The Compulsive Explainer

Fast and Slow Time in the Information Age

I have an easy life, I must admit. I am surrounded by interesting books, just the kind I want to read. The latest is by Thomas Hylland Eriksen, evidently a Scandinavian of some kind because he teaches at the University of Oslo. What astonishes me is his English. His vocabulary is larger than mine: he used the word lacunae: in this case, a missing part of the story when writing this book. But he knows how to use these words too. Frankly, he can write better than I can. Consider this excerpt:

More flexibility makes us less flexible, more choice makes us less free. Why do most of us have less time to spare than before, contrary to what one might expect? Why does increased access to information lead to reduced comprehension? Why is there no good, politically informed visions for the future in a society infatuated with the present and near future? 

Some of these Scans are so smart, so well-educated, and possess such excellent social skills, it's makes you afraid for America.

Just today I was visiting the local real estate office run by a type-A gringo: he is always pushing, pushing—and bragging, bragging. He was also complaining he never has enough time. He is retired and living in paradise (his business is called Paradise Peak). A high-pressure life.

Dollar Still Strong in Costa Rica

This is one advantage of living in country with a weak economy. The US can easily reduce its expenses in Costa Rica (mainly tourism), but Costa Rica cannot easily reduce its expenses in the States (cars and cell phones). The Tico government, just like the American government, knows its citizen's want to buy things—and they have just discovered credit. Wonderful!

The traditional exports of Costa Rica, bananas and coffee, are no longer profitable because of competition from every tropical country in the world—where they pay their workers much less.

One major exporter is Intel, which makes all its microprocessors down here. But its plant is in a trade zone, which means Costa Rica doesn't get much from it except the salaries of its workers—which are desperate.

Intel does not have its plant in China, because it know the clever Chinese would quickly copy its technology. Ticos are not that smart and not that aggressive.

The Nature of Time

We are used to thinking of time as somthing that exists independently of everything else. To reassure ourselves of this we can check our wristwatch—and sure enough, our connection to Universal Time is still working correctly. All is right with the world.

There are only two problems with this: our common sense and the findings of science. Fortunately they are in agreement. One of the pleasures of a meditation practice is being able to let our personal time slow down. We don't have to run our personal treadmill as hard as we feel compelled to.

You have no doubt heard of fractals. The book The (Mis)Behavior of Markets, by Mandelbrot, has an intriguing chapter The Multifractal Nature of Trading Time. Anyone with the slightest exposure to a market knows these have busy times and slack times. The conclusion is obvious: time is variable; the most common sense conclusion there is—but one we have carefully ignored. Now science is saying the same thing: to model most social processes time must be a variable.

And this is true of all life processes. Each life system has its own time. The beating of a heart, for example. A heart is not connected to Universal Time, it creates its own. The same is true for our mental processes. A brain is always talking to itself, using its own rhythms. If these stop, we are dead.

How did we become so ignorant? Because we were overwhelmed by one of our own inventions: the mechanical clock. It worked so well, we started worshiping it. This gave advanced cultures a huge advantage: everyone was synchronized automatically. In more backward areas, time was still socially detirmined—and from their perspective, more sensible.

The Warped Genius Novelist

Novelists must have a strange outlook on life; they must be strange enough to be interesting, but not so strange it turns people off. They must appeal to certain groups of readers, but not others. Nobody can please everybody, no matter how hard they try.

This posting is about John Irving, who became wealthy from his novel The World According to Garp. This book was strange, no doubt about that, but the kind of strangeness many people liked. He instantly had a global audience—something any writer—or almost anyone else, would die for.

My grandmother was a novelist too, albeit one with only modest skills. She would analyze successful books and try to imitate them—and failed completely. In that racket you gotta be original, and keep being original. You gotta keep everybody guessing. Poor grandma could do neither. She was a wonderful grandmother to me—but this was not what the world wanted to hear about. It was not perverted enough.

She was gifted at one thing, however: writing homilies. She would think of some devout idea during church services—then rush home and type it up before it got cold. She supported her family during the depression by writing what she called homilopes: homilies on offering envelopes. One company supplied boxes of offering envelopes sufficient for entire year in advance. Churches would then give these to their faithful so they could make generous gifts without anyone in the congregation knowing how much that was.

Only the Internal Revenue Service got to know how much—and you could be sure they checked that carefully. The church financial officer kept all those envelopes, with the amount carefully noted on each. Even the IRS knew they had to trust someone like him.

Unfortunately for our family, a large extended family, not a single one of Grandmother's homilies has survived. She never even tried to save them; they were just something she dashed off in her spare moments. How strange fate is.

But I digress, I started to write about John Irving—and entirely different kind of creature without a religious bone in him. Something that has evidently not bothered his readers. Religious types would find him offensive—very offensive, for his sexually explicit content. Exactly what most sexually deprived readers eat up with a spoon. There must be a lot of them.

I am not only a depraved consumer of Irving's stuff—I like him recorded. I save it for the last thing before I go to sleep—that way it has a direct path to my receptive brain. My dreams are creative, like Irving is—but sometimes disturbing. I sometimes have to get up in the middle of the night to write myself.

Social Engineering of Other Cultures is not Possible

I am writing this at one in the morning, I am so excited. I have to remind myself that the world is not interested in my ideas. This whole blogging thing is a fantasy of my own. But let me proceed anyway. It does seem important to me.

America feels it is the recipient of a grand plan for making the world right—in its own image. Nothing could be more ridiculous. We can't even make our own country right. I skimmed over the headlines in Yahoo news when I signed into the Net: another recital of disasters.

How Americans can miss this tragedy of errors is beyond me—but they have. We are no longer capable of comprehending what tragedy is: one of the oldest concepts in our heritage is no longer ours. This could be the title for this posting: Tragedy has been forgotten. But that is not what I started to write about. 

What has been on my mind is Afghanistan. I can remember back in the Seventies, when I was taking my mid-life break, that Afghanistan was a favorite destination for low-budget travelers—along with Iran. How world has changed—and definitely not for the better. The Soviet Union messed up Afghanistan—before disappearing itself. Will American follow this pattern in the world's graveyard of civilizations? In the long run, it is not impossible.

We are trying to do the impossible: changing (social engineering) another culture to make it  more like we want it to be—without being clear, even to ourselves, what this should be. We just say: better woman's rights, for example—neglecting to recognize that this must be something that culture wants itself. We can't force our values on it—no matter how much we try.

We have no feel for what their culture is like—and we don't really want to feel. We don't care what they feel like. We insist on staying in our own culture and meddling in theirs—using military force, the worst imaginable agent of social change—because it generates huge resentment. 

Social engineering, if it can be done at all, requires considerable finesse and a subtle touch—not something the military is known for—although conceivably it could be trained in that direction, and would even like to move that way. It does have anthropologist contractors on staff now, but its use of them is clumsy, to say the least. It prefers brute strength—and so does the people who use them, our politicians and diplomats. Both of which have a record of which none could be proud.

But that is exactly what all the action in Af-Pak is all about: to distract us from noticing our own problems with a distracting side-show. 

The stupidest strategy imaginable.

In break with Bush, speculators blamed for oil price spikes

From McClatchy

The chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission signaled Tuesday that his agency is likely to limit financial speculators' ability to drive up prices for oil and other fuels.

Excessive speculation, suggested CFTC chief Gary Gensler, drove the price of oil to a record $147 a barrel a year ago, making it unnecessarily more expensive for Americans to heat their homes and fuel their cars.

"I believe we must seriously consider setting strict position limits in the energy markets," Gensler said at the start of a public hearing to consider limiting the number of contracts that an oil trader can hold.

Gensler's comments mark a stark shift from the Bush administration's view. When a Republican headed the CFTC last year, the agency concluded that market forces of supply and demand, not financial speculators, drove record increases in energy prices.

Catholic Workers go to Jail for Single Payer

From AfterDowningStreet.org

Following a pattern of civil resistance in Washington D.C. and around the country, citizens in Des Moines Iowa on Monday risked arrest to press for the creation of single-payer healthcare, the establishment of healthcare as a human right, and an end to the deadly practices of Iowa's largest health insurance company, Wellmark Blue Cross Blue Shield.

The nine latest supporters of single-payer to go to jail for justice are: Mona Shaw, Renee Espeland, Frankie Hughes (age 11), and Frank Cordaro, all from Des Moines Catholic Workers; Leonard Simmons from Massachusetts; Robert Cook; Eddie Blomer from Des Moines; Kirk Brown from Des Moines; and Chris Gaunt from Grinnell, Iowa.

These nine and others like them around the country represent, I think, the incredible potential to energize the American public on behalf of a struggle for the basic human right of healthcare, a potential being blocked by the work of activist organizations that reach out from Washington to tell the public that single-payer is not possible, rather than reaching into Washington from outside to tell our public servants what we demand.

Obama and Israel

Obama's foreign policy is a mess anywhere in the world. The only reason Americans haven't noticed this is because their understanding of the world is a mess too—and because the domestic scene is even more of a mess—and in desperation they try to concentrate on that.

When it comes to Israel, Americans are divided into two camps: the evangelicals consider Israel to be one of their own, despite the theological absurdities (which they do not bother their heads with). The rest of the Americans don't know what they think, but tend to support Israel (and continue to provide huge subsidies for it) despite the tiny Jewish population (some of which do not support Israel at all).

I have recently come across William R. Polk, who I mentioned in my last posting. This guy has been right out in the open, waving his arms, trying to attract attention, but I just now noticed him. He said this recently in Informed Consent:

The Vice President, as you know, just reversed the final position of the Bush administration, where Bush told the Israelis that America would not approve an attack on Iran: Joe Biden essentially authorized it, saying what they decided to do was their business, not ours. But those of you who have read my occasional essays could tick off the list of potential disasters for America and the Western world such an attack would bring on. It is patently absurd to suggest that an Israeli attack (made with our weapons and implicit approval) is not our business; indeed, regardless of our weapons and our approval, the long-term consequences for our economy, our position in the world, and our exposure to terrorism would be almost impossible to exaggerate.

This was news to me, so I did a Google on him and came up with a Web site, maintained by Eliza Polk, evidently a relative of his. Evidently the great man is not interested in doing it himself. His articles for 2009 had one entry: The Danger of War in the Middle East. I downloaded the PDF.

This is a huge document, and deserves closer reading, he is thoroughly familiar with American foreign/military policies, because he has been involved in many of them. 

In its pronouncements, the incoming new Israeli government has said that it intends to short-circuit any moves toward resolution of the crisis that do not definitively destroy the potential for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. It has repeatedly said that it has the means and the determination to take action. “In an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, incoming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed to have told President Barack Obama that either America stops Iran or Israel will…So once again, in spite of President Obama’s best efforts, the military option was put back on the table and the atmosphere for dealing with Iran was turned into ‘Do as we say—or else’..’The message of Israeli hawks has been that it can only afford to give diplomacy ‘a few months…otherwise Israel will take military action.”

I searched Google News for Israel attack Iran and got some shocking hits—including an article in the LA Times Biden says Israel has the right to attack Iran. And the Wall Street Journal: It's crunch time for Israel on Iran.

Polk continues:

As Roane Carey points out in a recent article, the fundamental Israeli strategic principle has always been that "no neighboring state or combination of states can ever be allowed to achieve anything faintly approaching military parity, because if they do, they will try to destroy the Jewish state..." Thus, Israel must maintain what Vladimir Jabotinsky, the patron saint of Likud and a succession of Israeli prime ministers, called "the iron wall."So where does this leave us?

To speculate, it seems to me that the Israelis are on the edge of a cliff: if they move ahead in their plan to attack Iran, as they say they will, regardless of whatever restraints are applied or cautionary words voiced by the Obama administration or others, I believe they will create a catastrophe not only for Iran but also others. Their action will precipitate at minimum a guerrilla war of more serious dimensions in Lebanon, in Jordan and Gaza, possibly revolution in some of the surrounding states, particularly in Egypt and perhaps in Saudi Arabia. Growing hatred of Israel throughout much of Asia, Africa and even Europe. Severe worldwide economic dislocations. Indeed, I believe that it will later be seen to have marked the beginning of the end for Israel itself.

And Americans stick their heads further in the sand.

Misfits in Out-of-the-Way Places in the World

The literature is full of stories about us: Hemingway, for example. As an actual member of this exotic class of people, it is hard to live up to the image: the hopes and dreams of the more proper members of society, living their narrow lives.

I wish I could tell you that retiring to some out-of-the-way spot would automatically provide you with an exciting life. It will certainly be different, but almost certainly not what you expected. In the last analysis, you will still have to live your own life, no matter where you are. This may turn out to be rather boring.

If you had a problem with alcohol before you left the real world, you will still have it here—probably worse, although it will cost you less. Places like India and Nepal are full of addicts to very serious substances, where they will probably end up dead on some dung-heap along with the native addicts. Life overseas can be brutal, and the local diseases (of all kinds) can be awesome.

But the supply of misfits is endless, every undeveloped place in the world keeps getting more of them—including Orosi, Costa Rica, where I live. Many of these tire of life overseas and go back to the real world—if they can afford it. Two families left recently. At the same time, new families come to take their place. I just met one yesterday. The father expects a economic tsunami to overcome America shortly. He has invested his reserves in gold, which he expects to become very valuable. 

The children, who appear normal, are happily playing with the local children. This will probably be an interesting part of their lives, as they look back on it—as Obama looks back on his crazy mother's period in Indonesia. 

Obama and Af-Pak

I know you have to much in your inbox already, I certainly do. But Af-Pak has been forgotten too long, and good stuff on it is limited.
---
William R. Polk in Informed Comment: Waiting for the Obama we elected. You will have to scroll down to see his guest editorial.

William R. Polk was the member of the Policy Planning Council responsible for North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia from 1961 to 1965 and then professor of history at the University of Chicago where he founded the Middle Eastern Studies Center. He was also president of the Adlai Stevenson Institute of International Affairs. His most recent book is Violent Politics: A History of Insurgency, Terrorism & Guerrilla Warfare from the American Revolution to Iraq

The commitment to the war in "Af-Pak" will cost America upwards of $6 trillion. Just the money costs could derail almost everything Obama's supporters hoped and thought his administration would do. That amount of money is roughly half the total yearly income (the GNP) of America.

In the military he has chosen to keep on Bush's Secretary of Defense (who signed if not wrote the latest version of the neoconservative-inspired US National Defense Doctrine calling for, among other things, the "right" of first striking almost anyone we choose if we don't like them), General David Petraeus whom I regard as a con man for breathing life into the Vietnam counterinsurgency program (which has never worked anywhere in the world in the last two centuries when tried by the British, the Russians, the French, the Germans or us) and General Stanley McChrystal who makes statements that sound terrifyingly like the SS. His main claim to fame appears to have come out of running the prison system in Afghanistan where, apparently, some of the worst cases of torture happened. Sy Hersh who just met with him came out of the meeting appalled. These men, allegedly, have told Obama that he could win the war in Afghanistan "on the cheap." So when his then principal military adviser gave a more sober assessment -- nearly half a million men -- Obama fired him and listened to Petraeus' siren song. Again, as an old hand, I cannot help remembering Vietnam where we went from 1,700 to half a million soldiers and still lost.

The Pentagon budget is not only enormous but contains a number of potential scandals. . . Our overseas bases now cost us over $100 billion yearly. Since the DOD sops up over half of the disposable resources of the government, Obama must get control of it. His task will be difficult because the DOD and what President Eisenhower called the "military industrial complex" have cleverly portioned out the work and procurement on the program to virtually every congressional district. Congress will opt for the program even if it bankrupts America. Congress will be Obama's enemy if he tries any reforms.