"Too Distracted By His Inability To Breathe..."

I read this gem today under the headline "F22 Pilot Blamed in Fatal Crash After Plane Malfunction"

Capt. Jeff Haney was flying the Air Force's next-generation stealth F-22 Raptor on a routine training mission in Alaska in November 2010 when a sudden malfunction cut off his oxygen completely. Capt. Haney never made a distress call but took his plane into a dive and, a little over a minute later, crashed into the winter wilderness at faster than the speed of sound.

After a lengthy investigation, an Air Force Accident Investigation Board could not find the cause of the malfunction but determined "by clear and convincing evidence" that in addition to other factors, Haney was to blame for the crash because he was too distracted by his inability to breathe to fly the plane properly.

 Wow.

Granted, the ability to remain calm without oxygen might save your life, provided that you don't lose control of your plane and auger in or black out and auger in AND the oxygen flow is restored reasonably quickly (like maybe less than 15 seconds, max!)

But blaming an oxygen-less pilot for the crash? It would appear the members of the Air Force Accident Investigation Board need to review some basic human physiology. Wonder if they would get 'too distracted by an inability to breathe to perform their jobs properly', of they could (and maybe did!) write the report in the absence of oxygen - certainly no functioning, oxygen using brain was active when that line was written!

Privilege and Easter

Last night we watched Cecile DeMille's 1956 classic, “The Ten Commandments”.

The root of this story is the slavery of the Hebrew people at the hands of the Egyptians, and their eventual deliverance into freedom and ultimately nationhood. Their slavery is depicted as cruel and unrelenting; they are basically used and thrown away when no longer able to do the manufacturing demanded of them by their privileged masters. One of the earliest stories in the Christian anthology places a premium on self-determination, on freedom, on the evils of enslavement.

Today I was reading Dylan Ratigan, and he writes (fn1):

“The policy machinations happen on the other side of the Pacific, not just in America. In March 2006, write[sic] Brendan Smith, Tim Costello, and Jeremy Brecher in Asia Times, the Chinese government proposed a new labor law that would have improved working conditions moderately. In response, the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai, as well as US corporations such as General Electric, Wal-Mart, and even Google lobbied against the law, and in some cases threatened to leave China for countries such as Pakistan and Thailand if it passed. By December, the Chinese government had revised the draft law to limit workers' rights in the areas of contracts, collective bargaining, and severance, among others.”

He was writing about the nearly intolerable working conditions at many Chinese manufacturing plants, notably those exposed at Foxconn (maker of iPads, iPhones, and iPods and other Apple products). The workers there have been dubbed 'iSlaves', and for all practical purposes, they are slaves: forced to perform a small set of tasks repeatedly for barely more than sustenance living; their work hours controlled by their masters; many falling prey to central nervous system disorders at an early age as a result of the chemicals they use; and then thrown aside without any further compensation from either their company or their government.(fn4)

The eye-opener is that American companies lobbied against an improvement in working conditions: That Americans felt it was their privilege to be the beneficiaries of the exploitation of poor Chinese citizens. We shouldn't be surprised, though: A lowering of labor standards in China, along with preferential trade status, brings about a lowering of labor standards in America, opening the doors to greater exploitation of the American laborer, along with increased profits for the corporate executives and shareholders who employ said laborers.

Today is Easter – the Holiest Day on the Christian calendar, and the celebration of the life of Jesus. Interestingly, in his teachings, Jesus was consistently against privilege: In his Sermon on the Mount he spoke of the blessedness of the merciful, of the evil that awaits he who attempts to serve two masters and store up money on earth; after the last supper he knelt down and washed his disciples' feet, proclaiming “Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.” (fn2) Jesus spent his life preaching, teaching, and living against privilege.

And well he should have: For it is privilege, and the seeking of privilege that leads us to acceptance of exploitation and slavery of others; prejudice is our natural defense against the cognitive dissonance that arises when we treat another human as sub- or unworthy.

But, I wonder. Some 70-80 million adults attended Easter Services today in America (fn3). Did they connect the dots? Richard Feynman, the Nobel Physicist, observed that most intelligence is fragile: That information gained in one area or endeavor is seldom transferred to another, even when the situation is an exact transformation. Dr Feynman was renowned for solving problems in chemistry and biology (in addition to his physics), correctly recognizing that the problem was solvable using a transformation of the mathematics and methods he knew.

Jesus spoke against privilege. Moses spoke against slavery. If we connect the line between the two:

Enslavement of the Hebrews was wrong. Enslavement of the Jews (by the Romans) was wrong. Enslavement of the American Negro was wrong. Enslavement of the Chinese Peasantry is wrong. Using the situation of the Chinese peasantry to push the American laborer back towards enslavement is wrong.

How many who attended Easter Services today will wake up tomorrow with a renewed interest in living a life without privilege; will recognize that privilege is what drives them to demand of their leaders (and drives our leaders themselves) to increase exploitation of 'others' around the world; that it is only through the exploitation of those, like the Chinese, that we have all that we have?

Relinquishing privilege can be painful, and leaves us with less material goods, although it strengthens our moral character. Privilege and slavery have been human social constants for most of human civilization. But, humans were not made to toil in poor conditions for the benefit of another; humans were not made to be abused by the whims of a master; each human was made to live a life of free determination, choosing his or her own path, choosing what to do and who to help during his mortal journey, and reaping the rewards thereof. Each should have the ability to work in conditions that are safe, with remuneration above sustenance, without fear of losing their job or their livelihood because some business owners have found a new group of people somewhere to exploit or enslave.

Everywhere and anywhere we see abuse of privilege leading to exploitation of another we must speak out. As the Pharaohs were to the Hebrews, so those today who feel that it is in their power, their privilege to live a life above while at the same time denying freedom to others, especially under the guise of 'employment', must be called out. The executives who would fight to deny a moderate increase in the working conditions of overseas laborers; the executives who would fight to decrease working conditions for their fellow Americans; the lawmakers who allow trade imbalances to continue that make it too easy for Americans to lose sight of the evils of privilege and slavery and so invest their money and talent in exploiting rather than producing; All must made to hear our desire to end both, and to fear our wrath if they do not.

Speaking out against slavery and privilege occupy a place in our oldest writings; We've understood for more than 3000 years that such a relationship is against our very moral fiber. Sadly, our work constructing a society built on a more positive relationship is still very much nascent, constantly thwarted by the powerful and our own innate desire to have more than our neighbor; and our unwillingness, once we find ourselves privileged, to move to strike such thinking from our minds and hearts and promote ideas that are fair to all.

Not the easy road, but if one lesson can be gleaned from today, it is that the correct path is not the easy one. Imagine for just a moment how the difficulties facing us might appear differently if we were to strike privilege and prejudice (and the acceptance of exploitation) from our thinking, from our doing, from the very structure of our society. 

(fn1) Dylan Ratigan. “Greedy Bastards” Loc 995, Kindle Edition, 2011.

(fn2) Jesus washes disciples feet. John 13, v14-15. NIV

(fn3) Estimated Easter Christian Attendance – 70-80 million adults (approximately 1/3 of the nation) - pulled from Wikipedia, Pew Research (59 million average Sunday attendance, Easter approx. 33% higher)

(fn4) No, I am not picking on Apple. I was chagrined to learn that my Kindle was most likely made either there or at an equivalent factory - and that much of what we purchase with the 'Made In China' sticker has aspects of that, although electronics are likely the worst.

Autism Week

Monday, April 2nd was World Autism Day. However, in Europe, specifically the Netherlands, this is Autism Week. As a result of the wide focus on the topic, there has been much published recently.

I enjoyed this one by Ingrid Robeyns, and thought I would share - for those I know dealing with this firsthand.

A Helping of Bullshit, Anyone?

I was reading some of the fine articles by the folks over at Language Log, and several times they indicated that such-and-such satisfied the technical definition of bullshit. Intrigued, I followed the link, and was taken to the site for Princeton Philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt's book “On Bullshit”. Amazed that such a book could be written, and that renowned philosopher Wittgenstein evoked in such writing, well, I had to read it. So, as they say, in less than a minute I had called the book from the cloud to my reader, ready for my perusal.

What I learned is that bullshit does withstand a technical definition, and that it is distinct from lying, although it is designed to deceive. Whereas the liar is still intimately concerned with the truth, for the purpose of denying their listener or reader access to it, the bullshitter reveals a blatant disregard for the truth. Instead of verifying the correctness of his or her details, the expounder of dung carries on without concern for the voracity of what they are saying, oftentimes when the exact details, hence the truth, could be easily obtained.

What separates bullshit from mere laziness, however, is the former's intent to deceive. An individual may not know the factual details, and may expound briefly on the subject, but the knowledgeable one must soon give way, knowing they do not know and cognizant of their lack (and unwilling to go look it up). Bullshit, however, is still designed to deceive: To allow the writer or speaker the ability to carry on towards some other goal without concern for the facts; to try on ideas to see how they sound, or, more often in our political world, to throw out ideas just to see if they have carrying power because they further someone's aims.

Coincidentally, while watching the TV last night I was given the perfect example: Rick Santorum, during one of his campaign speeches, expounded on the idea that “I think its seven or eight of the California System of Universities don't even teach an American History course. It's not even available to be taught.”

The details are easily verifiable, in fact numerous people have gone to the effort to look into the offerings of the CA university system, with the demonstrable gain that all except one (a medical school!) offer and require American History of their students.

Does that make Rick Santorum a liar? In all likelihood, no. It was not his intent to deny us the truth, for surely he understands how easily we could look that up. No, his was the desire to float a different idea: The meme that American Colleges and Universities (and those educated by them) are out of touch with some 'real' America and out of touch with the morals and values of said 'real' America. The presence or absence of American History at the universities provides neither proof nor disproof of his idea, but gives a useful hook into establishing the meme.

The idea he is attempting to float is surely as false as his sloppy disregard for the actual offerings by the universities, and now, thanks to professor Frankfurt, I can proclaim, without malice or prejudice, and with technical certitude:

Bullshit, Mr. Santorum!

The More Things Change....(Iran Edition)

'W. E. B. DuBois – Biography of a Race' closes in 1919 with DuBois touring Europe in the aftermath of its Civil War of 1914-1918. He is hopeful that Europe will cast off its African Colonies and allow them to become self-governing, and in so doing, light the way for America to reduce, and ultimately eliminate its own suppression of the Negro in its midst.

What interestingly escapes DuBois until much later in his life is that wars are fought not to free secondary or oppressed people: Wars are fought between the powerful to consolidate or expand the power, territory, and citizenry under their control. Just as territorial control was a driver in Europe's Civil War, so was land and territorial control a major driver in America's Civil War 65 years earlier. Sure, both wars were dressed up in ideology at the time and in our kinder remembrances of them, but the expansion of power was at the root of both.

Reading history is an interesting exercise: One continually has to confront the truth of the observation that things now are in many ways, and almost completely in the ways that matter, little different from what has gone before. I read with heavy heart of the high cost of war, the destruction of property, technology, agriculture (and the ability to feed a populace), and the tragic loss of life. The book is closed, I surface in the now, and hear the drumbeats leading to another war, this one potentially modern. Sure, the pundits claim that the loss of life will be minimal, the damage contained, etc.

But, it will be war. Our folks will be killing their folks, our boys (and girls) killing their boys and girls, and being killed in turn. Our resources and energy will be diverted from educating our young, building our commons, researching for cures to the diseases that ail (and sometimes plague) us to building weapons, creating means of destruction rather than means of construction, and strengthening the warrior hierarchy of our society.

We just fought two wars under the mistaken notion that we could do so without cost, that the benefits would overcome them: Instead, we've plunged our country deeper into debt, increasing our vulnerability to economic sabotage by those who might wish to do so, weakened our children's future and neglected items we formerly took great pride in. Now, we worry that we cannot afford to provide for our elderly, either in money to live on or health care to live by; we decree that higher education must be put further out of reach, and standard education must be crippled; that maintaining the previous standards of our society must be forsaken, and we must all accept the gradual diminishing of our way of life.

So, for those who believe that we need to engage Iran, I have but a single question: What will you personally relinquish so that we can do so? Will you pay more in taxes to support the war effort in the hopes that the investment in containing Iran will accrue to you in future years? (Taxes you currently do not pay and could not escape through any loophole, but a new tax that you will bear above your current tax load.) Will you accept a loss of income increases at your job for the duration of the war, and perhaps for several years after until America regains her feet and pays down her wartime debt? Or, will you personally put your life or the lives of your sons or daughters on the line by going to the front and fighting in Iran to remove whatever threat our leaders believe is there?

For if you are not willing to, in the same breath that you advocate war with Iran, explain how you will share in the burden, then your thoughts are the specious thoughts of a coward. There is one other constant of history that is always present: People are ever willing to advise and admonish others to do some thing, especially when doing that thing will result in a good outcome to the adviser and the cost will settle on the advisee.

Think we need to go to war with Iran? If you are willing to pay some of the cost directly, then, and only then, will I listen to your argument. Otherwise, you can talk to the hand – the hand making the sign of peace.

J. Edgar

Watched J. Edgar last night.

This morning when I got up, the movie was still on my mind. Foremost were two questions: What is this movie inviting me to think about, and How much of what I saw is reliably true?

The second question bears considering first, as it plays into the first.

I watched the credits in their entirety to gain some insight – hoping to see something about the sources, their reliability, etc. Of course, this is a movie, but based upon history... What did come up was standard boilerplate: “Although this movie is based upon historical facts, some scenes were dramatized...”

Which is very disquieting in terms of uncovering how we should view this movie. There are many, many scenes which involve J. Edgar alone, or J. Edgar and one other person, very often another person who was considerably loyal (and unlikely to record separate notes on what took place.) So, every scene with just him and his mother, just him and his friend Clyde, or him and his secretary Helen becomes suspect as to its accuracy, and without additional confirmation, we have to take the information portrayed and, if not discount, at least tend very carefully to its influence on our thinking.

So, for instance: We cannot take at face value the movie's assertion that his mother was his rock, his mentor until her death (when Hoover was well into adulthood, perhaps his 40's, the exact timing of certain events was difficult to ascertain giving the movie's habit of jumping back and forth in time), that he had not 'grown up' until then and was instead still in some Freudian relationship. Maybe, maybe not. We cannot trust the exact nature of his friendship with Clyde, either: so much of what was portrayed takes place behind closed doors – certainly Clyde never spoke of it to another? That their friendship was profound, that they placed almost complete trust and gave complete loyalty to one another we can see, but...again, the intimations, giving from two un-verifiable scenes, one with his mother discussing a childhood friend, the other in a hotel room of a fight with Clyde, we cannot take as true.

Which leaves us to contemplate the remainder comprised of stuff that certainly is true: That J. Edgar oversaw and drove a burearu from its nascent, 1919 form to the powerful entity that it was in the 1960's. That he was both instrumental to its success and prone to exaggerate his own importance. That he surrounded himself with two individuals who appear to have had a like-minded pursuit of the work they were in: That catching criminals and preventing a radical take-over of America took precedence over all else in life. That he was profoundly paranoid of that possibility.

Which I think is the invitation the movie gives us: We are to consider the differences between the as portrayed useful paranoia of J. Edgar which drives him to ask of congress for more power for the Bureau, for the ability for its agents to carry guns, for Bureau jurisdiction of kidnapping, and retention of all fingerprints, and the establishment of a well-staffed and well-funded forensics lab; and the as portrayed over-blown paranoia which drives him to write an inflammatory letter to Martin Luther King, to keep his own set of 'confidential' files on the private doings of others in power, to exaggerate his participation to his memoirs, and to stoop to blackmail when he sees his or the Bureau’s power threatened.

The fact that the two levels of paranoia co-exist and exert themselves throughout his life is an interesting insight into the complexity of Edgar Hoover and his actions. We can see, wrapped up in a single individual, a drive that gives him insights and the will to pursue them that is beneficial, at the same time the very same forces are driving him beyond to actions many would consider self-serving and to a degree contradictory to his mission (for blackmail and un-warranted eavesdropping are certainly illegal activities.)

Finally, the movie, in an amazingly neutral manner, does give us something to think about: J. Edgar Hoover was certainly participating in pre-emptive surveillance; intelligence gathering of the individuals who may or may not prove a threat to his power or the nation, individuals who had committed no crimes other than show that they had a following, individuals both within and without government. That he used that information a few times is certainly true, but what should give us pause as to its true purpose: He commanded (and it was apparantly carried out) of his secretary to destroy the files if ever anything became of him.

That level of paranoia certainly is not healthy for an individual, or a nation.

Rethinking Daylight Saving Time

The annual switch forward from standard to daylight saving time is always greeting with a moan and a sigh (and sometimes even greater anguish!) around my house. I didn't mind it too much when it came in April, but the recent switch 3 weeks sooner into March has bothered me. I normally rise fairly early, and I tolerate getting up in the dark all winter, but look forward to the spring and summer when I can rise with the sun – it is just so much easier to get up when it is a little light out than before! So, I've been fairly critical of the change for the past couple years, and often wished it could go back (or at least match the UK and have it the final Sunday in March!)

This morning, however (4 days since the change), I finally rose at my normal time, now in complete darkness, got ready, and headed off to work. I was greeted by a wonderfully colored pre-sunrise sky as I drove, something I hadn't seen for weeks. I enjoyed the colors and the awakening world, and realized how much I do enjoy catching the very earliest hours of the day. I thought back to the previous evening, where after dinner, still light, the kids were able to head out to play. It becomes tiresome during the winter months: As Lord Baden-Powell observed, “Boys are not sitting animals.” In my house, and I suspect in many others, neither are girls sitting animals, and as they run and play inside, sometimes the energy and noise becomes a tad overwhelming.

So, the switch to Daylight Saving brought my wife and I a glorious hour of house quiet, able to sit and converse as the sun dropped to the west and the kids ran off their youthful energy. The slanting golden sunbeams, the warmth, and the relative quiet raised our spirits, and the sounds coming through the open windows from the kids indicated that their enthusiasm for life was elevated, too.

All would have been perfect had little girl, not yet a shoe-wearing animal, not gotten a sliver in her toe from the winter-worn and dried playset. Nevertheless, it was cleaned and partially removed in pretty short order and the relative magic of the evening restored.

As I parked my vehicle and made the walk into work this morning as the last pinks and purples of dawn splashed across our mountains, recalling the wonderful evening before, I realized that perhaps I've been too harsh on the earlier switch. It certainly hasn't been a hardship this year, and if we were still on Standard time, we would have missed all these experiences.

Maybe ol' Benjiman Franklin was onto something, and institutionalizing it isn't such a bad idea after all!