Kit Stolz

Ray Bradbury the environmental activist

In a lovely tribute to the late great writer Ray Bradbury, Felicity Barringer of the inevitable New York Times shows us how much he cared for our planetary home, and how little he trusted our species:

Unlike classic environmental writing that focuses largely on the good that nature does for the soul or mankind — think Thoreau and Leopold — [Bradbury's story] “And The Moon Be Still As Bright” and its sequel include substantial passages lamenting how bad man is for nature. Its mixture of anger and elegy anticipates writers like Rachel Carson and David Brower.

There’s a caveat: the character who voices these concerns, an archaeologist named Jeff Spender who is part of the fourth expedition to the planet, is happy to murder his shipmates to protect the Martian environment from man. And this is three decades before the founding of groups like Earth First! or the use of the phrase “radical environmentalist.”

But Spender is as eloquent as he is extreme. In a discussion with the captain of his ship, Wilder, Spender argues that most of the Mars explorers will be unable to appreciate the culture they have destroyed (the Martians having died of chicken pox, which arrived with one of the first three expeditions). Referring to his fellow Earth men, he says of Mars: “You know what we’ll do? We’ll rip it, rip the skin off it. And change it to fit ourselves.”

Wilder responds: “We won’t ruin Mars. It’s too big and too good.”

Scornfully, Spender replies: “You think not? We Earth men have a talent for ruining big, beautiful things.”

Sometimes it seems that only in fiction — in stories printed on pulpy paper, for which Bradbury in the late l940's was paid a one and a half pennies a word — can we as a culture think on a planetary scale.

Perhaps that's unfair. Today Christopher Mims writes an slashing, desperate ode to our reckless indifference to our planet's health, and Nature brings out a study on ecological degradation that foresees us barreling past a climactic tipping point.

Maybe we'll remember these warnings, but as long as there are books and readers, we will remember Ray Bradbury, for his imagination, his grandeur, his prophetic ambition.

And in Southern California, he will probably also always be known as perhaps our most famous citizen never to drive.

GOP finds solution to global warming

From Tom Toles, in today's Washington Post:

If only the GOP was even looking for a solution. Jeez. I wish.

Soon to be a major motion picture: Shodan

The story is astonishing/alarming, but the background mythology is downright scary:

The idea for Shodan came to John Matherly in 2003, when he was a teenager attending community college in California. Obsessed with the digital world, he named his project after a malevolent character in a video game called System Shock II. The character, Sentient Hyper-Optimized Data Access Network, or Shodan, is an artificial intelligence entity that thinks it is a goddess and sets out to eradicate humans.

What is it? All too appropriately, a program that ties together the neglected one-trick-ponys of the digitized machine world, the "control computers" that run pumps, power plants, and so on, Now they can be catalogued by coders, and manipulated from afar, by those in the know. .

Let the Washington Post explain:

][Matherly] called his fledgling search engine Shodan, and in late 2009 he began asking friends to try it out. He had no inkling it was about to alter the balance of security in cyberspace.

“I just thought it was cool,” said Matherly, now 28.

Matherly and other Shodan users quickly realized they were revealing an astonishing fact: Uncounted numbers of industrial control computers, the systems that automate such things as water plants and power grids, were linked in, and in some cases they were wide open to exploitation by even moderately talented hackers.

Control computers were built to run behind the safety of brick walls. But such security is rapidly eroded by links to the Internet. Recently, an unknown hacker broke into a water plant south of Houston using a default password he found in a user manual. A Shodan user found and accessed the cyclotron at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Yet another user found thousands of unsecured Cisco routers, the computer systems that direct data on the networks.

The malevolent genius of Shodan has inspired followers:

One of them, an anonymous hacker who calls himself pr0f, is a bright, unemployed 22-year-old who favors hoodie sweatshirts and lives in his parents’ home somewhere overseas. He is among the growing numbers of Shodan users.

After studying control systems in the wake of Stuxnet,[the Israeli/US "worm" that destroyed Iranian centrifuges] he thought the insecurity of the devices seemed crazy and irresponsible.

“Eventually, somebody will get access to a major system and people will be hurt,” he later said. “It’s just a matter of time.”

And just a matter of time before some ambitious young talent makes this into a movie. Young hacker unleashes the machines of the world against the humans!

Premise will be hard to resist, whether or not the screenplay/movie turns out to be any good.

New Yorker editor: Hostility is the soul of wit

Bob Mankoff, who has been editing New Yorker 'toons since God knows when, while publishing his own there, in a recent essay with 'toons explored the connection between malice and wit.

Spectacularly. Here's the opener, slightly pruned:

Shakespeare was wrong when he wrote that “Brevity is the soul of wit.” Perhaps “hostility” is a better candidate.

Mankoff turned then to cite some examples of this comedic reality, and the same week published a topical 'toon that nicely frames the humor of hostility:

Perhaps the essay topic influenced the drawing. Regardless, Mankoff in the essay then plumbed the most prominent theory of this concept:

The so-called “misattribution theory of disparagement humor” formalizes Freud’s idea [of jokework] by stating that, “we can allow ourselves to laugh and display amusement at the debasement or embarrassment of someone who we don’t like if there are incongruous or peculiar aspects of the situation to which we can (mis)attribute our amusement.” Laughing at the embarrassment or humiliation of even someone whom we dislike is a no-no. Pure dislike is not funny. To say yes to this kind of laughter we need an excuse, something unusual or unexpected in the situation to pin it on. We let that peculiarity take the blame to avoid the shame of our naked emotion. Our annoying neighbor backs out of his driveway right into his mailbox which wobbles a bit from side to side and eventually goes kerplunk right on the sidewalk and spews out mail, which then gets picked up by the wind and is blown right into the neighbor’s face as he gets out of the car. And that’s what we attribute, or as the theory would have it, misattribute our laughter to.

This works with just words too, but requires extra cleverness. A favorite example comes from the inimitable Emo Philips, one of the best-known and wittiest of stand-up comics alive today, according to his peers.

I don't really like being divorced. I'd rather be a widower.

Which fits both Shakespeare and Mankoff's formulation. More simply, as Dorothy Parker said (speaking of being funny) "It's easier to write about those you hate."

Parker actually wrote a whole book of "Hate Verses," and it's pretty funny; husbands, wives, bores, drama, slackers, bohemians, movies, plays, the office — all eloquently, intricately, despised.

On writers:

They are always pulling manuscripts out of their pockets,
and asking you to tell them, honestly — is it too daring?
They would sit down
And write the Great American Novel
If they only could find a publisher Big Enough.
Oh, well —
Genius is an infinite capacity for giving pains.

From a worthy collection of her verse published recently: Not Much Fun.

Around the world with Walt Whitman and Allen Ginsberg

Today was Walt Whitman's birthday.

"Good day for DOMA [the Defense of Marriage Act] to be ruled unconstitutional," remarked poet friend Robert Peake from London.

A look at how Walt became a poet at all shows the truth of what Robert said:

[Whitman] was working as a carpenter, his father's trade, and living with his mother in Brooklyn, when he read Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay "The Poet," which claimed the new United States needed a poet to properly capture its spirit. Whitman decided he was that poet. "I was simmering, simmering, simmering," Whitman later said. "Emerson brought me to a boil."

Whitman began work on his collection Leaves of Grass, crafting an American epic that celebrated the common man. He did most of the typesetting for the book himself, and he made sure the edition was small enough to fit in a pocket, later explaining, "I am nearly always successful with the reader in the open air." He was 37 years old when he paid for the publication of 795 copies out of his own pocket.

Many of Whitman's poems were criticized for being openly erotic. One of Whitman's earliest reviews had called the book "a mass of stupid filth," accusing Whitman of "that horrible sin not to be mentioned among Christians." But rather than censoring himself, Whitman added 146 poems to his third edition.

Of course, many of Whitman's poems were openly erotic, but Whitman's most famous line ever, arguably, is his tribute to his mentor, which is also the simplest and best encapsulation of Emerson's philosophy:

"Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. (I am large, I contain multitudes.)"

Which to me is about the most useful line of poetry ever. In speeches, in therapy, and sometimes, in remonstrating discussions with one's own self, it's true and consoling, and a reminder of our possibilities.

So let me celebrate this discoverer, this Whitman, with a personal fav from amongst his poems, called Facing West from California's Shores:

Facing west from California's shores,

Inquiring, tireless, seeking what is yet unfound,

I, a child, very old, over waves, towards the house of maternity, the land of migrations, look afar,

Look off the shores of my Western sea, the circle almost circled;

For starting westward from Hindustan, from the vales of Kashmere,

From Asia, from the north, from the God, the sage, and the hero,

From the south, from the flowery peninsulas and the spice islands,

Long having wander'd since, round the earth having wander'd,

Now I face home again, very pleas'd and joyous,

(But where is what I started for so long ago? And why is it yet unfound?)

A century or so later his foremost follower, Allen Ginsberg, wrote an equally searching (if much longer) poem, also worth celebrating. The 92nd Y has a spectacular 1973 recording of Ginsberg reading Mind Breaths, and explaining how he had been inspired by his meditation practice.

It's fascinating, and quite inspiring in its own right. It's as if Ginsberg has evolved Whtiman to a new level, taken his spirit, and put it into practice.

Let me quote a few lines from the Californian part of the journey:

…out towards Reno's neon, dollar bills skittering downstreet along the curb
up into Sierras oak leaves blown down by fall cold chills
over peaktops snowy gales beginning,
a breath of prayer down on Kitkitdizze's horngreen leaves close to ground,
over Gary's roof, over temple pillar, tens and manazanita arbors in Sierra
pine foothills
a breath falls over Sacramento Valley, roar of wind down the sixland freeway
across Bay Bridge
uproar of papers floating over Montgomery Street, pigons flutter down
before sunset from Washington Park's white churchsteeple —
Golden Gate waters whitecapped scoudding out to Pacific spreads…

If memory serves, Rolling Stone published this poem, back in the 70's. Wouldn't do anything like that now.

Spring hottest ever: Greenhouse gas emissions on the rise

Acerbic lede from Dino Grandoni in the Atlantic Wire:

In case, you know, you haven't been outside in the past three months, it's about to become official: unless a freak blizzard blankets the country by Thursday, the spring of 2012 will go down as the warmest for the U.S. in 117 years of record-keeping.

Meanwhile CO2 emissions resume their upward rise, after a brief hiatus, according to the latest report from the International Energy Agency.

John Cook says in The Conversation (from Australia) that we are at the crossroads, and if we as a species reduce global emissions dramatically starting now, as we are attempting to do in California, we can barely avoid the agreed-to be "dangerous level" of 2C warming by 2050.

Currently, by the way, we are closest to the A2 trend-line, which is one of the higher emissions scenarios that the IPCC has been charting for years.

The good news is that we are making some progress. Despite its rapid development, China’s per capita emissions are still just 63% of the OECD average. This is thanks in large part to its efforts to improve energy efficiency and deploy clean energy. OECD emissions declined in 2011, albeit by a small amount. And there is still time to reduce our emissions sufficiently to avoid dangerous global warming.

The bad news is that time is running out, and the longer we wait, the more difficult and expensive it will be to achieve the necessary emissions cuts. The elusive binding international agreement to reduce global CO₂ emissions approximately 80% by 2050 must be signed, and soon, or the necessary emissions cuts will become too steep to be practically achievable.

John Cook, the writer, is a story in his own right: He's come out of nowhere and done wonders in climate change communicaiton.

The moment when our leaders gave up on saving the world

Not my words, but those of Die Spiegel, the leading German publication, which released a recording of what was said inside the room among top leaders from around the world in Cophenhagen, in December 2009, in negotiations to save the climate. Their reporters wrote:

The West, [then French President Nicholas] Sarkozy said, had pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent. "And in return, China, which will soon be the biggest economic power in the world, says to the world: Commitments apply to you, but not to us."

Sarkozy, gaining momentum, then said: "This is utterly unacceptable!" And then the French president stoked the diplomatic conflict even further when he said: "This is about the essentials, and one has to react to this hypocrisy!"

A hush came over the room. Even the mobile phones stopped ringing. It was Friday, Dec. 18, 2009, at about 4 p.m. That was the moment when the world leaders meeting in Copenhagen abandoned their efforts to save the world.

The long story reveals that first India, and then China, angrily refused to agree to emissions reductions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a necessary step towards the agreed-upon goal of slowing the acceleration of global warming. But the world's most powerful leader let it go:

Obama reminded his fellow leaders that the industrialized nations are also dependent on the will of their citizens to contribute to saving the climate. "From the perspective of the developed countries, in order for us to be able to mobilize the political will within each of our countries to not only engage in substantial mitigation efforts ourselves, which are very difficult, but to also then channel some of the resources from our countries into developing countries, is a very heavy lift," Obama said. Then, speaking directly to China, he added: "If there is no sense of mutuality in this process, it is going to be difficult for us to ever move forward in a significant way."

Finally, Obama addressed the diplomatic snub the Chinese prime minister had delivered with his absence: "I am very respectful of the Chinese representative here but I also know there is a premier here who is making a series of political decisions. I know he is giving you instructions at this stage."

But then Obama stabbed the Europeans in the back, saying that it would be best to shelve the concrete reduction targets for the time being. "We will try to give some opportunities for its resolution outside of this multilateral setting … And I am saying that, confident that, I think China still is as desirous of an agreement, as we are."

For Die Siegel to use the phrase "stab in the back" is striking, given German history.

Via The Duck of Minerva.

Romney: “Believe in America,” Donald Trump, and debt

In California this Memorial Day in my neighborhood, the house signs for the GOP presidential candidate are pleasantly blue, and they read: "Romney: Believe in America."

Also on this day, we learn that the candidate has no intention of cutting the deficit upon taking office, and will be happy to add to the national debt with a stimulus plan, in total contradiction to what he has been saying on the campaign trail for months.

Jonathan Chait, quoting Romney himself, and referencing two reporters' work, eloquently describes Romney's conversion to the liberal faith in spending as "a big fat wet kiss to Keynesian economics:"

The real news in Mitt Romney’s interview with Mark Halperin, as Charles Pierce points out, is that Romney openly repudiated the central argument his party has been making against President Obama for the last three years: that he spent too much money and therefore deepened the economic crisis. Indeed Romney himself had been making this very case as recently as a week ago (“he bailed out the public sector, gave billions of dollars to the companies of his friends, and added almost as much debt as all the prior presidents combined. The consequence is that we are enduring the most tepid recovery in modern history.”) But in his Halperin interview, Romney frankly admits that reducing the budget deficit in the midst of an economic crisis would be a horrible idea:

Halperin: You have a plan, as you said, over a number of years, to reduce spending dramatically. Why not in the first year, if you’re elected — why not in 2013, go all the way and propose the kind of budget with spending restraints, that you’d like to see after four years in office? Why not do it more quickly?

Romney: Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I’m not going to do that, of course.

Of course not. Regardless of the flip-flop and the assurances to the right. Sure Romney will cut spending. Just not now.

Also today, Romney said to to a reporter on his campaign plane that he will happily overlook the birtherism of Donald Trump because "I need to get 50.1 percent or more."

So, to recap, "to believe in America" is to go along with Donald Trump, birtherism, and debt.

Does this not sound as cravenly political as Richard Nixon?

That's who Romney's neighbors see him as, wrote Christopher Benfey earlire this year:

When I ask locals about their impressions of Mitt, I get a recurring response: Nixonian. “The overriding passion of his life seems to be to become president,” a conservative economics professor tells me. “I can’t think of a single issue over which Romney would risk reelection in order to stick to a principle.” A University of Massachusetts journalism professor puts it more positively: “He can be as cagey as Nixon, and he can be almost as smarmy, but he is also able to think strategically.”

But you must admit, he looks a lot better than Richard Nixon. Merrill Markoe tweets:

A photo of Romney and wife shows she may be human but he looks like he stopped at carwash to have his head detailed, then sprung for the hot wax.

Markoe (a former Letterman writer) has a point, even if she sounds a bit like left-wing Sue Lynch.

Sue (to Will): I don't trust a man with curly hair. I cant help but imagine thousands of tiny birds lying sulfurous eggs in it.

Sue, the winner on Glee, supports Romney, surely.

Is climate change impacting real estate in the Southwest?

In the United States today, according to the real estate site Zillow, the two cities in the most trouble are Phoenix, where a little more than half than half of all homeowners are underwater — where debt outweighs the equity — and Las Vegas, where an astounding 70% of homeowners are underwater.

Is it a coincidence that these are the two biggest cities in the Southwest, where climate change is expected to hit brutally hard? Could climate change be contributing to this mega-downturn now?

Until someone goes out and starts doing some serious interviewing of folks in the real estate market, we're not going to know for sure, but we do have Tom Ashbrook's show on the subject from January, On Point: Can the Southwest Survive Climate Change? which was especially good. (To give an example of its quality, when an author of a book about the grim future of the Southwest claims he's not "in the prediction business," Ashbrook has a little fit, and forces him to answer.)

Ashbrook points out that we had record wildfires, record drought, and record temperatures in the Southwest last year He looks at two books, A Great Aridness: Climate Change and the future of the American Southwest, by William deBuys, and Bird on Fire: Lessons from the World's Least Sustainable City, and talks to the authors.

William deBuys points out that the predictions for temperature change in the Southwest have been underestimates, and that this century Phoenix will get 4-6 degrees C hotter. Andrew Ross points out that the growth in Phoenix and the Southwest has been largely driven by growth itself: People making money on construction, buying their own homes, buidling more. Growth has stopped now, and — as Ashbrook said — developments have been all but abandoned. Ross doubts it will return, and points out that Phoenix in our times has yet to experience a mega-drought (of sixty years or more) which are shockingly common in the long-term record. Could the suburbanization of the desert be over?

Included in the discussion s a notable figure in Phoenix, Grady Grammage, an attorney, developer, and believer in climate change, who sees high temps as the factor most likely to bring down his business. Yet Grammage insists that Phoenix is accustomed to planning for drought, that the region could support many millions of more people, and that growth will return.

Grammage in my personal experience is a more thoughtful and reflective figure than one usually encounters in real estate, but even so his claims that Phoenix is "fine" fails to convince.

"We call these places deserts for a reason," as Ashbrook said, "because they are often deserted."

From on high, NASA looked at a related issue — the urban heat island index in Phoenix — and by cross-referencing satellite data with sociological data found that the rich were clustering in areas of vegetation and permeable soil (green), while the poor were shunted towards downtown Phoenix, with impermeable surfaces and buildings reflecting heat (blue).

This week it reached 108 in Phoenix — 12 degrees above average for May.

The sexiness of a stupid woman, according to science

In Slate, a science reporter specializing in sex, Jesse Bering, reports on a new study that finds that women who look drunk and/or stupid are especially attractive to straight men.

The study has problems — for one, a lack of a good control sample. For another, the hypothesis (that men find women who appear out of it more attractive because the guy thinks he's more likely to get laid, for example) surely has limits, to which the study seems blind.

All this Bering discusses ably. He notes the flaws, but concludes:

All else being equal, would you really have thought that the average man would subjectively perceive such women to be physically more alluring than their sober, bright-minded peers?

Actually, yes. But that's because I remember a great quote from the sexy, brainy Hedy LeMarr:

Any girl can look glamorous. All you have to do is stand still and look stupid.

Lamarr was an extraordinary woman: a great scientist and inventor in her maturity, a movie star and sex symbol in her youth, and a woman who knew something about men. (She married six of them.)

Here's a pic of her in her early movie star days:

I wonder if Lamarr came to this realization because she couldn't look stupid if she tried, and maybe sometimes wished she could.