In the Japanese Garden
posed for my cell phone.
Monday, May 30, 2016
Friday, May 27, 2016
memory
I don't get out much. On those rare occasions when I do engage in some social event, I often find myself amazed at the variety of life experiences which other people report. For instance, I went to a party recently and spent some time listening to the story of a fellow who said he had broken or severely sprained an ankle at the age of five. That mishap resulted in his being confined to his bed at home for about a month. His convalescence coincided with the assassination of John Kennedy. The storyteller said he watched the unfolding events on tv pretty much non-stop, and said he had been obsessed with it ever since. He was convinced that Oswald could not have made the shots as was alleged, and that someone else was responsible for the killing. Of course, I watched much of the same reporting on tv at the time, but I was twenty-one years old, and I had a rather different view of the events. I remember being rather cynical about the death of the President at that moment, and I tended to accept the investigative findings as likely correct. The later killings of Bobby Kennedy and MLK had a much more profound effect on me; they seemed to me to be much less an accident of history, and more an indication of the nation slipping into an irreversible downward spiral.
Beyond the facts and controversies of the assassinations, the story the fellow related got me to thinking about how our memories and world views are products of many factors in our environment beyond what we may immediately perceive at the time. I was five years of age in 1945. That was also a time of monumental, world shaping events, but the opportunities for a five-year-old to perceive and evaluate them did not include the visual and narrative structuring of experience that were made available by television programming in the 1960s. My memories of those times contain many small snippets of information gleaned from infrequent exposure to newsreels in darkened theaters, bits of overheard conversations, and perhaps a little audio input from the big old wooden cabinet RCA radio in our living room. I'm sure there were more coherent written journalistic accounts of events available, but they were not accessible to a child of five. I do have some recollection of the sense of relief and elation around the ending of WWII. I do not directly recall anything at all about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Conversation in our household about the events of 1945 were no doubt muted to an extent by the fact that my father did not return from the war. How much that was responsible for the obvious holes in my memory of that time is hard to judge.
It turned out that I was a precocious reader. Thanks to that I did gain some awareness of the A-bombs not too long after the event. I clearly remember John Hersey's book, Hiroshima, sitting in the plywood bookcase in our living room which had been built by my grandfather. My grandmother encouraged me to read the book; I was probably seven or eight by then. Hersey's account relating the stories of the six survivors created an indelible impression in my young mind. It is an impression that has stuck with me and influenced my thoughts about the bombing and the threat of the Bomb ever since.
Like everyone of my generation, I lived closely with the Bomb throughout my youth and well into adulthood. I learned to duck under my school desk when the practice alarm was rung. I recall being in D.C. during the tense days of the Cuban missile crisis and suddenly awakening in the middle of the night, sure that I had perceived the flash of a nuclear detonation. The lessening of tensions and a reduction in the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. brought a sense of respite, but the reality and the on-going danger of the Bomb came to the fore every year in any case, usually around the anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I believe it was on the fiftieth anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that we were visited in our home in the desert in New Mexico by two young Japanese women who Margaret had befriended through her hospice work. I recall that as we sat down to dinner one night that I felt compelled to share with them my feelings of regret about the dropping of the A bombs. They were quite reserved in their reactions to my comments. I don't really know what they thought of what I said, or even how much they understood given the language issues of the moment. It is possible that even their parents were not yet born before the end of the war, and the two young women may have felt as remote from those events as my own children.
I think such beliefs are the product of a combination of racism and false memories, some of which are implanted by happenstance, but others being the product of deliberate propagandistic manipulation. I'm not overly optimistic about changing the world views of people who are able to glibly write off the instantaneous incineration of cities based on such flimsy reasoning. But, it still seems worthwhile to make an effort to offer the relevant facts when the opportunity arises. The article in The Nation by Gar Alperovitz is a good place to start as it presents the actual views expressed by top military and scientific leaders at the time the Bomb was used.
Beyond the facts and controversies of the assassinations, the story the fellow related got me to thinking about how our memories and world views are products of many factors in our environment beyond what we may immediately perceive at the time. I was five years of age in 1945. That was also a time of monumental, world shaping events, but the opportunities for a five-year-old to perceive and evaluate them did not include the visual and narrative structuring of experience that were made available by television programming in the 1960s. My memories of those times contain many small snippets of information gleaned from infrequent exposure to newsreels in darkened theaters, bits of overheard conversations, and perhaps a little audio input from the big old wooden cabinet RCA radio in our living room. I'm sure there were more coherent written journalistic accounts of events available, but they were not accessible to a child of five. I do have some recollection of the sense of relief and elation around the ending of WWII. I do not directly recall anything at all about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Conversation in our household about the events of 1945 were no doubt muted to an extent by the fact that my father did not return from the war. How much that was responsible for the obvious holes in my memory of that time is hard to judge.
It turned out that I was a precocious reader. Thanks to that I did gain some awareness of the A-bombs not too long after the event. I clearly remember John Hersey's book, Hiroshima, sitting in the plywood bookcase in our living room which had been built by my grandfather. My grandmother encouraged me to read the book; I was probably seven or eight by then. Hersey's account relating the stories of the six survivors created an indelible impression in my young mind. It is an impression that has stuck with me and influenced my thoughts about the bombing and the threat of the Bomb ever since.
Like everyone of my generation, I lived closely with the Bomb throughout my youth and well into adulthood. I learned to duck under my school desk when the practice alarm was rung. I recall being in D.C. during the tense days of the Cuban missile crisis and suddenly awakening in the middle of the night, sure that I had perceived the flash of a nuclear detonation. The lessening of tensions and a reduction in the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. brought a sense of respite, but the reality and the on-going danger of the Bomb came to the fore every year in any case, usually around the anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I believe it was on the fiftieth anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that we were visited in our home in the desert in New Mexico by two young Japanese women who Margaret had befriended through her hospice work. I recall that as we sat down to dinner one night that I felt compelled to share with them my feelings of regret about the dropping of the A bombs. They were quite reserved in their reactions to my comments. I don't really know what they thought of what I said, or even how much they understood given the language issues of the moment. It is possible that even their parents were not yet born before the end of the war, and the two young women may have felt as remote from those events as my own children.
Albuquerque, where we now live is home to the Museum of Nuclear Science and History. The section of the museum devoted to the Bomb includes a book where people can leave comments about the use of the Bomb against the Japanese. Some of the commenters express feeling similar to mine, but many repeat the idea that the use of the A-Bomb was necessary to avoid a high number of American losses which would have resulted from an invasion without the use of the Bombs. Similar arguments have surfaced in response to Obama's recent visit to Hiroshima. Here is a typical response to an article in The Nation about the U.S. use of the A-Bomb:
It might be interesting to sit down with the fellow who made those assertions to get at the process by which he arrived at his opinions justifying the need to drop nuclear bombs on the two Japanese cities in response to the threat of "ceramic grenades and any other weapons they could come up with to defend the island to the last man, woman or child." The writer is likely just a troll given the absurdity of his proffered imagery, but I think there are a substantial number of people who adhere to similar views who are entirely sincere in their beliefs.Sure we could have invaded the Island of Japan and ended the war at the cost of another 100,000 American lives. All the bleeding hearts are pouring forth with their version of what could have been. The reality is the Japanese were arming the populace with ceramic grenades and any other weapons they could come up with to defend the island to the last man, woman or child.
It seems most want to forget the brutal murderous reign of these war loving people who would slaughter anyone who stood in the way of their domination.
Truman was right then and he remains right today and forever.
I think such beliefs are the product of a combination of racism and false memories, some of which are implanted by happenstance, but others being the product of deliberate propagandistic manipulation. I'm not overly optimistic about changing the world views of people who are able to glibly write off the instantaneous incineration of cities based on such flimsy reasoning. But, it still seems worthwhile to make an effort to offer the relevant facts when the opportunity arises. The article in The Nation by Gar Alperovitz is a good place to start as it presents the actual views expressed by top military and scientific leaders at the time the Bomb was used.
Monday, May 2, 2016
Worth A Look
George Monbiot's article in The Guardian, Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our problems, provides a clear and much-needed definition of the ruling economic/political philosophy of our time. He clearly describes the major elements and trends, and identifies the biggest culprits. He also highlights the failure of the left to come up with a comprehensive alternative during the last half-century as the neoliberal engine gained momentum.
Monbiot notes an important point often glossed over by liberal economists, which is that Keynes had a good and thorough answer to the failures of capitalism in his time, but his analysis and remedies do not fit our time. Of course, Keynes cannot be faulted for not foreseeing the distortions that would arise from globalization and the damage to the global environment that would ensue. Liberal economists like Krugman should, however, be held accountable for praising Keynes while failing to come to grip in any comprehensive manner with those issues about which Keynes had little or no clues.
It seems curious to me that Monbiot mentions some of the present day players on the Right like Trump, Slim, and the Kochs, but he has nothing to say about the the current political confrontations in the UK and the US except for a generalized condemnation of the historic lack of response by the Left. It seems like he could have spared a few words about the ties of the Clintons to the neoliberal establishment, or about the challenges from the left being mounted in his own country or here. Sanders has certainly embraced every one of the issues which Monbiot mentions.
(español)
Monbiot notes an important point often glossed over by liberal economists, which is that Keynes had a good and thorough answer to the failures of capitalism in his time, but his analysis and remedies do not fit our time. Of course, Keynes cannot be faulted for not foreseeing the distortions that would arise from globalization and the damage to the global environment that would ensue. Liberal economists like Krugman should, however, be held accountable for praising Keynes while failing to come to grip in any comprehensive manner with those issues about which Keynes had little or no clues.
It seems curious to me that Monbiot mentions some of the present day players on the Right like Trump, Slim, and the Kochs, but he has nothing to say about the the current political confrontations in the UK and the US except for a generalized condemnation of the historic lack of response by the Left. It seems like he could have spared a few words about the ties of the Clintons to the neoliberal establishment, or about the challenges from the left being mounted in his own country or here. Sanders has certainly embraced every one of the issues which Monbiot mentions.
(español)
Wednesday, April 27, 2016
The $2 Camera
I'm a sucker for old tech. Not any old tech, of course. When I push the 'on' button it has to light up. My previously most recent experience was finding and restoring a $5 Dell laptop which was about fifteen years old. Today, I found a Kodak EasyShare digital camera for $2 at the same thrift shop that the computer came from. Kodak introduced this model in 2004, so it is pretty much a contemporary of the laptop. In fact, this Kodak closely resembles the Olympus D360-L which I was using a couple years before the EasyShare made its debut.
The first digital cameras came out of the Kodak labs, and by 2004 they were producing some pretty sophisticated instruments for the consumer market. The EasyShare has a nice 4X zoom lens, a 2.2 inch display, and a lot of the other features which are today incorporated in the latest digital offerings.
What was lacking in the EasyShare, of course, was the capacious image sensor of today's digital cameras. The CCD in the 2004 Kodak could only capture 4.0 Megapixels. Any cheap cell phone these days will typically have several times that capacity. However, three or four megapixels was perfectly adequate for attaching a picture to an email, or uploading to a photo sharing site like photo.net.
I was pleased to find a ring binder in the plastic bag with the camera containing the EasyShare user manual. Unfortunately, there was no charger for the lithium-ion battery, so I'll be reluctant to put the camera to much use until I can locate a charger. I did run by a couple other local thrift stores to look for accessories and surprisingly found the docking station/charger which was made for this camera. The dock had a $10 price tag on it, however, so I passed up that opportunity. Back home, I checked ebay and found I could get a charger from Hong Kong for less than five bucks -- shipping included -- so I went for it.
I did briefly light up the EasyShare to check funtioning, and I pressed the 'review' button to inspect the memory. I found that the SD/MMC memory card was pretty much filled up with some pictures that had been made just a few months ago. Someone had made a series of pictures of a nice house which was up for sale in an upscale east-side Albuquerque neighborhood. The location was obvious from the southwest style of the house, as well as a view of the Sandia Mountains in the background of one shot. They weren't pictures to stir the imagination, but it is still nice to make some connection -- however tenuous -- with a previous user of the camera. I've found film in several vintage cameras previously, but all came up blank, so these EasyShare found images are a first in my experience.
And, lastly, the obligatory camera initiation shot of Richard. He is eight years older than the EasyShare, but still lights up and doesn't require batteries.
The first digital cameras came out of the Kodak labs, and by 2004 they were producing some pretty sophisticated instruments for the consumer market. The EasyShare has a nice 4X zoom lens, a 2.2 inch display, and a lot of the other features which are today incorporated in the latest digital offerings.
What was lacking in the EasyShare, of course, was the capacious image sensor of today's digital cameras. The CCD in the 2004 Kodak could only capture 4.0 Megapixels. Any cheap cell phone these days will typically have several times that capacity. However, three or four megapixels was perfectly adequate for attaching a picture to an email, or uploading to a photo sharing site like photo.net.
I was pleased to find a ring binder in the plastic bag with the camera containing the EasyShare user manual. Unfortunately, there was no charger for the lithium-ion battery, so I'll be reluctant to put the camera to much use until I can locate a charger. I did run by a couple other local thrift stores to look for accessories and surprisingly found the docking station/charger which was made for this camera. The dock had a $10 price tag on it, however, so I passed up that opportunity. Back home, I checked ebay and found I could get a charger from Hong Kong for less than five bucks -- shipping included -- so I went for it.
I did briefly light up the EasyShare to check funtioning, and I pressed the 'review' button to inspect the memory. I found that the SD/MMC memory card was pretty much filled up with some pictures that had been made just a few months ago. Someone had made a series of pictures of a nice house which was up for sale in an upscale east-side Albuquerque neighborhood. The location was obvious from the southwest style of the house, as well as a view of the Sandia Mountains in the background of one shot. They weren't pictures to stir the imagination, but it is still nice to make some connection -- however tenuous -- with a previous user of the camera. I've found film in several vintage cameras previously, but all came up blank, so these EasyShare found images are a first in my experience.
And, lastly, the obligatory camera initiation shot of Richard. He is eight years older than the EasyShare, but still lights up and doesn't require batteries.
Thursday, April 21, 2016
Thursday, April 14, 2016
The last debate
No surprises in Brooklyn. Hillary Clinton is very very good at telling people what they want to hear. Earlier in the day I happened to look at a clip from her AIPAC speech in which she voiced unconditional support for Benjamin Netanyahu's right wing government in Israel. It was a chilling performance and a convincing one. It calls into doubt her sincerity in admitting to having made a mistake in supporting Bush's war in Iraq. Would she really pursue such a partisan policy regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, or would she be more pragmatic once in office. How can we know?
I don't have those kind of reservations about Bernie Sanders. I don't agree with him on all the issues, but I feel I know where he stands on questions of foreign policy, health care, education, income inequality, prison reform, campaign finance reform, and climate change. There is likely a slim chance that he will prevail in the New York primary, or that he will achieve the presidency. If he does overcome the odds and make it to the oval office, I have no doubts that he will continue to advocate those positions he has staked out in the campaign.
I don't know what Hillary will do in office. Many people are inclined to support her because they feel she will not do anything stupid in regard to issues of Supreme Court nominations or women's rights. That is probably correct. But what about relations with Russia? What about pursuing a deeper involvement in conflicts in the Middle East? How would she deal with nuclear armaments issues? Will she support meaningful change in regard to income and wealth inequality? Will she move the country into a position of leadership to combat climate change? I don't think anyone can supply sound answers to those questions, and I don't think Clinton is really any more predictable across the board than Donald Trump. I am having a debate with myself right now as to whether I could cast a vote for Clinton if she is the nominee.
I don't have those kind of reservations about Bernie Sanders. I don't agree with him on all the issues, but I feel I know where he stands on questions of foreign policy, health care, education, income inequality, prison reform, campaign finance reform, and climate change. There is likely a slim chance that he will prevail in the New York primary, or that he will achieve the presidency. If he does overcome the odds and make it to the oval office, I have no doubts that he will continue to advocate those positions he has staked out in the campaign.
I don't know what Hillary will do in office. Many people are inclined to support her because they feel she will not do anything stupid in regard to issues of Supreme Court nominations or women's rights. That is probably correct. But what about relations with Russia? What about pursuing a deeper involvement in conflicts in the Middle East? How would she deal with nuclear armaments issues? Will she support meaningful change in regard to income and wealth inequality? Will she move the country into a position of leadership to combat climate change? I don't think anyone can supply sound answers to those questions, and I don't think Clinton is really any more predictable across the board than Donald Trump. I am having a debate with myself right now as to whether I could cast a vote for Clinton if she is the nominee.
Wednesday, April 6, 2016
Congratulations on Victory in Wisconsin (and Wyoming)
 |
| (Reuters / Mark Kauzlarich) |
The other big thing coming out of this electoral experience is straight talk about the issues of real importance to the majority of the American people. Issues of income and wealth inequality, banking and financial market regulation, environmental degradation, and control of the endless war machine have been laid bare. Elected officials are going to have a harder time paying only lip service to the people's fundamental concerns. By the same token, there seems to be some hope for moving electoral contests at all levels beyond the focus on personality and empty rhetoric that has characterized the elections of recent decades.
The genie is out of the bottle and he isn't going back in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)