Harry Potter: the early Isherwood version

Back in the l930's, Christopher Isherwood published a fascinating quasi-memoir about his years at university called Lions and Shadows. Isherwood was a brilliant student, but — surprise, surprise — an outsider. With a fellow student named Chalmers he formed a sort of secret literary society opposed to what they called "the poshocracy." 

Isherwood and Chalmers together invented an imaginary magical world to dramatize their feelings about this schooling they partly loved and mostly hated. It's not the same as Harry Potter, by any means, but has some curious similarities — like Hogwarts, it's a sinister place, grand to look at, but steeped in dark magic, portents and threats, ruled by the grimmest of villains. They called it Mortmere. 

Isherwood and Chalmers for literally years talked of turning their dire creation into a novel, but never succeeded. Isherwood ultimately decided that was the point — "As long as Mortmere remained unwritten, its alternative possibilities were infinite."

But they were on to something, as J.K. Rowling has, in her own way, definitely proved. Even she, however, might be impressed by their "utterly fantastic" plans for a deluxe edition of the book: 

It was to be illustrated, we said, with real oil paintings, brasses, carvings in ivory or wood; fireworks would explode to emphasize important points in the narrative; a tiny grammophone sewn into the cover would accompany the descriptive passages with emotional airs; all the dialogue would be actually spoken; the different pages would smell appropriately, according to their subject-matter, of grave-clothes, manure, delicious food, burning hair, chloroform or expensive scent. All copies would be distributed free. Our friends would find attached to the last page, a pocket containing banknotes and jewels; our enemies, on reaching the end of the book, would be shot dead by a revolver concealed in the binding. 

Now there's a book I want to read. I think. 

Americans increasingly doubt global warming: Harris Poll

A Harris poll on disasters released yesterday shows that fewer Americans than ever believe in global warming: just 44%, down from 75% ten years ago. 

Harris tries to see the positive in this, pointing out that:

These numbers do not suggest, however, that a majority now do not believe in global warming—just over one-quarter say they do not believe in it (28%) and the same number say they are not sure. Fittingly, among those who say there have been more natural disasters recently, there is no consensus whether this is a result of global warming or not (38% say it is, 28% say it’s not and 34% are not sure).

But as scientists like to point out in discussions of environmental indices, the trend over time is what matters, and the trend in this instance is clearly negative. The determination to see an American belief in global warming on the basis of this poll is peculiar, to put it politely.

Yes, in theory those who are not sure about the "theory" of global warming could be convinced, could join the plurality who do believe in global warming, and we could see an uptick in support for emisions-restraining measures. But one has to ask what it will take to convince us.

Hot years? Ten of the twelve hottest years ever occured in the last decade, according to NASA. 

The melting of mountain glaciers? Glaciers are in retreat worldwide, and will be virtually gone from Glacier National Park by 2030, according to the US Geological Service.  

Sea level rise? The rate of SLR has doubled in the last decade. 

On the other side of the coin, philosopher Gary Gutting at Notre Dame points out that critics of the "theory" of global warming have a problem — the experts are in agreement. 

There is, moreover, no denying that there is a strong consensus among climate scientists on the existence of A.G.W. — in their view, human activities are warming the planet.  There are climate scientists who doubt or deny this claim, but even they show a clear sense of opposing a view that is dominant in their discipline.   Nonexpert opponents of A.G.W. usually base their case on various criticisms that a small minority of climate scientists have raised against the consensus view.   But nonexperts are in no position to argue against the consensus of scientific experts.   As long as they accept the expert authority of the discipline of climate science, they have no basis for supporting the minority position.  Critics within the community of climate scientists may have a cogent case against A.G.W., but, given the overall consensus of that community, we nonexperts have no basis for concluding that this is so. 

The consensus position was shown graphically here, from Skeptical Science, based on a 2010 accounting of peer-reviewed climate scientists. 

Consensus_publications

Three different surveys, using different methods, all found a remarkably strong consensus on the question — over 97% of climate scientists believe in global warming.

Yet the American conclusion seems to be: Experts? We don't need no stinking experts!

La Niña misses SoCal, hits Sun Belt

As we've been discussing over the last few months, this past year's La Niña has been a bust in Southern California. What was expected to be a dry winter with winds and heat turned out to be a wet, blustery winter with massive Sierran snowpack. 

But not so across the U.S! As the NY Times reported yesterday, across the rest of the Southwest and deep into the Sunbelt and the South, this has been a classic La Niña episode, a huge drought that experts are now comparing to the Dust Bowl. 

DROUGHT

[Click to enlarge]

Scary…

Tennessee Williams: Sex positive activist

Although considered politically naive by some, Tennessee Williams did know how to make a scene. Especially when it came to love. 

If you want the unbuttoned Tennessee Williams, you have to read Dotson Rader's entertaining Cry of the Heart. It's a wonderfully breezy and entertaining book about the mature Tennessee Williams, but even better, it's a sort of biography by dialogue. We quickly understand how much Tennessee Williams' fourteen-year-long love affair from Frank Merlo meant, both to Williams, and to Merlo. 

During the fifties, as his fame grew, Tennessee became very sensitive to slights against [his longtime companion and] friend Frankie, insisting that he always be included whenver Tennessee was invited anywhere. It didn't always work out that way. 

Tennessee was angered when Irene Selzick [the powerful heiress who produced the movie version of "Streetcar"] invited him to her socially prestigious dinners in her Hotel Pierre apartment and would add, "Oh, and ask Frank to drop in afterward, if he likes."

"Tell her to go fuck herself," was Frank's usual response. 

Or Tennessee would raise hell when they checked into a suite in a fancy hotel and there would be two single beds rather than one king-size. He would threaten to leave and never return unless they were moved to a suite with a proper bed or a proper bed was delivered to the suite they were in at once. 

Whent he Royal Orleans in New Orleans refused to allow them to share a room with only one bed, Tennessee created a scene in the lobby. 

"But it simply isn't done, Mr. Williams," the night manager tried to assure him. "We never allow two men to sleep in the same bed. Why would two men want to sleep in a bed together?" 

"So they can fuck!" Tennessee said, before he and Frank marched out. 

[Here's the only picture I can find of Merlo and Williams together — sort of.

From the height of Williams' glory days, from left to right, Frank Merlo, Elia Kazan, Tennessee Williams, Charles Feldman. Courtesy of a play at NYC called Love of Men Ferocious] 

Frankm

The GOP vs. the Democrats: it’s not the rich vs. the common man

Still one of the best lines of the year, from Jeffrey Sachs, of The Earth Institute:

The idea that the Republicans are for the billionaires and the Democrats are for the common man is quaint but outdated. It's more accurate to say that the Republicans are for Big Oil while the Democrats are for Big Banks.

This idea does explain why GOP heavyweights have made opposition to the very idea of global warming a litmus test for its candidates. 

Jack Warner meets Tennessee Williams (or thinks he does)

From Dotson Rader's spectacularly colorful memoir of Tennessee Williams, Cry of the Heart, about his much older friend and lover, here's a note about Williams and Los Angeles: 

"Los Angeles [was] a city Tennessee hated more than any other in the world. 

"I always feel like a whore there," [he said]. "I don't appreciate works of art being referred to as a "property," like a play of mine was a piece of undeveloped land in the Hollywood Hills. It is a city where everyone and everything is assumed to be up for sale. Everyone is thought to have a price. Well, some things cannot be priced!" 

"Tennessee used to moan every time he had to go to Los Angeles on business. Like William Faulkner, he viewed it as a place where one held's one nose and got as much money as one could in as short a time as possible, and then grabbed the next red-eye out."

"The only culture in L.A. is in a carton of yogurt!" 

Then Rader, whose wonderful book was published in l985, throws in a scene from the 1950's that deserves to be seen on stage someday this year, this 100th year of Williams' birth:

Tenncry "Warner Brothers had bought the rights to "The Glass Menagerie." Tennessee and Frank [Merlo, his long-time companion] went to the studio to have lunch with Jack Warner in the commissary. When they arrived, Warner stood up, and said, "Well, well! At last, here you are! Welcome to Warner Brothers!" And shook hands with Frank Merlo, thinking he was Tennessee. 

Tennessee started to laugh, and Warner, now utterly confused, said to Frank, "And what do you do, young man?" 

Frank looked him straight in the eye, and replied, "I sleep with Tennessee Williams.'"

[pp220]

 

 

 

Saving the climate by stopping the tar sands pipeline

Many of this country's most illustrious poets, writers, scientists, and preservationists  are calling for volunteers to come to Washington D.C. this summer to risk arrest to stop construction of a massive tar sands pipeline from Alberta to Texas.

This pipeline, the Keystone XL, could destroy any chance we have of preventing runaway global warming. 

How much carbon lies in the recoverable tar sands of Alberta? A recent calculation from some of our foremost scientists puts the figure at about 200 parts per million.  Even with the new pipeline they won’t be able to burn that much overnight—but each development like this makes it easier to get more oil out.  As the climatologist Jim Hansen (one of the signatories to this letter) explained, if we have any chance of getting back to a stable climate “the principal requirement is that coal emissions must be phased out by 2030 and unconventional fossil fuels, such as tar sands, must be left in the ground.”

In other words, he added, “if the tar sands are thrown into the mix it is essentially game over."

The decision is up to the Department of State and the Obama administration, not Congress, but Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has already gone on the record saying she's inclined to approve the project. 

The organizers are asking people "to consider doing something hard—coming to Washington in the hottest and stickiest weeks of the summer and engaging in civil disobedience that will likely get you arrested."

I'm contemplating going, as an embedded reporter (if I can find a publication to sponsor me). For now, here's a picture from National Geographic of tar sands country right now: 

Candian-oil-sands-615

Is this what our future is going to look like? Only hotter? 

A Republican compares climatologists to doctors

A nice piece in the Columbia Journalism Review's science writing blog — The Observatory — looks at the reluctance of the Republican field to utter the word "climate" in their most recent debate. 

If none of the presidential candidates mentioned climate, it is likely because they have already made it abundantly clear that they are unconcerned with the issue. 

True, though it's a strange issue. On the one hand, GOP operatives and voters profess disinterest; on the other hand, so-called conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh have made climate denialism a litmus test. Limbaugh recently said on air that Mitt Romney could say "bye bye" to the nomination, for saying that yes, climate change is happening, and our emissions are the cause. 

But the campaign comes with a spotlight. Though former ambassador Jon Huntsman may be on the road to oblivion, still his widely-reported remark on climate is easily the most interesting thing said by a politician on the subject this year, Republican or Democrat. 

He said: 

All I know is 90 percent of the scientists say climate change is occurring. If 90 percent of the oncological community said something was causing cancer we’d listen to them. I respect science and the professionals behind the science so I tend to think it’s better left to the science community – though we can debate what that means for the energy and transportation sectors.

In fact, Huntsman actually understated the consensus. 97% of climate researcherfs fully believe in climate change, according to leading researcher Anthony Leiserowitz at Yale. 

This is the usefulness of political debate: It exposes us to the views of others. 

Potential usefulness, perhaps I should say. You have to listen to hear. 

A new American class: the involuntarily retired

Our local daily newspaper has an excellent story on a new class of unhappy Americans: the involutarily retired.

Kim Lamb Gregory introduces the idea with a study, and then grounds it in Ventura County reality:

"We are witnessing the birth of a new class — the involuntarily retired," said a report called "The Shattered American Dream."

The report, released in December by the Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers University, was a follow-up to an August 2009 survey of those who had been unemployed in the previous year. The follow-up showed that 62 percent of those respondents 55 or older were still unemployed in November 2010, compared with 57 percent of those 35 to 54 and 47 percent of those younger than 35.

According to a report released by the Urban Institute in January, fewer than a quarter of workers 50 and older who lost their jobs between mid-2008 and 2009 found work within 12 months — much lower than the rate for younger workers.

Of course, it's not just older folks that are suffering, and what's really notable about the study is the outright despair of the unemployed. The Rutgers team reported on 1200 unemployed people:

It is hard to overstate the dire shape of the unemployed. Over the space of the 15 months we have been tracking our panel’s progress, just one-quarter have found full-time jobs. And virtually all of those jobs were for less pay or benefits, with 40% having to change fields or their career path to find employment.
One of the casualties of the Great Recession has been a core American principle since the founding of the nation — that if people work hard and play by the rules, they can get ahead. Now, the majority of the unemployed do not believe that simple hard work will guarantee success. They feel powerless, and voice little confidence in the government’s ability to help them.

They lack that confidence for good reason. Washington really doesn't care. Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank recently profiled the President's chief economic advisor, Austan Goolsbee, who has been counseling against any more stimulus, saying that would be "rash." Goolsbee's argument: 

The private sector has stabilized, profits have returned, productivity is high, American competitiveness has improved, and large sums of money have accumulated on corporate balance sheets.

Notice anything missing? Meanwhile, outside of D.C., even middle-of-the-road economists are troubled. 

Clive Crook warns in the Financial Times that "the recovery" looks like a chimera:  

One alarming possibility is that the traits the US has relied on to drive growth in the past – labour market flexibility, rapid productivity growth – might have become toxic. If the US is unlucky, traits seen as distinctive strengths are now weaknesses, and a “lost decade” of stagnation, like Japan’s in the 1990s, might lie ahead. 

Paul Krugman, quoted admiringly in Crook's piece, has a devastating graph to illustrate what a "lost decade" he's been warning us about for over two years now might look like. 

Employmentvspop
Today Felix Salmon points out that unemployment is much worse in the U.S. than in comparable nations: 
Change
He adds:

It’s entirely intuitive to believe that structural unemployment rose significantly over the course of the recession, and that it’s now painfully high. And that the Obama Administration is, to a first approximation, doing absolutely nothing to address this crisis head-on.
In other words, the doubt and despair of the unemployed is totally justified.