkeley, Stanford, MIT, Cambridge, Princeton, Columbia, Chicago and Oxford. Thus, 8 of the top 10 are in the US and the other 2 are in the UK. (and here I was just whining about unjustified Anglo-Saxon chauvinism in my blog last week! I may have to eat crow).

2. Looking at the top 100 is more interesting: A staggering 54 of these are American! 11 of them are British. The highest-ranked non-Anglo University in the world is Tokyo University, at Number Twenty. The highest-ranked mainland European University is the Zurich Institute of Technology, in 23rd place.

3. Besides the US’ 54 Universities, the top 100 Universities include 11 in the UK, 5 in Japan, 5 in Germany, 4 in Canada, 3 in France, 3 in Switzerland, 3 in Australia, 3 in Sweden, 2 in Denmark, 2 in the Netherlands, and 1 in each Israel, Finland, Russia, Norway and Belgium.

4. California: We have 10 of the world’s top 100 Universities, including UC Berkeley, UCLA 13, UC San Diego 14, UC San Francisco 18, UC Santa Barbara 32, UC Davis and UC Irvine 46, plus Stanford 3, Cal Tech 6, and U.S.C. 46. Thus, every UC campus is in the world’s top 100 except Riverside and Santa Cruz. California Higher Education is stupendous, considering that it has been savaged for many years by a shortsighted legislature and electorate, who year after year are reducing state support to higher education.

5. A few Domestic Surprises: Some major American Universities’ relatively low rankings, including Texas at 38, Ohio State at 59, Indiana at 90. Most of the big Midwestern and Southern universities (Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Tennessee, etc.) are not in the top 100. Football was not one of the ranking criteria!

6. Some international surprises: Heidelberg, only ranked 63, the Ecole Normale Superieure and Leiden University tied for 70, the universities of Amsterdam and Vienna are not even in the top 100. These are institutions whose faculty once included people like Rene Descartes, Emile Durkheim and Sigmund Freud!

Russia has ONE university in the world’s top 100.

China does not have a single University in the top 100. The highest ranked Chinese institution is Taiwan University ranked between 100 and 150, and half of the Chinese universities in the top 500 are in Hong Kong. The highest-ranked mainland Chinese University is Peking University, ranked between 100 and 150.

And the University of Shanghai, where these prestigious annual rankings are done, doesn’t appear anywhere on the list of 500. Is this because they didn’t want to self-rank, or are they no good?

7. Neither does Italy have any top 100 university, even though that country INVENTED the University. The two oldest universities in the world are Bologna (1088) and Padua (1222).

8. No CSU campus is listed anywhere in the world’s top 500 (or 1,000) universities. I guess we are not real universities.

9. Finally, a personal note about some of the universities with which I and my family have been affiliated: I got my PhD from Minnesota, number 28, I taught at Penn State, number 43, I went to the University of Amsterdam and taught at UC Riverside, neither of them in the top 100. My daughters graduated from UC Davis, number 46, and from UC Berkeley, number 2, but the NUMBER ONE PUBLIC UNIVERSITY in the universe! leave comment here

Israel and Palestine: Whose Turf is it?

2011-08-19T18:33:00.000-07:00

By Tom Kando

The Jewish-Palestinian conflict is interminable. It has raged since before I was born, and it will not be solved by the time my grand-children are gone. It is what it is. It almost seems mystical. One of the world’s sine qua nons. Fate, or God, or something, has decreed that this problem must not be solved.

Many of the arguments on both sides hinge on who should own the turf, i.e. who was there first. So how far back do we go? Do we just look at 1948, when Israel became independent, or do we go back to Moses, 5,000 years ago?

Here are some historical facts you might consider:

1. Palestine’s Jewish population in biblical times is anybody’s guess, but it is certain that Jews were a majority. There were several million Jews in Palestine. King David’s census suggests 5 million - which may be inflated.

2. There were many diasporas, at the hands of conquerors. For example the Babylonian captivity in the 5th century BC and the expulsion of Jews by the Roman emperor Titus during the 1st century AD.

3. During the 1st century, Jews were the majority population in the region, Perhaps 2.5 million.

4. More than a millennium later came the Ottoman and British Mandates: Between the 13th and 16th centuries, the Jewish population declined to almost nil - maybe 5,000. Jews were now a minority, Muslims a majority, although all groups suffered decline, due to the black death and other Malthusian conditions.

5. By 1890, Jews were a growing minority of about 43,000.

6. In 1914, just before World War II and the Balfour Declaration, Jews were a growing minority of about 100,000.

7. By 1931, Jews had continued to grow as a minority, approaching 200,000.

8. In 1947, just before Israeli Independence, Jews were a large minority of about 600,000. Much of the increase was due to the massive post-World-War-Two immigration of Holocaust survivors.

So the current conflict is between two competing nationalisms. While Muslims outnumbered Jews before Israeli independence, there WAS a significant Jewish presence all along. Then in 1947 the surrounding Arab countries declared war on Israel, and they lost. As a result, Israel annexed (additional) territories. It also expelled many Palestinians, although many of those fled from their homes in anticipation of a victorious return, which never happened.

Israel’s history resembles that of many other countries, including the United States. Most countries have expanded at the expense of neighbors whom they defeated. Most international boundaries are the outcome of turf battles. How much territory did America take from Mexico? How often have France and Germany gone to war over territory? Or Hungary and Rumania? Or practically every other country? Not that this is justified, but it is reality.

In a way, Israel’s situation is MORE legitimate than that of most other countries: Israel has at least a plausible historical claim to Palestine, albeit a very ancient one. And its umbilical cord to Palestine was never totally severed. There has always been a Jewish presence there, fluctuating from millions to a few thousand, and resurging well before the 20th century.

Another mitigating feature of Israeli "imperialism," compared to others, is that it has often generously returned many conquered territories (for example the Sinai). If it is holding on to (parts of) the West Bank, that's because the old borders are impossible to defend. The country would have an 8-mile wide "neck."

Furthermore, Israeli “occupation” of much of its territory is more benign than the alternative would be. Areas such as the Negev would be wastelands if not for the irrigation, agriculture and other forms of developments brought there by a modern progressive state, the only affluent and democratic country in the Middle East.

So while I am of course for the two-state solution, compromise regarding the West Bank and all the other things the world has been talking about for almost three quarters of a century, there is one thing which should be non-negotiable: Israel’s right to exist. leave comment here

Anglo-Saxon Chauvinism and its Rebuttal.

2011-08-13T17:31:00.000-07:00

By Tom Kando

Living in the US, I often have to put up with Anglo-Saxon chauvinism. During the Tour de France, some newspaper columnists, thinking that they were funny, wrote that the Tour de France sets a bad example by showing men dressed in skintight colorful clothes, who shave their legs. Over the past ten years, we heard about “freedom fries.” Comedians such as Jay Leno and Dennis Miller often have a great time ridiculing the French for their alleged cowardice and failure to wash themselves. Italians, too, are often ridiculed and seen as corrupt, lazy, cowardly and overall inferior to the Americans and the Brits (although Leno doesn’t go there, because he is of Italian descent).

But chauvinism goes both ways. Let me ask you, what is it exactly that the Anglo-Saxons feel so superior about? Their food and their cooking? Even my grandmother joked that for many centuries fewer countries’ food tasted worse than Britain’s, and that this was why so many Brits emigrated and created an empire.

Then again, maybe corn dogs and other American junk food has remedied this problem?

Or is it our public health, the obesity epidemic on this side of the Atlantic, and the quality of British dental care (which, in all fairness, Jay Leno also picks on), which makes us so superior? Maybe it’s the beauty of Anglo-Saxon inner cities and neighborhoods, places like Newcastle, Detroit, Birmingham and Cleveland?

How about Anglo-Saxon culture? Only in literature are the Anglos world-class. They have a fellow named Shakespeare. But as far as music, art, architecture and sculpture are concerned, the Anglo-Saxon world doesn’t even come close to France, Italy, Germany-Austria.

Are our tastes and our appearance better and more attractive? Only if you like tattoos a lot, if you like pick-up trucks better than Ferraris, dirt biking better than the Tour de France. So why so much Anglo bragging, guys? Why do you feel so superior?

You might ask, why am I even bothering to deal with such ugly, superficial and meaningless comparisons? Well, because sometimes I get fed up with the chauvinism that surrounds me. This is the European-American blog. That’s my brand. One of my main purposes is to take the hot air out of what some people say - whoever they are.

Next time, I’ll get back to one of my favorite pastimes: combating the vicious disease of anti-Americanism. leave comment here

We Need a Scapegoat

2011-08-13T05:08:00.000-07:00

by Madeleine Kando

There is an article in the Sunday New York Times by Drew Western entitled ‘What Happened to Obama?’, in which he accuses the President of being weak and too compromising. He blames him for not having provided the public with a narrative and leadership that they expected from someone they had such high hopes for.

All the things that Obama did: stimulus package, health care reform, credit card reform, bailing out the banks and more, was never explained to the voters. The stimulus package, which was too small to be effective, was perceived as the government, yet again, spending money we didn't have. The Health Care Bill was attacked so viciously by the opposition, including the fabricated 'Death Panels', that no one really understood the benefits of it.

The article goes on to describe Obama as an inexperienced, conflict averse, opportunist, whose policies are motivated by wanting to be re-elected.

Western compares him, unjustly in my view, to leaders like FDR whom the author idolizes. 'FDR had a clear vision where to take the country. He branded the depression as a Hoover depression. President Obama did not tell the story right' Western says. All the things that he is now blamed for: unemployment, economic crisis., are Bush creations, but he is too polite to put the blame where it belongs (my words).

Many of his speeches have contradictions. He is talking about supporting off-shore drilling in a 'climate change' speech.

'Most importantly, voters in the center want a President who shows strength. To satisfy both sides and thinking that that will make people in the middle happy is an illusion. Clinton was a centrist too, but he came across as strong. This president has blinked'. Western even goes as far as saying that President Obama is of the opinion that government is the problem, not the solution.

Ok. So what exactly is Obama blamed for? For not being born a salesman? I agree with that. He couldn't sell ME a pair of shoes even if he tried. But is it fair to blame him for the incredible hatred from the Republican Party for him? It is like blaming a rape victim for being raped.

I understand that most of us are looking for a scapegoat. That is the nature of the beast. When things get tough the tough start blaming. But is it going to change anything to blame Obama for a dysfunctional government? Does it make sense to take out your frustration on someone whose hands are tied behind his back?

When Obama tried to pass the health care bill, there was a lot of resistance to it both in the House and the Senate. But he did it. Did we already forget about that? He blinked a few times, yes. When he chose to extend the tax cut so that the unemployment benefits wouldn't be cut as a counter-measure. He blinked when the Republicans were willing to let the US default on its debt.

When you are hated so much by the opposition that nothing you do will ever change your opponents' hatred of you, do you really need to be hated by your 'friends' as well? leave comment here

Backyard Therapy

2011-08-11T14:24:00.000-07:00

by Madeleine Kando

I am reading the latest earth shattering news on my computer screen: the US has been downgraded from its triple-A status, the stock market has crashed and the economy is heading towards a double-dip recession. I should know better than starting my day by reading the news.

My eye catches some commotion outside my large bay window. Squirrels, jackrabbits, cardinals, pigeons and yellow finches have gathered here in this New England backyard to feast on our generously scattered birdseeds. Suddenly, for some reason only known to these creatures, they all disperse in every imaginable direction, like the rays of a shooting star.

My eyes wander back to my screen where I see burning buildings caused by the riots in London. Police with helmets and clubs are chasing the crowd. I am almost expecting my screen to explode with all this violence and mayhem inside of it.

My eyes wander back. Our local jackrabbit has taken refuge in the tall grass and is looking straight at me with his big brown eyes. His nose is moving a mile a minute. What caused him to run and leave the little pile of seeds that he was so intensely munching on? Soon, the creatures are back, digging, pulling and eating, their movements are jerky and quick, ready for yet another instant retreat to safety.

Have these creatures no shame? To be so self-involved that the horrors inside my screen don't affect them? How can that enormous tree that the squirrels fly off to, be so impervious to what's happening? It's just standing there, decade in and decade out. Nothing bothers it, short of being hit by lightning. How I wish I could be like that…

But being a human, I was cursed the moment I was born when someone had the bright idea to give me a conscience. Why? Who needs it? Everything I was told is a lie. I was told that the world is a mysterious place, full of possibilities. That if you work at it hard enough you can make it a better place. Really?

Back to my screen: Oops, the market went down another 500 points. There goes another 10% of our hard earned investment. And I didn't even have time to make my second cup of coffee.

I am listening to a Program on NPR about Pakistan having one of the fastest growing populations in the world and how parents face the terrible choice of defying their religious leaders, who say that women should have as many babies as they can because birth control is a sin.

The voice on the radio explains rationally that the Mullah's words are sacred. But my cursed conscience makes me want to scream: 'Why don’t you hang this Mullah up by his balls? Why do you give him the power to ruin your lives, your unborn children's lives?"

I look back at the tree, the squirrels, the jack rabbits and the finches.. Ok. I get it. You guys have a secret and you won't share it with me, right? I mean if you shared your secret on how to avoid high blood pressure and chronic depression, it wouldn't be a secret for very long, would it?

I can hear you think: 'Why don't you turn off your damned computer? Stop whining already!' Well, my conscience won't let me, see? It's a conundrum. My twin sister is much wiser. She doesn't 'do' news and I envy her for it. She is on her way to becoming a beautiful tree.

Yes, maybe I should stop punishing myself, stop being such a masochist. Become a 'no news' person. And learn how to become a tree.. Don't those cute little creatures in my backyard look a lot happier than the people on my computer screen?

Something has crashed into my large bay window. I see a flurry of feathers and a pair of large, powerful wings. It has caught something in mid-air and has landed in the grass. I see a beautiful red-tailed hawk hold down a struggling pigeon with bloodied feathers, and in an instant he flies away with his prey dangling from his huge claws.

I wonder if the flock of pigeons that have survived the attack will start a riot in my backyard, holding up signs that say: 'WE WANT JUSTICE' and 'HAWKS GO HOME'! leave comment here

Let’s Eliminate All Taxes

2011-08-07T11:55:00.000-07:00

By Tom Kando

I am listening to Chris Matthews and his guests on MSNBC. This is THE left-liberal network, right? Fox’s counterpoint. I expect it to differ from the standard anti-tax, free market ideology which has taken over most of public opinion.

Today, they are discussing the recent stock market decline, including the Dow’s 513 point drop on August 4. And of course, bemoaning America’s economic troubles.

What is one to do? Matthews asks his expert guests. They all agree that it’s terrible that Obama is stymied at every turn by the Tea Party and by radical Republicans. What can be done?

The experts give their solution. And you know what it is?

Cut taxes! Corporate taxes, to be sure, counterbalanced by closing loopholes, so that tax reform remains revenue-neutral. But still: this is the key recommendation of LEFT-LIBERAL thinkers on MSNBC! Cut taxes!

THAT’S IT?!?!

Here is their well-known and worn-out thinking: Corporate America has piled up $2.5 trillion in cash. Corporate America is very profitable, because it makes lots of money overseas - in China, Brazil, India, Russia, etc.

But they won’t spend money and create jobs in the US. Instead of hiring people, they lay people off, especially permanent employees with costly benefits, replacing them with machines, cheap temporary help and workers in India. So the private sector is not creating jobs. It is not reviving the economy.

Until last year, the government did revive the economy a little, with Obama’s stimulus and Bernanke’s “quantitative easing.” But that’s over. Now, there is not a chance in hell that the government will once again be permitted to stimulate the economy and save thousands of jobs, as it did when it saved the automobile industry. The Tea Party-dominated Republicans will make sure of that. Congress continues to increase the unemployment rate, (as it did in early August when it shut down the FAA).

So corporate America is not WILLING to create jobs, and the government is not PERMITTED to create jobs.

So the solution they propose is to make the already fabulously profitable corporations even more profitable, by reducing corporate taxes! They say that this will motivate them to start hiring again.

This is the solution advocated even on MSNBC, the left-liberal network and, I have to add: even subscribed to by Obama himself and his policy advisers!

What am I missing? As I see it, it’s clear that the corporations don’t want to spend their money on jobs and on investments. They want to sit on it instead.

In ancient Rome, this would have called for proscriptions. But I don’t advocate such a bloody solution. In civilized society, all that this calls for is TAXES.

Why is Keynes so utterly and totally out, and Adam Smith the only voice?

Why are there no calls for at least a mini-New Deal? For hiring 4 million Americans to fix our rotting bridges, roads and schools? And to do so without increasing the national debt, by RAISING taxes, not reducing them?

Today, even “liberals” see tax cuts as the solution to all our economic problems. It’s hopeless. We have lost our way.leave comment here

The Lost Art of Letter Writing

2011-08-05T08:14:00.000-07:00

by Madeleine Kando

While I was cleaning out my basement I found some old, musty boxes stuffed with hundreds of letters. Most of them were written on thin blue Air Mail paper with one edge pre-glued, so that you didn't have to stuff it in an envelope.

I started reading these old old letters. They were from my sister, my mother, my lovers.. Many of them written by people I don't even remember: Ilse, Gerry, Lisa.. Who were they? Was I a good friend to them? Did they also find letters in their basement and tried to remember who this 'Madeleine' was?

I realized, as I was reading these long narratives, that letter writing as a way of communicating, has disappeared forever.

Writing letters was important. It was a window onto a far-away friend's life. You could call them, of course, but the flavor of the carefully chosen words on paper conjured up a unique image of the writer that no other medium could create.

My sister's letters were charming, without pretense, full of warmth and humor. Letter writing was like an intimate conversation between two individuals that is completely lacking in communication tools today. I found letters that reprimanded me for not writing more, there were funny letters, sad letters, unreadable letters..

Letters lets you travel back in time and have the magic power of immortalizing moments of long ago. Even after all this time, these musty old letters had lost none of their power to conjure up a vivid image of the person who had sat down and taken the time to handwrite them.

They were written to one person, maybe two or three, at the most. They were fairly long and detailed. As I write this, I realize that I belong to the last generation of letter writers. My daughters still wrote letters when they were children but theirs is the first 'non-letter writing generation'.

Emails can be detailed but they usually aren't. In fact, email feels more like talking than writing. A friend that I have known for most of my life and with whom I recently reconnected with on Facebook, tried to reassure me that his emails would be short and to the point, so that taking up contact with him would not be a burden.

Facebook is even less communication-friendly. The more friends you have, the less significant the information becomes that you are trying to share. Texting, of course, has nothing to do with letter writing. It should be called the electronic version of the telegram.

We have entered the 'junk food' phase in our ability to communicate. We have become addicted to the quick fix, the easily digestible sound bite. At first, I liked the instant, uncomplicated way of communicating with Skype and Facebook. But now I am aware of its vast limitations. It forces me to abort any meaningful thought that comes into my head. After all, how important can anything be if it can be obliterated with a push of the delete button? leave comment here

Whose Fault is the Deficit Crisis, and What is the Solution?

2011-07-31T10:44:00.000-07:00

By Tom Kando

This post is heavily based on an article by D. Fahrenthold and R. Helderman (see Sacramento Bee, July 29, 2011)

Here I go again, ad nauseam about the federal budget deficit crisis. Please read this, and learn FACTS:

1. The total federal deficit is now at $14. 3 trillion.
2. The overwhelming fault for this deficit lies with George W. Bush and the Republican Party.
3. Before President Reagan, until 1981, the federal government had racked up a deficit of $1 trillion.
4. From 1981 to 1989, the Reagan administration added $1.9 trillion to the deficit, mostly due to tax cuts and increased military spending.
5. From 1989 to 1993, President Bush Senior added $1.5 trillion to the deficit, mostly due to the Gulf War and the recession.
6. From 1993 to 2001, President Clinton added $1.4 trillion to the deficit, despite 2 years of federal surplus.
7. From 2001 to 2008, President George W. Bush added $6.1 trillion to the deficit, to pay for two wars and tax cuts for the rich. How on earth does a government decide to go to war and at the same time reduce taxes? Has this lunacy ever happened before in history?
8. From 2008 to 2011, President Obama added 2.4 trillion to the deficit, to pay for the stimulus, and due to the recession, two continued wars, and extension of the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

Therefore:
9. Over the past 30 years, Republicans have been at the helm for 20 years, and they are responsible for $10 trillion of the total deficit, i.e. 70% of it.
10 . Democrats have been in the White House for 10 years, and they have contributed $4.3 trillion of the deficit, i.e. 30%.

It is despicable for demagogues like Charles Krauthammer on Fox News to keep saying that “blaming Obama’s predecessors for the budget crisis is a cheap shot.” That is PRECISELY where the blame lies! Obama has only been in charge for 2.5 years, and his contribution to the deficit is 17%. It would be a lot less if the “Party of No” had not obstructed every one of his efforts to reduce the deficit.

Message to the Tea Party and to the Republican Party: You must understand once and for all that the deficit crisis was created by YOUR President, by YOUR party, i.e. by YOU. The only time in the past 30 years that the government enjoyed a surplus was under Clinton. This was due to a TAX INCREASE (and a peace dividend). The tax increase, far from slowing down the economy, was in fact accompanied by a dynamite economy.

The ONLY solution:Raise taxes. How? For starters, repeal the Bush tax cuts for the rich.
leave comment here

A Writer's Quest

2011-07-30T08:52:00.000-07:00

by Madeleine Kando

I signed up for a writers’ group last week, thinking that I would meet and learn from other ‘like-minded’ individuals who like to write. Share their stories and get to know some flesh and blood people, rather than knowing them through their ‘words’. The meeting was set at ten at the 'Au Bon Pain' in Danvers.

It was on the other side of nowhere, but I thought: ‘Hey, it’s worth it. Who knows what kind of intellectual treasure I might find.’ I asked my husband how long it would take me to drive to the other side of nowhere, with high morning traffic time included and he said: ‘Oh, count on a good half hour’. So I gave myself plenty of time. I thought: ‘this is important, I don’t want to show up late for this ‘flesh and blood’ meeting.’

I googled the location and it looked so simple. Just take this exit, go down this road with blank spaces on the right and left, until you get to this intersection, take a right turn, more blanks on the right, a neat left turn with lots of blanks on both sides. ‘Au Bon Pain’ was plainly visible under my cursor at 495 Mall Road. I printed out the map with all the nice blank spaces so I wouldn’t get lost.

Twenty minutes later, with a calm feeling in my belly that I had plenty of time, I was driving on the exit road. But real life rendez-vous have a way of deviating from Google map reality quite a bit and there were no blanks anywhere**. Just lots of buildings, drive-ways, traffic, gas stations, stores, signs... Nowhere did I find a sign that said ‘Au Bon Pain’. What happened to all the blank spaces? I became frantic. I was on one of those roads that won’t let you turn around until you are half-way across the country, so making a u-turn was already a major undertaking.

It was now 10:30 and I was sweating like a pig, trying to pass drivers who had no idea what kind of emotional trauma I was experiencing. Finally, when I almost reached the highway again, I saw the blessed sign ‘Au Bon Pain’- turn left.

The meeting was well under way. My flesh and blood writers were all sitting there, sharing each other’s ‘words’. I self-consciously tried to explain my tardy appearance but nobody seemed very interested. This turned out to be a ‘serious’ group, one that only accepts writers who were working on life-altering pieces, on soul-bearing stuff. Luckily I had printed out a story that I had written in a moment of self-pity and I thought it would go over well.

One member had been working on her memoirs for the past five years. About her roots in Alabama. If she is not careful she will be writing about trying to write for the rest of her life. Another member gave us a glimpse into what it is like to be bi-polar. Excellent writing, but since the members are supposed to critique each other, there were immediate comments even before she had finished reading. I timidly asked: ‘Are you sure you want to change any of it? I rather like it.. why not leave it as is?’ Everyone stared at me as if I had freshly arrived from Mars.

Writing about personal tragedy is hard, I know. It takes guts. Or does it? Does it have to be shared in a group? Does it have to be read out loud to make it better? One day I will write about my personal tragedy. I will write it for myself, for my loved ones. Like a lover’s letter. My children will find it in an old box and read it to each other out loud and wonder: is that what happened to mom?

** Google was sued recently by a pedestrian who was injured by a car after she used Google Maps - she alleged that Google did not adequately warn her of the dangers of automobiles in the area. leave comment here

Is America’s Second Civil War Coming?

2011-07-26T13:40:00.000-07:00

By Tom Kando

More than anything else, 19th century American history is the history of the North-South face-off: The South was wedded to slavery and to States’ Rights, in Virginia’s Jeffersonian tradition. The North was increasingly repulsed by slavery, and it was more federalist, in New York’s Hamiltonian tradition.

During the first half of the 19th century, the young republic experienced crisis upon crisis. For example, the Nullification Crisis in 1832, when South Carolina claimed that States’ Rights superseded Federal law. This was already a precursor to the Civil War, thirty years later.

The issue of slavery was dealt with through a series of compromises, crafted by wise men such as Henry Clay. There was the Missouri Compromise in 1820 and Clay’s Grand Compromise of 1850.Such compromises all aimed to satisfy both sides, i.e. to extend slavery westward in some ways and in some territories, so as to satisfy the South, while prohibiting it in other ways in other territories, to satisfy the North. Thus, major conflict was averted for many decades.

Of course, there were firebrands on both sides. For example the abolitionist John Brown (whom some would call a terrorist today) and South Carolina Senator Preston Brooks, who assaulted and mutilated Charles Sumner, the abolitionist senator from Massachusetts.

Eventually, the firebrands prevailed. In 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Act effectively repealed the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850. In the new territories, slavery would henceforth be determined by the settlers’ popular vote. This pointed the country towards Civil War.
In 1856, Kansas experienced a mini-civil war of its own, clearly a preview of the catastrophe to follow five years later.

From then on, there came increasing polarization, no more compromises. Threatened by a North which was leaving the agrarian and feudal South in the dust, both industrially and demographically, the South became increasingly intransigent. In December of 1860, the South (again spearheaded by South Carolina) began to carry out its longstanding threat: Secession.

Today’s firebrand secessionists are the members of the Tea Party. They are utterly un-amenable to compromise. They plan to secede from the Federal Compact which has sustained this country for a century. They wish to abolish Social Security, Medicare, Public Health and other federal services. To them, the federal government has no legitimacy.

For the time being, they are winning. They won in California, in Minnesota, in Wisconsin, and it looks like they are going to win in Washington D.C. on August 2.

The irony is that in 1860, it was the Republican Party - today’s Party of Reaction - which was on the good side of history in the days of Abraham Lincoln. leave comment here

Pastafarians Unite!

2011-07-23T04:22:00.000-07:00

by Madeleine Kando

In Austria a man by the name of Nico Alm was granted a driver's license with a pasta strainer on his head in his license photo. He was protesting a rule for the new EU driver's licenses that only allows head coverings on religious grounds.

Nico Alm argued that he belonged to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster**, and that his religion commanded him to wear a pasta strainer on his head.

Obviously this was to make a statement. Alm is a political activist who believes in the strict separation of church and state and he opposes the ‘special privileges’ that religious people get and that atheists don’t. This was a victory in the fight for freedom FROM religion.

Alm did receive his license with the condition that he submit to a psychological test to make sure he was not mentally ill.

It made me wonder if Nico Alm would have gotten away with such a brilliant piece of ridicule had he lived in America?

Most states do not allow headgear or face covering on their driver's license photo, unless, of course, it is for religious purposes. Which immediately prompted several lawsuits to be filed by Muslim women who wanted to pose in their burkas. (What is the point of an ID when the person in the photo can not be identified, pray tell?)

So, is wearing a burka on a photo acceptable because your religion demands it, or is it discrimination against non-religious people? Why are non-believers forced to bear their noodle? Why cannot they wear a baseball cap or a Ku Klux Klan coned-hat?

It's all the First Amendment's fault. The Free Exercise Clause says that everyone can practice their religious rights without restriction from the Government, 'unless these rights conflict with the interest of the state'. Is hiding one's face on an ID a security threat, and does that qualify as conflicting with the state's interest?

Maybe the department of Motor Vehicles should make a new rule that requires everyone to wear a pasta strainer for their photo ID. That way, all religious and non-religious people will be covered and no one will be straining the system. I am sure there will be some 'antipasti' demonstrations against this ruling, but you cannot make pasta without breaking some spaghetti.

** The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster was established in 2005 by Bobby Henderson in protest against the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to teach Intelligent Design in the Public Schools. He demanded that equal time be spent on teaching Pastafarianism in science classrooms. leave comment here

Is America the Spain of the 21st Century?

2011-07-19T18:06:00.000-07:00

By Tom Kando

Okay, so August 2 is approaching - Armageddon. Washington fails to raise the debt ceiling. America defaults. It’s the end of America as we know it, the beginning of America as a banana republic. Well, hopefully not.

But whatever happens, here is one thing which I find UNFATHOMABLE: The NEAR TOTAL CONSENSUS - even among most democrats - that raising taxes is a non-starter, because it destroys jobs, especially when the economy is stagnant.

CAN ANYONE EXPLAIN TO ME WHY RAISING TAXES IS ECONOMICALLY UNSOUND, and HOW IT DESTROYS JOBS?

Keynes didn’t think so; President FDR didn’t think so; the IMF, the World Bank, the European Central Bank and the European Community don’t think so, when it comes to ordering Greece and others to RAISE TAXES as part of their recovery!

But the rules applying to the US seem to be different from those that apply to other deeply indebted countries. Why? Greece must raise its taxes, but the US may ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Why?

Where does it say that the government cannot create jobs? The New Deal sure did.

That Socialism doesn’t work? It sure seems to be working fine in China, a country that will soon OWN the United States lock, stock and barrel. It works pretty good in Germany, Holland, Scandinavia, Canada and the other three dozen countries where things are better than in the US.

The rebuilding of our decrepit infrastructure, the building of high speed rail, wind farms, an entire new alternative energy grid, urban renewal, public services from education to medicine to public safety, these do no represent dozens of millions of jobs?

Where is it proven that the federal budget should not exceed 18% of GDP? Why not 50% as it does in some Scandinavian countries? Or how about somewhere between these two absurd numbers?

True, our indebtedness will not be solved without reigning in entitlements. For Social Security, this is easily accomplished:

(1) raise the age when Social Security benefits commence. Makes sense, since we live longer.

(2) means-test benefits, i.e. millionaires don’t need to receive Social Security benefits. They won’t miss that $1200 monthly check very much.

(3) raise contributions for those who can afford it. That is, don’t stop taking out withholdings at $107,000. Continue to do so up the pay scale.

Reigning in Medicare is more complicated, but also feasible. I’ll tell you how in a future post.

All in all, the mantra that “raising taxes damages the economy and destroys jobs, and that socialism doesn’t work” is part of an irrational belief system comparable to that of the Catholic establishment during the 16th century religious wars: Then, the Catholics waged war against Protestant groups such as the Huguenots, heavily supported by Spain’s military might. As the guardian of Catholic doctrine all over the world, Spain ruined and bankrupted itself by defending and hanging on to a waning paradigm, claiming, in effect that “Protestantism doesn’t work.” Boy were they wrong!

We are the Spain of the 21st century. leave comment here

Just Put it in the Trash (E-waste Massachusetts style)

2011-07-15T08:53:00.000-07:00

by Madeleine Kando

We have been collecting old cell phones, wires, keyboards, computers and even two t.v. sets for years. Not because we are hoarders or even too lazy to toss it, but because we just don't know what to do with it. It's not like you can grind it down the garbage disposal.

So it's been sitting there, in our garage, nicely forgotten, as if it didn't exist. Out of sight out of mind, as they say. But my husband had the bright idea to buy a shed so we had no choice but to open Pandora's box.

I called the town's Public Works department to ask what their policy is on recycling electronic equipment. They told me they only pick up t.v. sets and old monitors (because both contain lead).

'What about my scanners, printers, lcd monitors, cell phones, wires?' I asked. 'Oh just put it in the trash', the nice lady said. ‘But I don't want to put it in the trash. Isn't there another way to dispose of it?’ She had no answer to that.

So here I am, a resident of Massachusetts, the 'technology state', and I am stuck.

Like our pets, we outlive our gadgets by many generations. When my beloved dog Max expired, I brought him to a crematorium. I cried for a whole week because his disappearance left a hole in me the size of Mount Vesuvius.

But there is no crematorium for my computer. Massachusetts doesn’t even have ‘E-waste’ laws. The woman said to bring it to the landfill and let her get on with her day. I was on my own.

Weeks later my scanners and old laptops are still in the garage but at least I have a lot more (very disturbing) information which I will be happy to share with you:

In America, only 19 of the 50 states have e-waste regulation. In the states where there is no regulation, it is up to the individual’s conscience to do the right thing. For the past ten years Congress has tried to pass a bill for Federal e-waste legislation but it’s still sitting on someone’s desk.

In Europe all twenty-seven EU countries have e-waste regulation. Not only have they had E-waste regulation since 2002, but it covers many more categories than in America. In the states where E-waste regulation exists, only four categories are covered, whereas in Europe it covers ten categories (refrigerators and washing machines all HAVE to be recycled.) The responsibility for recycling is placed on the manufacturer.

The E-waste recycling business in the US is booming, even without regulation, because most businesses want to do the right thing. Many manufacturers have started take-back programs, some of which are free, some of which are not.

But the problem with ‘non-regulated E-waste management’ is that there is no standard to go by, either for the consumer or the manufacturer. That makes the whole process very expensive. It also allows the illegal export of E-waste to developing countries where it creates a huge environmental and health problem.

Some recyclers are honest and actually dispose of hazardous E-waste properly. Other recyclers stuff containers with their monitors and sell it to the highest bidder who then ships it to China or Africa under the pretence that it is ‘donated’. (See: A Walk Around Guiy).

So which is better: voluntary state by state participation or a national directive that will force everyone to do the right thing, manufacturer and consumer alike?

Tomorrow I am off to Best Buy. They have a take-back program and will accept any brand for free. I asked them who they partnered with for recycling and I recognized one of the names on the list as 'e-steward' certified. So I pray that my old PC will be given a proper burial and not end up in some African village poisoning a child’s lungs. leave comment here

Facts to Make you Angry

2011-07-11T17:11:00.000-07:00

By Tom Kando

Inequality is progressing as rapidly as ever, and our reaction to this is as misguided as ever:

1. We learn now that median pay for top business executives in 2010 skyrocketed by 23% from the previous year, to $10.8 million (Sacramento Bee, July 10). The chief executive of Viacom made $85 million, one of Target’s executives made $24 million, etc.

Meanwhile, 9.5% of American workers remain unemployed. Those who have a job take home $752 a week, less than what they made a year earlier.

Executive pay is not even tied to company performance. Companies’ median revenue gain only rose 7%. Yet voting shareholders approved 98.5% of the fat executive pay packages.

2. California has adopted its budget. It is based 100% on cuts, with zero revenue enhancement. It’s a total Republican victory, even though both the governor and the legislature are democratic.
And within the dwindling state budget (down from over $100 billion a few years ago to $86 billion now), the priorities keep getting worse and worse. This is a long-term sickness. When I began teaching at the State University in the late sixties, the State spent 8% of its money on the University of California, and 4% on its prisons. Now, it’s 3% on the University and 10% on prisons! (Sacramento Bee, July 10). As I said, a sickness.

The tragedy, to repeat the obvious, is the progressive dismantlement of public education and of other public services.
Yet, the media and the population don’t have a clue, as the country’s lemming-like march to the right is accelerating.

3. Even a democratic paper such as the Sacramento Bee diverts a gullible public’s attention by continuing to harp on some of the excesses which take place in the public retirement system - for example the practice of “spiking.” This means that public employees approaching retirement sometimes receive 3% to 10% pay raises during their last 3 years on the job. Since retirement benefits are based on what you earn during your last 3 years at work, this can raise your pension check permanently. It’s done primarily by administrators who work for cities, counties, states, colleges, police and fire departments, etc.

It’s noteworthy that very few rank-and-file teachers, cops, etc. - in other words people in the trenches - can do this.

But, yes, there are some public employees with pensions in the six figures. Whoop Dee Doo!
In Sacramento County (Pop. 1.5 million), there are 14 Office of Education retirees whose pension exceeds $100,000. Whoop Dee Doo!

Is THIS the problem? Is THIS what should upset us? Don’t misunderstand me, I don’t like the fact that administrators always make more than the people who do the real work. I agree that “spiking” is bad.

But surely the REAL problem lies elsewhere, no?

As Alan Clark writes in the Sacramento Bee on July 10: the nation has a new fixation. There is a general attack on retired firefighters, teachers, public health workers. While corporate executives enjoy jaw-dropping raises, there is a push to obliterate retirement security for public workers. The average public worker collects $2,200 a month in state retirement! Yet, he is in the political bull’s-eye, due to the pandemic anti-government anger of private sector workers, caused by the disintegration of their retirement accounts (which they now want to foster on public workers).
Makes me angry. leave comment here

Who Is Hated the Most, and Who is Loved the Most?

2011-07-08T22:25:00.000-07:00

By Leah and Tom

Hi Folks:

We did a little Sociology project. Maybe we were bored that day, but we hope this doesn’t bore you: The question was: How much are different groups in the world loved, and hated? You know - race, nationality, religion, etc. So we Googled how many “Hate” and “Love” search results you get when you enter various groups, e.g. “Americans,” “Europeans,” Frenchmen,” etc.

This is tongue-in-cheek to some extent. Google searches are not the most valid predictors of anything as emotional as nationalism/racism/love/hate. But we hope that you do find this funny and provocative.

Here is how it works (you can skip this part ):

1. Google shows a total of 18.2 million hate search results, and there were recently roughly 6.8 billion people in the world. This means one HATE entry for every 372 people. Similarly, with 15 million love search results, there is one LOVE entry for every 452 people.

2. Next, say you want to find out how much Americans are hated: Google shows 785,000 “I-hate-Americans” search results, and there are 307 million Americans.

3. So you divide 785,000 by 307 million, and multiply by 372, using the world’s general “hate level” to standardize the score. This gives you AMERICANS’ “BEING-HATED” score: .95. 4. How much are Americans LOVED? Google shows 165,000 “I-love-Americans” search results, so: 165,000/307 million x 452 = .24. This is AMERICANS’ BEING-LOVED score.

So now we have a formula to score and then COMPARE different groups/countries/nationalities:

Using the same formula for example for Europeans:

Europeans’ being-hated score is only .005, and their being-love score is .012.

This means that Europeans are being hated 200 times and being loved 20 times less than Americans. So this is revealing: Americans are a lot less popular than Europeans!

Because different nationalities get vastly different amounts of both Hate and Love entries on Google, a good way to make them comparable with each other is to compute for each group the RATIO of Hate over Love (or love over hate):

For example, Americans receive 4 times more hatred than love. So we give them a score of 4 (Hatred)
On the other hand, Europeans receive 2.4 times more love than hatred, so their score is 2.4 (Love).
Then, we ranked 20 nationalities/groups according to how much hate and love they receive:

1. New Yorkers receive 4.5 times more hate than love. Their score is 4.5 Hate. They are the most hated people in the world.
2. Americans are next: 4 hate
3. Californians are hated 3 times more than they are loved: score of 3
4. Hungarians are next: 1.4 hate
5. Turks: 1.2 hate
6. Russians: 1.1 Hate

After this, love scores are higher than hate scores, so we take the ratio of Love over Hate:

7. Greeks get 1.3: They are loved 1.3 times more than hated
8. Texans: 1.5
9. Hawaiians: 2.3
10. Europeans: 2.4
11. Germans: 2.41
12. Frenchmen: 7.6
13. Puerto Ricans: 9.4
14. Italians: 9.5
15. Irishmen: 13.7
16. Spaniards: 15.8
17. Dutch: 17.1
18. British: 22.7
19. Poles: 30.2
20. Swiss: 32.5: The most loved people in the world!

Another interesting thing is the RANGE between a country’s hate and love scores: Some countries elicit enormous Love scores AND hate scores: Opinions about them are highly POLARIZED. For example Ireland. So next time, we’ll give you a ranking of countries along this dimension.

If you want, you can copy our formula and add entries of other countries or groups (if you are bored enough).

What we want to do next is the REALLY interesting and controversial stuff: get scores for controversial groups such as Muslims, Jews, Israelis, African-Americans, Gays, atheists, etc.

Stay tuned! leave comment here

Some Random Thoughts on Happiness

2011-07-06T07:56:00.000-07:00

by Madeleine Kando

When someone asks me 'Are you happy?', I never know what to say. It puts me on the defensive. It's like having to answer the question: 'Are you successful?' or 'Are you a good person?'. It's easier to answer questions like 'Are you happy at work?' (The answer is 'NO'. I am too old to teach ballet to three-year olds and would much rather spend my time writing silly stories like this one. )

Actually asking someone if they are happy is a bit forward. It's like asking someone if they have good sex. If you fail at being happy, you fail as a person. It's not like failing an exam which doesn't affect your entire self-image. If you are unhappy, you get a permanent bad grade and it's bad for your reputation.

But happiness, to me, is a constantly changing state of mind. It goes up and down, like being hungry or thirsty. I was happy last night when I heard that my oldest got engaged. I wasn't happy this morning when I looked at my credit card statement. In fact, if I have to ask myself the question 'Hey, Madeleine, are you happy?' I know that I have a problem.

Happy people don't have to ask themselves that question. They just know they are happy. It's only unhappy people who ask themselves: 'Mmm, I wonder if I am happy? If I am not happy, what kind of person does that make me? A failure! Why am I not happy? Maybe I should take a workshop in 'positive thinking...' And so on, and so on.

It's not only people who grade themselves as happy or unhappy. There are whole countries that are happier than others. Denmark, for instance is rated as the happiest nation on the Euro-barometer Survey. They tried to figure out why Danes are happier than Swedes or Finns, who are most similar to Danes and went looking for the cause of this extreme happiness. (Why Danes are smug: comparative study of life satisfaction in the European Union).

Starting from the least likely causes, they found out that it wasn't their hair color (Swedes and Finns are just as blond), their food (don't even try it), their climate (have you ever visited Denmark in winter?) or the fact that it is a welfare state (Sweden and Finland are that too). They discovered that the single most important reason for their happiness was that they have very low expectations for the future.

But to get back to people: Happy people are happy because they view the world in a positive light. They remember the past as positive, they don't think badly of others, they don't react to criticism, they don't change their opinion of themselves even when confronted with someone who is far superior to them**. They are happy because they are delusional and have an unshakable conviction that they are great people.

Happy people never have trouble choosing. When they have to choose between two deserts, they immediately prefer the one they selected. Me, I am the opposite. I cannot enjoy my dessert until I have taken a bite of the 'forbidden' one.

Being happy is one of those catch 22 situations again, a chicken or egg dilemma. Do happy people socialize more or does socializing make you more happy? Does being positive make you happy or does being happy make you more positive?

Be that as it may, for now I will continue to enjoy life by taking Bertrand Russell's quote to heart: 'To be without some of the things you want is an indispensable part of happiness.' leave comment here

** See: The Promise of Sustainable Happiness

To the Organizers of the Tour de France: Do Something! Aux Organisateurs du Tour de France: Faites quelque-chose!

2011-07-05T11:37:00.000-07:00

By Tom Kando

On July 2, I began to watch my favorite sports event: The fabulous Tour de France, the greatest bicycle race in the world.

On the very first day, there were spectator-caused crashes, one of which caused around 100 racers to fall or collide. I have been wondering for years about the insane behavior of Tour de France road-side spectators. As the racers bike up to the dizzying heights of the Tourmalet or the Alpe D’Huez summits, or as they sprint by on picturesque French country roads, the spectators invariably move closer and closer to the middle of the road, crowding out the athletes, leaving hardly any space for them to bike through, touching them, grabbing them, running after them, sticking flags and other objects in their faces!

And of course, this often results in accidents, grave injuries to the athletes, sometimes costing them the victory and even their career. Absolute insanity.

Years ago, the legendary Eddy Merckx would have won an unprecedented sixth Tour de France, had it not been for a vicious and criminal attack by a spectator who assaulted him as he was riding by. A few years ago, an idiot spectator got his belt tangled up with Lance Armstrong’s handlebar, causing the champion to fall.

And now, at the end of the first stage of the 2011 Tour, a moronic spectator stood too far out into the road. As the high-speed peloton came by, a biker collided with the spectator, and hundred bikers fell, like dominoes. This included the number one contender, Alberto Contador, who lost a minute and a half as a result, which might cost him the ultimate victory.

A few minutes later, at the finishing stretch, while the thousands of spectators were finally fenced in, they still managed to stick out flags and batons towards the racers, endangering them as they whizzed by.

I am flabbergasted by everyone’s equanimity about this. No outrage among the TV commentators, or among the athletes themselves, nothing said about a need for some measures. Everyone seems to feel that this is part of business.

I am an avid road biker myself. Five months ago, I was hit by a car while biking in California’s Gold Country. Broke my arm, changed my life, needed surgery. I haven’t been able to bike since then. Doesn’t anyone care about the safety of bicyclists?

Alors ecoutez, les Francais: In my view, the Tour de France is the greatest sports event in the world, across the most beautiful country in the world. I grew up in France, and I love no country more.

You are crazy for putting up with such spectator behavior. Fine these people! I know, you can’t fence in 3,000 kilometers of road, but surely you can prosecute these life-threatening idiots who each year cause dozens of athletes to fall, to be maimed and to have to abandon their quest for victory, no?

I know of no other sport event where the spectators play a major role in determining the outcome.

Vous etes fous, de permettre ca! Faites quelque-chose, sinon, ces cretins vont gacher le plus bel evenement sportif du monde! leave comment here

Tolerating Intolerance

2011-07-01T15:46:00.000-07:00

by Madeleine Kando

If you think the Tea Party is extreme, just go to YouTube and watch some videos of the British right-wing organization called E.D.L. or English Defense League. It is not for the faint of heart.

It is a far-right movement which opposes the spread of Islamism and Islamic extremism in England. It is like the Dutch Party of Freedom, except more violent and extreme. For a moment there, I thought I was watching a Nazi Party rally.

It seems that pretty much every country in Europe has its own version of an anti-Muslim movement now. Unlike the Tea Party, which is against the current government and its policies, these parties are not trying to throw over the government, they want to force the current government to adopt new anti-Muslim policies.

How on earth did the situation become so polarized? Are those just a bunch of skin heads looking for some fun on a Saturday night? After all, Europe and in particular England, has a long tradition of neo-fascist movements.

It is commonly said that fascist movements feed off poverty and homelessness. But aren't most European countries 'welfare states' who are supposed to take care of their poor and unemployed a lot better than we are here in the US?

Or are these movements and parties a sign that the European policy of 'Multiculturalism', i.e., tolerating many cultures without prejudice, is now beginning to totally fall apart?

Take the Burqa for example. In France there is a ban on wearing one in public. You might say that wearing a Burqa is a matter of personal choice and that the ban is racist, that it infringes on a person's individual and religious freedom.

But to many Europeans the Burqa is a symbol of Radical Islam. I also says 'I am not going to accept your Western values'. I am not tolerant of your society and its customs.

Especially in France, any religious expression in public, which the Burqa is, must be hard to swallow. The French are proud of being a secular nation and they do not look kindly on anyone who ignores this important aspect of French society.

You see, tolerance works only when it is bi-directional. If I tolerate you but you don't tolerate me, then we have a problem. Imposing tolerance ** on an entire population is already hard enough, but being told to tolerate the intolerant in the name of political correctness has created a Frankenstein monster.

Now we see the ugly underbelly of some European countries, as they latch on to a legitimate feeling of trying to preserve important cultural values.

These ‘fright-wing’ groups (to coin a term) are using it to radicalize their country even more. It is a catch twenty-two situation, isn't it? If tolerance in a society allows intolerant cultures to co-exist, it will turn that tolerant society into an intolerant one.

Do I have that right?

** The very expression “Imposing tolerance” is a contradiction in terms. It’s like saying “imposing freedom.” This unmasks the current European dilemma. leave comment here

How to best see Paris, Las Vegas, Rome, Venice, Maui and other Places

2011-06-28T20:59:00.001-07:00

By Tom and Anita Kando

We have traveled a lot. Been in all five continents. Learned a lot, both from our mistakes and from our successes. Now, when we see people spending their travel time and money the wrong way, it upsets us. Such a waste.

The biggest mistake people make when they travel is LOCATION. There should be a travel adage similar to the one in Real Estate - Location, Location, Location.

We don’t mean that you should choose one country or region over another. No. What we mean is that once you have selected your destination, it is imperative that you locate yourself properly.

And this means, first and foremost, a CENTRAL location. You MUST STAY where the action and the beauty are.

The first time we took our children to Venice, in order to save ourselves a few Euros, we stayed in Mestre, an industrial suburb. This was a mistake. We realized this on subsequent visits to the fabulous water city. In Venice, you want to wake up to the sound of cooing pigeons, medieval church bells, and the ethereal near-silence of a car-free city. You want to have breakfast on your balcony and look down upon canals, vaporetti and gondolas. Staying in a modern high-rise hotel in the suburbs is a waste of money. Might as well stay home and rent a video.

It’s the same thing wherever you go. Take Las Vegas - also a fabulous city, regardless of what your snob friends who have never been there might tell you: friends of ours stayed in some Travelodge-type hotel near the airport. How stupid!

For $30 more per night, they could have gotten a room at any of the mega-hotels on the strip - the Treasure Island, the Luxor, maybe even the Bellagio. When in Vegas, don’t EVER stay anywhere but on the strip. There, you will swim, eat, relax, shop, see shows and be in awe of the world’s largest hotels, their special effects and artificial environments. Truly one of the Seven Wonders of the world.

In Hawaii it’s essential to stay ON THE BEACH. That is, at a hotel where you can walk out of your bedroom in your bathing suit and dive into the surf, twenty yards away. Don’t skimp. Pay the extra $60 per night.

In Paris, stay within the first 10 or 11 arrondissements. In Rome, stay within walking distance of the Forum or the Pantheon. In Sidney, we stayed in Kings Cross. Some feel that the area is too racy, but we found it colorful and fun.

You say, Ha! Easy for you to say, fat cat! But we ain’t fat cats. We still manage to stay at hotels for under $100 in many places, and we can’t remember the last time we paid over $200. We don’t travel like kings, we just travel smart.
Plus, think of this: often when you try to skimp by staying in an outlying area, you end up spending a fortune on cabs, car rentals, parking and other transportation. In most cities - Vegas, Rome, Amsterdam, Sidney, Tokyo - a car is a terrible liability.

In sum: go where the action is. Go CENTRAL. If you don’t, you’ll miss the essential experience for which you came.leave comment here

Beware of Awareness

2011-06-26T14:35:00.000-07:00

by Madeleine Kando

Being aware of something is not as straightforward as you might think. Being too aware of yourself, for instance, is not really such a good idea. If I was aware of everything about myself, it would be so lethal to my self-esteem that I probably would commit hara-kiri on the spot.

My brain is more like a piece of Swiss cheese, with big holes that represent blind spots to protect myself from too much awareness, too much consciousness.

My age, for instance is something I prefer not to be too aware of. It's healthier that way. And what about my self-centeredness, my need for privacy, my impatience? I don't want to be too aware of those qualities either.

I prefer not to be aware of how I drool when I sleep, how I squint in front of a painting, how I look when I step out of bed, unwashed and uncombed. Who needs that kind of awareness?

That's why I envy animals. They have no sense of shame or embarrassment. Dogs lick their you-know-what in public, humiliate themselves begging, they follow you around like a slave when they want something, they get angry when they feel like it and they show boundless affection when they are happy. Does that make them less capable of enjoying life? Are they inferior to us because of it?

Children are so unaware of themselves to the point of irritation. They talk to themselves, bump into strangers, sing, laugh and cry at the drop of a hat. They totally lack inhibition and it's a miracle most of them make it to self-aware, uptight, decent adults.

People take workshops to develop self-awareness, to discover who they truly are. But what if you truly are a mass murderer, or a pervert? Aren't you better off not discovering your true self?

If I was aware of everything about myself, I wouldn't have time to reflect on anything else. And if I was aware of everything around me, I would be so overwhelmed I would want to escape to an isolation tank.

All joking aside, I do think that being aware of injustices, suffering and cruelty is important. The trick is to be selective about what you want to be aware of. If you are not a very aware person, be smart and listen to others who can make you aware of your unawareness, like me and my very aware husband.

On the other hand, if we were really aware of all the dangers, risks and minimal chances of success of anything we try to do, we would all become catatonic. And then who could be blamed for all the failures in the world? leave comment here

Is the Dollar Collapsing, and are Americans Parasites?

2011-06-23T22:41:00.000-07:00

By Tom Kando

Here is a disturbing film on You Tube, "The Inevitable Collapse of the Dollar". It starts with a parable: 6 or 7 people are stranded on an island. They are all Asian, except for one American. So they divide up the chores - one Asian is in charge of fishing, another one hunting, another one gathers firewood, etc. The American's job is to eat.

Haha. Funny and mean, but true? Well, true enough to disturb me, but false enough to disturb me even more:

The parable is a preface to the film's main point, namely that America's economic conduct is unsustainable, and that the collapse of the dollar and economic ruin are imminent, because of the well-known reasons that we have been over-consuming, over-borrowing , and under-producing for decades.

I have been writing about this for years. I was warning against our trade deficit during the 1990s. And I remind you: this problem is distinct from the government deficit, upon which Republicans focus blindly and maliciously, telling us that it is government spending which is at the root of our problem. That is a falsehood. The real problem is that American society as a whole - you and me - have been overspending, buying too many goods and borrowing too much money from China and buying too much oil from Saudi Arabia.

But ultimately, the film is false.

1. First of all, things move slowly, at the macro level. The Titanic couldn't turn away from the iceberg in an hour. The US economy may be in decline and there may be a permanent economic realignment in the world, but these things happen in historical time, not personal time. If there is a collapse of the dollar, it is a slow process. It happens during the 20th and 21st centuries, not all of a sudden on March 17, 2018.
In a way, the dollar is not going to collapse. It has been collapsing for half a century: When I was a teenager, the dollar was worth 4 times more than European money - the Deutsche Mark, the Dutch Guilder, the Swiss Franc, the French Franc, etc. Today, it is worth 65% of Europe's currency, the Euro, and less than the Swiss Franc. And we're still doing okay, aren't we?

It may well be that in 20 years from now the the dollar will be worth 25% of the Euro. But this is not collapse, it is gradual readjustment.

2. The film was made in 2007. Four years later, the dollar is not significantly weaker.

3. There are those who say that a lower dollar helps us by making our exports cheaper. I'm not sure I agree with this line of reasoning, but it's there.

4. America's trade imbalance with the rest of the world is a problem, but it is not insurmountable. Already, the world recession has forced Americans to tighten their belt. Furthermore, our trade shortfall has been shrinking.
We export $1.3 trillion worth of goods and services annually. That is the third highest amount of any country - behind China and Germany. Is this how a lazy and unproductive parasite behaves? Our only problem is: we import even more: nearly $2 trillion.
But as I said, America's trade imbalance has been improving: In April 2011, our trade deficit narrowed to less than $44 billion. (see: List_of_countries_by_imports)

5. Many other countries also have trade deficits. And many have larger government deficits than we do. For example, Japan's government deficit is over 200% of its GDP.

6. But what I find most cynical in this Dutch film is the insinuation that America is the world's parasite. In fact the work ethic is stronger in the US than it is practically anywhere else, with the exception of some parts of Asia. It is certainly stronger than in Europe, where people go ballistic when they are asked to work 40 hours a week. Nothing is more important to an American than his job. He works as much for the love of work as for money. When he retires, he volunteers for no pay.

7. Are the Americans the parasitic eaters on that fictitious island, or the Europeans? The only reason that Europeans were able to get a free ride in their BMWs for the past 60 years was because America has shed so much blood and treasure as the world's policeman.
In general, the Dutch, the Germans and many others live cushier lives than most Americans. The US's vast pockets of poverty - the ghettoes and central cities of the rust belt, rural Appalachia, Indian reservations - have few equals in Western Europe.

Of course there are parasites in America - a plutocracy which has stolen an ever larger share of the country's wealth. But these thieves should not be confused with the hard-working and struggling American people. The American people are no more the parasites on that island than are the Western Europeans. If anything, it is the opposite.

So is the dollar collapsing? Granted, it has weakened a great deal over the years. But America's economic woes are not irreversible, nor are they worse than those of the rest of the Western World. leave comment here

Welfare

2011-06-20T14:52:00.000-07:00

by Madeleine Kando

Before our modern day 'enlightenment' period, poor people were seen as not that different from criminals. They were usually put in 'workhouses' (poor houses) where their clothes, their families and any other personal belongings were taken from them. They were set to work for no pay and beaten if they didn't do exactly what they were told.

There were a lot more poor people relatively speaking than now. It didn't matter if they were poor because they were handicapped or sick and couldn't work. Poor was poor. Charlie Chaplin lived in a poor house with his mother when he was a child.

Before that time the poor had to beg or break the law in order to survive. When caught they were put in 'stocks' for three days and nights and then released and told to leave town, so that they became somebody else's problem. Nobody ever thought of doing something about poverty itself.

The idea that poverty is not a result of laziness or refusal to work is not that old. Only at the beginning of the 20th Century did the government realize that locking up poor people or telling them to get out of town wasn't going to solve the problem.

In England, they created the 'Welfare Reform Act'. It was funded by taxing the rich and was strongly supported by Winston Churchill. He called it a 'War Budget', to wage war against poverty. So Welfare economics is basically redistributing wealth so that society as a whole will be better off.

Even though the word 'welfare' means the well-being of individuals, their health, their happiness and their safety, in America the word carries a big stigma. In Europe it is just a service that guarantees a minimal level of well-being and social support for all citizens, including the rich. It is based on 'solidarity' rather than 'charity'.

Charity is something that humiliates the recipient and does not acknowledge that every person has a right to a basic level of humanity. It is a precursor to welfare, usually based on religious beliefs. It is a duty of many religions to give to the poor so that one may be forgiven one's sins. (Except in the Jewish tradition where the poor are entitled to charity as a matter of justice).

We could remove social safety nets for the poor, the old and the sick, which would put us back in the situation in England under the Tudors. We could place our sick, our unemployed and our elderly in shackles and lock them up or put them in stocks again. Ask them to leave town…

Yes, let me propose that to Congressman Paul Ryan. He is already doing such a great job guiding us back to the 15th century with his 'Roadmap for America's Future. leave comment here

What is my Name?

2011-06-18T20:09:00.000-07:00

By Tom Kando

Yesterday, I went to pick up a prescription drug which my doctor had faxed to the local pharmacy. The pharmacy clerk asked me for my name, and I gave it to her - Tom Kando - adding that the prescription had been faxed in the previous day by Dr. Pollock. She couldn’t find it, so I suggested that she also look under “Cando,” with a C.

It’s happened more than once that when I give my name to someone in an office or on the phone, their brain goes on auto-pilot before I get a chance to spell my name, and I am forever entered as Cando. This can cause a lot of aggravation later, when dealing with the IRS, insurance companies, banks, airlines, etc. So I have learned, whenever asked for my name by some clerk, to reply as follows:
“My name is spelled K - A - N - D - O,” and then I say the word - “Kando.”

And sure enough: yesterday, as soon as the pharmacy clerk looked under “Cando,” she found my medication. She gave it to me and said, somewhat irritated:

“You should have given me the proper name in the first place. It would have made things a lot easier.”

I apologized for the inconvenience, but added that the proper name is, in fact “Kando.”

“I am sorry sir,” she insisted, “That is not your name. The prescription order form says that your name is ‘Cando’. ”
“My name is ‘Cando’?” I inquired, somewhat surprised...
“Yes, that is your name. Surely your doctor knows your name, doesn’t he?”
“You are absolutely right,” I said, trying to sooth her feelings, “my physician does know my correct name...”
“Then why didn’t you give me your true name to begin with? The one on the medical record. We can’t just go by all sorts of different names, you know...”
“True,” I admitted, “one can’t just go by all sorts of different names...”

Then, as an afterthought, I asked:

“By the way, can you show me the fax the doctor sent you, just to see how my name is spelled?”
“No sir, we are not allowed to do that, sir. The Federal privacy law.”
“I understand,” I replied, “privacy is important.”

I went home. It was a total defeat. I have to hand it to the clerk. She was a pro. She had me checkmated - on all fronts. leave comment here

More, or Less?

2011-06-17T14:12:00.000-07:00

by Madeleine Kando

There are now so many 'professions' out there that entitles someone to tell you how to eat, drink, walk, breathe, etc. that we have totally lost confidence in our own common sense.

Nutritionists, personal trainers, diet consultants, shopping advisers, TV celebrities.. they all feed on our gullibility, our insecurity and our childish notion that by doing the 'right thing', following the rules, we will buy our ticket to a happy, healthy immortal life.

I try not to get brainwashed by the barrage of unsolicited, unnecessary, overstuffed, full of hot air kind of advice that comes at us from these so-called experts.

I was listening to my daily fix of NPR on my way home, when I happened to catch a program on weight loss. ‘Everybody knows that the best way to loose weight is to exercise’ said the announcer. ‘Really? What happened to eating less? Wouldn’t that be the first line of defense against gaining weight?’

You see, because we believe in a magic bullet, our immediate reaction when we have a problem, is to add something to the equation. Which is strange: in science, a problem is usually solved by going back to the basics, making the equation simpler, not more complicated.

Not so in our personal life. We are lactose intolerant? We add a pill to our daily routine. Who would ever think of not drinking milk? Out of the question.

We sweat too much? We add deodorant to your daily grooming routine. Drinking less so you have less moisture in your body is not an option for most people.

How many of us menopausal females have had estrogen shoved down our throat? 'It helps with menopausal hot flashes' says my gynecologist. What happened to the centuries full of women who cruised through menopause and survived the hot flashes?

This obsession with 'more' goes way beyond my nagging about nutritionists. Too many MRIs, CAT scans, X rays. Too many procedures, which is good for the doctor's pocket book, not so good for the cost of health care to society.

'Less' is such a negative word in our culture. 'More' has been stamped into our psyche from the day we were born, so no wonder we are suspicious of solving problems by doing less. And doing nothing is considered downright stupid. Although I cannot keep track of how many problems I solved because I just waited it out.

I was going to write a long story to convince you that less is better than more, but that would defeat the purpose of my argument, so I will follow my own advice and stop right here. But feel free to comment abundantly. leave comment here

European E. coli Outbreak Holds Lessons for the U.S. Government

2011-06-17T10:26:00.001-07:00

by Jeremy Fordham

The European E. coli outbreak has people on both sides of the Atlantic on high alert. Americans have been critical of the way the crisis has been handled, but there isn't any reason to presume that the U.S. government would be any better prepared to handle this particular strain of E. coli than the EU. After all, the U.S. is also dealing with its own, less-widespread strain of E. coli as it is.

While governments point fingers and try to avert blame, the market for produce in Europe is crumbling. The small European farmer is being especially hard hit and some have actually given away 40 tons of potentially contaminated produce. Clearly, the economic effects of this outbreak may be nearly as damaging to Europeans as the human toll on humans. At first German officials blamed cucumbers farmed in Spain. However, tests proved this conclusion to be false. Then a farm near Hamburg took the spotlight, with the likely culprit being contaminated sprouts.

The U.S. and the European Union have similar approaches to food policy. Both have governmental departments that regulate things like food labeling and the traceability of food products. Yet both also have difficulty tracing the source of contamination. However when an outbreak of a food-borne illness occurs, the governments of both countries must take swift and decisive action. This is where the U.S. generally can be seen to have an advantage over the EU. Despite the appearance of cohesiveness between the European nations, the citizens of each country retain a sense of individuality for their homeland. Hence, there are situations where the officials of one country may blame an outbreak on the actions of another country, which can result in a political and economic mess. The U.S., however, possesses more of a true cohesiveness, built over the last two hundred years, which perhaps allows them to bypass the finger-pointing and settle down to the business of finding the root cause of the illness.

How easily could what is happening in Europe happen in the U.S.? The answer is, too easily, and America is not much better equipped to deal with it than European officials. That ought to scare people and it ought to galvanize them to take action. Instead of criticizing the response of European governments, why not learn from their mistakes? Clearly there must be any number of enlightening experiences that could be applied in the U.S. Too often we place ourselves at cross-purposes with our friends across the Atlantic instead of allying ourselves to offer aid, comfort and information.

Jeremy Fordham is an engineer who is excited about encouraging dialogue in unique spaces. He contributes to resources promoting Ph.D. programs and is an advocate of sustainability and green energy.
leave comment here

Once again: Europe and America

2011-06-14T13:41:00.000-07:00

By Tom Kando

I just finished a fine book by the Dutch author-photographer Sacha De Boer, “Retour New York-Amsterdam.” It consists of illustrated interviews with sixteen artists, half of whom are Dutch artists currently residing in New York, and the other half American artists who now live in Amsterdam.

There are many comparisons made between life in the two cities, and by extension comparisons between Europe and America. To be sure, it is wrong to see New York as representative of America. Many Europeans visit New York and then think that they have seen America. So these sixteen artists’ opinions about the pros and cons of life in Holland and in America should be taken with a grain of salt.

Still, based on my own experience as an immigrant from Europe, I find many of these people’s judgments compelling: For example, Charlotte Dumas, a Dutch animal photographer who now lives in Manhattan, notes the greater harshness of American attitudes towards animals.

Jimmy Rage, who moved from Jamaica to New York to Amsterdam, shares his negative experiences with American cops, and his appreciation of the generous public support for the arts in the Netherlands.

David Lindberg, an American sculptor who moved to Amsterdam, also feels that survival is tougher in New York - and by implication in America.

But opinions are not one-sided. Dutch Photographer Liselot van der Heijden, now living in New York, rightly ridicules American politics under Bush, but she (also rightly) loves New York.

American Sculptor Charlie Citron, now living in Amsterdam, agrees with others that Europe is kinder to artists, but on the other hand he also notes a stifling “stuffiness” in the old country.

Dutch Graphic artist Elise Tak moved to New York because she found it liberating, providing greater freedom, less judgment and less mean-spirited gossip than Amsterdam.

Dutch painter Sjoerd Doting, eyewitness to 9-11, also feels that Americans (at least New Yorkers) are less judgmental than the Dutch.

I have to agree with so much of this, and many other similar observations by others. I have made it a lifetime hobby to compare life on the two sides of the Atlantic. Both societies have their strengths and their weaknesses. Europeans are more indolent, less ambitious, spiritually more “fat,” less ready to fight - over oil, ideology or a traffic altercation. More pacifistic and therefore less brave, at least in a primeval physical sense. Life in Europe is easier and, yes, in many ways more pleasurable.

America is liberating. It’s vast and anonymous. There is an “I-don’t-give-a-damn-who-you-are-attitude.” Live and let live - or die. It can be a frighteningly cruel society, but it has all the possibilities, it leaves you alone, it lets you do things. Take your pick. I did. leave comment here

Mea Culpa: Europe's Guilt Complex

2011-06-12T15:00:00.000-07:00

by Madeleine Kando

If you are a liberal and live in an enlightened democracy like the US or Europe, it is politically incorrect to say anything positive about your own culture. It is much more fashionable to self-criticize. After all, the West, with its history of colonialism, racism and fascism has caused tremendous suffering around the world.

No wonder we have such a low opinion of ourselves. We have to atone for our past sins by castigating ourselves and be humble. In Europe this feeling of guilt is especially strong. The European Union was created out of a sense of guilt for what happened during the Second World War. Which is good, right? One nation can not fight itself.

But, as my husband Hans likes to say 'guilt is a bad motivator for action'. Guilt is paralyzing. It turns action, good or bad, towards the self and can not solve any problems in the world.

In his book 'The Tyranny of Guilt', the French author Pascal Bruckner, describes how Europeans are so guilt ridden that they find it almost natural that terrorist acts are committed against them, against their affluence, against their evil past. In other words, they deserve it.

But Bruckner reminds us that the West is also responsible for abolishing slavery, for Women's rights and freedom from Fascism. It has taken great determination, a rock solid conviction in the 'justness' of these causes. Now we see those values being attacked from within, like a rot in an old vessel.

Because Europe has washed its hands off of world affairs, afraid of doing more damage, it is up to the United States to do the dirty work. But rather than criticize America retrospectively for fighting its battles, Europe could show America how to 'keep a cool head and find moderation'.

Bruckner also addresses the subject of Multiculturalism in Europe, which has all but failed. Although the intention was to protect minorities from discrimination, all it has accomplished is to create huge ethnic ghettos, like the 'bidonvilles' of Paris, which imprison men, women and children by isolating them in their own culture. By trying so hard to protect other people's cultures, the Europeans have forgotten how to protect the individuals within those cultures. Multiculturalism is the opposite of 'assimilation'. So, which is better, to live in a melting pot like America, or in a salad bowl like France?

Bruckner's final words of advice to Europe are: 'Don't let the debt to the dead win out over the duty to the living.'
leave comment here

What is more important: a crotch shot, or the global economy?

2011-06-10T13:27:00.000-07:00

By Tom Kando

The titillation du jour is New York Congressman Anthony Weiner’s “sex scandal.” Comedians (Jay Leno, Jimmy Fallon, etc.) are having a heyday. It’s the number one topic of conversation around the water cooler.

How moronic! A politician sent a picture of his crotch to a woman. Big deal! Our obsession with such pseudo-issues is a reflection of ourselves. The disease is in the beholder - our media culture.

Men do certain things, some of which are not cool, and some of which are downright bad. But most of the so-called scandals which crop up so often only belong to the not-cool category:

President Clinton had his Lewinsky moment.
John Edward and Arnold Schwartzenegger have love children.
Eliot Spitzer frequented a prostitute.
Congressman Christopher Lee sent a picture of his torso to a woman.
Now Congressman Anthony Weiner sent a picture of his crotch to a woman.
On and on.

Note that I did not include Former French IMF Chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s misbehavior in my list. His (alleged) actions belong to the “bad” category. They should not be trivialized.

But the other ones, and dozens like them? They should be trivialized.
Why?
Because you see, our culture’s inordinate preoccupation with these events means two things:

1. As a society, we are still hung up on sex, in a less than fully healthy way. I don’t know where this comes from. Maybe our Puritan origins. For whatever reason, our culture’s attitude towards sex is still hypocritical and unhealthy. Marlene Dietrich summed it up superbly a long time ago, when she said that sex is “a fact everywhere, an obsession in America.”

Now don’t misunderstand me: We are by no means the most screwed up culture in this regard:
In regions where archaic Islam still dominates (e.g. rural Pakistan) men’s attitudes are disastrous. Catholicism also generates grotesque sexual situations - from pandemic pedophilia among the clergy to the proscription of birth control. And at the other end of the spectrum, little progressive countries like Denmark and Holland go too far with their laissez-faire, which can also lead to sexual exploitation.

But back to America:

2. In our country, these so-called sex scandals serve as convenient distractions for the power structure. We argue over, and vote politicians in and out of office, on the basis of their private behaviors more than their public effectiveness. Doesn’t make sense! Surely brilliant presidents such as John Kennedy and Bill Clinton were not less effective as a result of their private dalliances?

Our political leaders can lead us into illegal wars, crash the world economy, steal billions, engage in illegal torture, ruin entire countries. No problem. But woe unto them if they send a dirty picture. Nuts. leave comment here

Anthony Weiner: Stupid is as Stupid Does

2011-06-08T16:22:00.000-07:00

by Marc Hersch

In hi-tech America the art of doing stupid things is being lifted to new heights. Take Anthony D. Weiner's predicament. It's enough to make the strongest of men cringe in horror. It's one thing to have your mom or wife find porno magazines under your bed or to make a drunken fool of yourself flirting with a pretty receptionist at the office party. It's another thing to act out your libidinous male fantasies on the Worldwide Web. What was that man thinking!

Come to think of it, what are we all thinking? No one has a lock on doing stupid stuff but the sad fact of life reads... Everything you say and do in public can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion.

So why is it that we have so embraced the Worldwide Web as a place to make public everything we say and do? Are we crazy?

As if Facebook and Twitter weren't enough, God himself in the person of Steve Jobs, announced just yesterday that the age of "cloud computing" is now here!

That's right! Jobs is pushing the idea that everything we do and say and everywhere go and stay can now be recorded by personal computers, cell phones, and GPS equipped PDA's and stored...

(Shouting now) ON THE WORLDWIDE WEB!

I'm a pretty smart guy--smart enough to know that some of the things I do turn out being pretty stupid, but doing everything on the Word wide Web raises the meaning of stupidity to a whole new level.

Stupid is as stupid does!
leave comment here

Playing With Words

2011-06-07T13:57:00.000-07:00

By Tom Kando

To be human is, above all, to name things. Other things have been mentioned as our defining feature - the opposing thumb, our large brain, our large penis, the fact that we make love ventrally, etc. But our real distinction is that we use language; that we label things, label each other, label ourselves. It is through labels that we identify things, people, ourselves. It is through labels that we decide what things and people are, including ourselves. Of course, words are also used for obfuscation.

So now, for the fun of it (voor de grap), I am going to tell you some of the things I am:

I am a cis-gendered male born in Eastern Europe during World War Two. As a child, I was a philatelist, but I kicked the habit early. Although I emigrated to the US, I always remained a xenophile. Sometimes I even suffer from Europhilia, but a quick trip across the Atlantic usually cures me of that. Professionally I have been a Symbolic Interactionist. Politically, I used to be a RINO, but that was years ago. My tastes are sometimes Habsburgian, and I tend be a monovore. I sometimes suffer from Ypologistophobia.

Translation:

I am a male who is comfortable with his gender (as opposed to someone who is trans-gendered), born in Eastern Europe during World War Two. As a child, I used to collect stamps, but I kicked the habit early. Although I emigrated to the US, I always remained attracted to foreigners. Sometimes I even suffer from a bias in favor of European culture, but a quick trip across the Atlantic usually cures me of that. Professionally I have been a sociologist who specializes in social psychology. Politically, I used to be a Republican in name only but that was years ago. My tastes are sometimes gaudy, and I tend to eat the same kind of food most of the time. I sometimes suffer from a fear of computer technology. leave comment here

Oh la la! What to Do with the 'Vous'?

2011-06-03T07:17:00.000-07:00

by Madeleine Kando

One of the parents at my dance studio asked me: 'Tu donnes des leçons le lundi prochain?' (Do you hold classes next Monday?) I was a little offended. I am her child's teacher and did not expect to be addressed with the familiar 'tu' form for the word 'you'. But I forgave her because I knew she was from Canada. Had she been French, I would not have let her off so easy.

One of the advantages of living in an English speaking country is that there is only one word for 'you'. But many languages have two distinct words. In French the terms are to 'tutoyer' and 'vouvoyer' someone.

'Tutoie-moi' means 'don't be so formal'. It's quite a tricky affair though, if French isn't your native language. Only bungling foreigners are forgiven when they mix up the terms 'tu' and 'vous'.

Originally the term 'vous' was only used in the plural (as in you guys). It became the 'polite' form of the singular 'you' because plurality is equivalent to power and prestige. 'If there is more than one of me' thought the king, 'it will make me even more important'. So he ordered his subjects to address him with 'vous'.

Once the King acknowledged his plurality, he had to refer to himself as ‘We’. Louis XIV dismissed visitors to whom he granted an audience by saying: “Nous vous permettons de vous retirer.” (We permit you to leave). Pompous professors still refer to themselves in the plural: “As we indicated to the reader in the preceding chapter….” This bs is called pluralis majestatis.

In present-day French politics the 'vous'and the 'tu' are used as powerful tools to manipulate, convince, insult and denigrate. The 'tu' polilticians are liberal leftists who see each other as equals. The 'vous' politicians are conservative. These two camps spend an inordinate amount of time deciding whether they should 'tutoyer' each other or not. It took these two very eminent politicians several minutes of precious airtime to argue over this, the issues at hand being completely forgotten: Le tu et le toi en pollitique

When Sarkozy asked Chirac whether they should 'tutoyer' each other, Chirac answered 'Si vous voulez'.

You would think that having two forms for 'you' would give people more opportunity to be polite. But the opposite is true. To use a 'tu' when a 'vous' is expected can be very insulting and it is like a slap in the face. French politicians like to insult each other in public. In that regard American politicians are incredibly well-mannered and restrained. But I have a feeling that being snobbish, aggressive and arrogant are qualities that the French public doesn’t find particularly negative.

Not too long ago long-time married couples still addressed each other with 'vous'. In 'La Chamade' a 1968 movie, after a long night of passionate love making, Michel Piccoli asks his wife (played by Catherine Deneuve): 'Vous voulez une cigarette?' Weird.

To graduate from a 'vous' to a 'tu' in a relationship has to be negotiated on an individual basis and there are really no hard and fast rules. It's like two countries who have to trust each other enough to establish diplomatic relationships.

But if you are not sure, just stick to 'vous'. Don't take it too far though. You don't want to be asking your two-year old: 'Vous voulez un cookie?' (would your grace like a cookie?). But it is always a bigger blunder to 'tutoyer' someone inappropriately than to 'vouvoyer' them.

Comprenez-vous?
leave comment here

How Can We Best Support Our Troops?

2011-06-01T20:23:00.000-07:00

by Tom Kando

The news (E.g. the Sacramento Bee and the Washington Post, May 31, 2011) told us again today what most moderately well-informed people already know: The country is going broke because of its insanely high military expenditures: The war in Afghanistan alone requires $113 billion per year, the one in Iraq another $85 billion, for a total of $200 billion on the two wars combined.

The base budget for federal military spending in 2012 is $708 billion. However, many parts of the Iraq and Afghan wars are funded through supplementary appropriations outside the Federal Budget, so they are not included in the military budget figures.

See: Military budget of the United States

Also, there are many additional defense-related expenditures, such as FBI-Counter terrorism, Veterans Affairs, Interest incurred on debt in past wars, etc. Estimates of total military and military-related spending range from $1.030 trillion to $1.415 trillion.

The total amount the federal government plans to spend in 2012 is $3.82 trillion. Thus, military spending makes up 37% of federal spending.

Of course, the feds spend much more than they collect, as the Republicans incessantly remind us: Uncle Sam will only collect $2.17 trillion in taxes, running a deficit of $1.65 trillion. (See: 2011 United States federal budget

If you compare the military budget with federal receipts, it makes up 65% of those! In other words, 2 out of every 3 tax dollars you hand over to Uncle Sam goes to defense. I hope this makes you feel safe.

Most reasonably informed people know that America’s military spending exceeds that of all other countries of the world combined. No need to rehash this.

A more interesting factoid is this: Instead of killing and dying in Afghanistan, we could hand over the $113 billion to the Afghans. Each of them would thus receive $4000 every year. This would raise their per capita income to that of countries such as Jordan, Samoa and Paraguay. We seem to be so keen on this damn “nation-building.” Why not give every Afghan man, woman and baby a $4000 check every Christmas (or every Eid ul Fitr). Maybe that’ll enable them to make a go of it. And if not, we’ll spend no more money than we do now, and at least there’ll be less bloodshed, no?

Memorial Day is a good opportunity to ask ourselves: How can we best support our troops? The answer: Bring them home. leave comment here

How to entertain - and not entertain - foreign guests

2011-06-01T20:18:00.001-07:00

by Tom Kando and Anita Kando

As European-Americans, we have hosted European visitors to America innumerable times, and we have also been hosted in Europe countless times. These mutual visits have been a two-way street and a lifetime of enjoyment for both sides. But people make mistakes.

Many people don’t understand that when one visits another culture, thousands of miles away, one should be exposed to that culture’s fortes - not to its pathetic attempts to replicate the visitor’s own culture.

Yet, over and over again I have seen (1) American hosts showcasing to their European guests American imitations of European things, and, conversely, (2) European hosts treating their American visitors to European mimicry of American things.

The impulse is commendable. Hosts want their guests to be comfortable, to feel at home. That is their idea of hospitality. But it’s a mistake.

Let me give you some examples:

1. When our daughters went to Belgium on a three-week student exchange program, their hosts desperately searched for, and finally located, a Mexican restaurant, thinking that this would make the girls feel more at home, like in California. Our daughters reported that this was the worst Mexican food they had ever tasted. On the other hand, when their hosts took them to eat mountains of mussels with Belgian fries buried in mayonnaise, they had the feast and the delight of their lives.

2. Conversely, when the Belgian exchange students came to spend three weeks in California, some of them were taken by their hosts to (1) a Hershey chocolate factory in Oakdale and (2) a Budweiser beer factory! Of course, the students (most of them experienced Belgian beer guzzlers) laughed: You see, Belgium makes the world’s best chocolate, and the world’s best beer, bar none.

So here is my advice to anyone in such a situation - on both sides of the Atlantic:
If you are a European hosting American visitors:
Say you are Dutch and you are hosting friends from the US: show them the Keukenhof tulip fields, the Rijks Museum, the Van Gogh Museum, the Red Light District, the polders dotted with windmills, show them anything Dutch, but don’t drag them to the Great American Disaster - a burger joint in central Amsterdam. Don’t try to compete with American hamburgers, you can’t win.
Don’t drag them to a shopping mall. Theirs are bigger.
Don’t try to impress them with your wildlife. They got mountain lions, coyote and rattle snakes outside their backyards.

If you are an American hosting European visitors: Say you live in California: drive them to Disneyland, fly them to Vegas, show them Death Valley, the Grand Canyon, Lake Mead, Hoover Dam, but don’t shove the Sacramento Crocker Museum down their throat, or even the San Francisco De Young museum. Don’t try to compete with the Louvre, the British Museum or the Museum of Natural History in Vienna. You can’t win!

Don’t drag them to the Hearst Castle. It pales in comparison with Versailles or Schonbrunn. It will bore them.
Don’t take your Parisian friend to Sacramento’s best French restaurant.
Don’t take your Italian female relative shoe shopping.
Don’t offer American cheese to Dutch guests.

Play to your strength, not to your weakness! Europe and America are both magnificent, each in their own way. Don’t bring coal to Newcastle. People don’t travel to see poor replicas of their homelands! leave comment here

The American Devolution

2011-05-27T14:17:00.000-07:00

by Tom Kando

A hot debate in California at this time is whether or not to build the high-speed rail. Voters approved $10 billion for this in 2008, the Obama administration has appropriated nearly $3 billion, and California will receive several more billion reallocated to our State, after Florida, Michigan and some other states declined to participate and returned their share to the Feds (speaking of cutting your nose to spite your face!). The total cost, though, will run at least $45 billion.

So this brings up, again, the fundamental issue of the day: are public projects and the public sector good or bad?

There is now a second American Revolution going on. It’s actually an American Devolution. All the arguments for and against California’s High-speed rail can be generalized to other public projects and to the entire public sector.

There is today in this country, at all levels, a push to dismantle a century of social democracy, and its funding. From progressive taxation to Medicare and Social Security, from State and local parks to libraries, pubic transportation and public education.

The excuse for this has been the country’s indebtedness, mixed with a tinge of demographics: We know that our aging population increases the dependent sector while decreasing the productive sector. Each year, fewer working tax-payers must support more retirees and elderly. The conclusion drawn by the rich, the Republicans and the rest of the brainwashed population is that we must therefore dismantle the welfare state.

In the 1930s, when the country was in trouble, FDR responded with a glorious New Deal and magnificent public projects such as the TVA and the Hoover Dam. There was an elan of social awareness and collective action. Today, the response is the opposite.

Elsewhere in the Western World, the right-ward trend (which is what this is) exists, but it is much weaker. This, despite the fact that (1) their populations are aging more rapidly than ours, (2) their deficits often exceed ours (Japan’s is over 200% of GDP!) and (3) their public services and infrastructure are superior to ours. For example, California has been debating high-speed train service for 16 years, while France, Germany, Japan and even Poland have HAD it for many decades.

The difference? More of that dreaded thing called “Socialism,” or, if you prefer, FDR’s New Deal approach.

Because you see, the choice is NOT the one which House Budget Chair Paul Ryan and the Tea Party want to impose on us: The Status Quo vs. Dismantling the Welfare State. The solution is NOT the privatization of Social Security, Medicare, schools, prisons, juvenile institutions, reducing the entire service sector to a for-profit nightmare.

The solution is to IMPROVE the existing system, through simple and yes, sometimes draconian measures such as raising Social Security and Medicare age significantly (after all, we live much longer now), raising SS and Medicare contributions significantly, and above all: making taxation much, much more equitable, as it was until a generation ago. To begin with, return to the pre-Bush era tax rates on corporations and on wealthy individuals. Where is it written that the Federal budget should not exceed 20% of GDP?

To claim that the welfare state is not sustainable is to be ignorant of history and of the foreign experience. Despite two catastrophic wars - an entirely different topic - the Europeans have maintained successful welfare states for centuries, as have Japan, Canada, Australia and others. And they are not about to dismantle them.

The alternative is a devolution comparable to that of the Roman Empire - where roads, schools, public safety, literacy and the quality of life gradually wither, like vines in the winter... leave comment here