Unsightly Mental Blemishes

When Deb and I were just beginning our relationship, we decided to try writing a book together.  We came up with a plot and characters, and then I started writing a first draft, wherein Deb would trail along behind me by about a chapter, revising the work.

After a while, I noticed she could not abide …

Well, hold it here: how many readers are starting to nod and think they know where this is going?  Everyone’s hand UP!   It’s all about sentence construction, isn’t it?  Short declarative sentences are the goal, the more complex forms are to be avoided as they can lead to confusion!

And … it’s boring.

Let me add a thought to this drab, watery mix: artists, by and large, are novelty seekers, from the lass who constructed a tent upon which she appliqued the names of every lover she’d had, to the guy who wrapped islands in plastic and called it art.  From this I project they take inspiration for the communication of the obscure, or otherwise, impulses motivating their art.

Let’s poke this metaphor down the road to the next inn, which is the House of Datedness.  Deb and I were talking about this the other day, but did not arrive at any definite conclusion: what makes something dated? I personally entertain two possibilities, one of which isn’t particularly germane as it refers to tangible objects (the essence of the thought being, if the materials used begin degrading without excess usage, then the object may be dated; think faded, warped plastic), but the second impinges on this conversation as it both provides a provisional definition and also casts a shadow at an operationality of interest.  But let me approach this obliquely, reversing the flow of time:

Today’s dated fashion was yesterday’s exciting innovation.

Seems obvious, doesn’t it?  But let’s reconsider – it’s only an assertion, not an explanation.  So … what makes a fashion dated?  I suggest that a fashion, an intellectual concept, may, to take a concept from mathematics (dangerous, that, skirling near the edge of tolerance of some beloved readers), contain a countable number of interesting perturbations, or an infinity (countable or not) of interesting perturbations.  The former, when their ways are exhausted, become … dated.  We’ve seen them all, or at any rate, the interesting variants.  The latter, while sometimes resulting in resemblance, don’t seem to become dated; the variations are infinite, if you’ll excuse the repetition, and, in a good fashion, attractive to the human mind.

If you’ve persevered this far, your mind may be prepared: hence the thesis, that there are fashions in writing, and a literary fashion can be countable.  Thus, genres; thus, dead genres.  But let’s deconstruct this to the title of this post, Sentence Construction.  Today’s fashion is the short, declarative sentence: get to the point.  So … sentences can be used for many purposes: describing a scene, conveying a fact, conveying a falsehood as a fact (just exploring a crack, there) … sprinkle in a few more, and let’s end with conveying someone’s mental state.

We use font changes as a dull bludgeon: here!  pay attention!  I’m saying something important!  But this is not always available, and, as suggested, it has the exactitude of a fire axe.  Not to put too fine a point on it.  But. as a writer, particularly during the fictional tome of earlier mention, I find myself considering what I’m writing and why I’m writing it; I’m trying to convey a thought of possibly some delicacy; not in the old-fashioned sense that someone’s powdering their nose (although, a visual of John Wayne applying a spot of powder over the sink is a trifle intriguing), but in that attempt to really elicit in the reader a reaction, whether an intellectual trembling, or a feeling, or something far more primal.

And today’s writing works against this.  We write in short, declarative sentences.  We restrict ourselves to verbs and adjectives found in common discourse.  The readers may run in fright if faced with an unfamiliar word, unless, of course, it’s newly constructed: verbing a noun, for instance.  Yes?  Our bricks of communications are our sentences, but whereas an unusual brick may cause a crisis in a house, we need to consider the results of using a dull brick in our communications:

Our communications become dull.

The readers eyes skip along, pattern matching sentences, assigning meanings based on partial readings, skimming and … maybe they lose the thread.  How many font changes can I introduce, can emoticons help my cause?  Not really; they are cheap theatrics.

Normal bricks are necessary, even in creative writing.  But when it comes to making an important point, I find I closely examine the writing leading up to it and begin to wonder, Does the reader realize something important is happening?  An analogy to music employed in TV and movies comes to mind, which I will let the interested reader pursue, as the point here is how to achieve a similar effect using mere words.  To continue the main path, I discover myself rewording: changing the arrow of time by stating result, and then cause.  Combing opposite words, which the reader might reject initially, to initiate a thought sequence.  Using a complex sentence, not because I’m in a hurry and disdain the backspace key, but to lead the reader’s mind down a path, to show them forks in that path, to prime their mind for what’s to come by associating deliberately selected concepts as closely as I can, to oppose them in selected ways to evoke feelings, reactions, deductions, conclusions).  Make them go back and reread carefully, because none of the patterns are matching.

And then word selection, perhaps the most common subject: short words when rapid action is occurring; but permitting the luxury of words which may currently be out of favor otherwise: not only does it bring a flavor of exoticity (although exoticity itself is, no doubt, a sad overreach), which some, such as Hemingway, might disdain, but to recall that a synonym doesn’t necessarily mean precisely the same, but brings a flavor to a meaning unavailable in the original, or any other synonym.  Selection of key words to make the reader think, opposing them to get the readers’ attention, and building a path of concepts: Sentence Construction.

Knowing when to use them, that’s the key, now isn’t it?  I once told my sister that I don’t analyze, I zen.  That’s what I have to do when I write in order to get close to communicating.

And, yet, this is all done against the canvas, if you will, of current writing: today’s newspapers, journals, magazines, blogs, and graffiti.  What I have just advocated will, if it were taken seriously, become … dated.  And then we’ll start swinging back to the short, declarative sentences because they are more effective.

And why?  Because, as this entry just made clear, novelty gets the attention of the reader.  Not only of subject, but of medium.  And novelty is defined by context, and our context is time, canvas, and a thousand million fingers, tapping away …

And why do I blog?  To get this crap out of my mind and onto a plate, where it can be a big steaming pile of …

(Complaints concerning my command of grammar are commended to the trash can; I have never been able to diagram a sentence, and have always had trouble distinguishing an object from a subject.)

(Exotic word choices and sentence rhythms inspired by Jack Vance, 1916 – 2013.  There’s a reason I reread him more than any other writer.  Someone aspirate the reason for me.)

Hillary announced her widely expected run yesterday, and the liberals are, of course, showering her with accolades.  Exactly why The Gay Blade @ The Daily Kos wants to reveal Hillary’s strategy to the public is sort of puzzling, though:

The candidate doesn’t even appear in the ad for the first 90 seconds. The visuals are a snapshot of very likable people, your fellow Americans, going about their daily lives. The mix of people is diverse, middle class and represent broad archetypes that will resonate with the average viewer. The characters depicted are real, approachable and totally believable. These people are your friends and your neighbors and they slip Hillary Clinton, someone who is most definitely not middle class, into this river of average Americana. Yet, for all its technical perfection, that’s not the real brilliance of the piece.

The real brilliance of this piece is that it’s inviting Republicans to stick their head in a noose. It’s pretty much a foregone conclusion that Republicans will respond with attack ads. By being so consistent, the GOP has made themselves predictable and this ad is calculated to capitalize on the contrast.

TGB goes on to explore how the ad will be used to tie up the GOP candidates into a package and make them look like fools.

Granted, The Daily Kos is a progressive website, but to be honest, it seems to me that this sort of strategy, if indeed it is the strategy du jour, is little more than an attempt to score cheap points – and that’s barely useful in an election.  If all you’re trying to do is stir up your own side, well, it’s a little early in the game, and the independents may not see it the same way as the partisans on your side.

And the Republicans and right leaners?  Ideally, you want to find a way to persuade the moderates that Hillary is not a lunatic, and that whatever mistakes she’s made, such as voting with the neocons for the disastrous Iraqi War, she has repented.  Indeed, the willingness to admit to errors, to rue them, and to try to do better may make a superb contrast with the possible GOP strategy of never saying you’re sorry.  Granted, that would be a very difficult theme to introduce; in fact, if they’re smart they’ll let the GOP throw the mud, pick their favorite and say, Yeah, I screwed up on that.  The Iraqi War might be ideal – I can see Hillary standing up and saying,

Yes, I voted with the Republicans for that war, and that’s the biggest mistake I ever made.  All they can think of is making War, wasting our lives, while we hold out our hands in peace.

Obama’s setting herself up for such a theme with the Iran and Cuba deals.

Previously, NewScientist reported on a research project at Google, moving from their PageRank system to (for lack of a better word) TruthRank.  Now NewScientist’s Feedback (21 March 2015) (paywall) column reports on a new hazard to be scaled:

RANKING internet search results according to how well they reflect “facts the web unanimously agrees on” (28 February, p 24)? What could possibly go wrong?

Adrian Ellis wrote to ask about something the web is unanimous on: that glass is really a very thick liquid (14 March, p 54). Well before the ink was dry on his letter, a colleague asked a FWSE (famous web search engine) about this.

It shot back: “Antique windowpanes are thicker at the bottom, because glass has flowed to the bottom over time… Glass is a supercooled liquid. Glass is a liquid that flows very slowly.”

At first glance, the web page it was quoting seems to exemplify a core Feedback hypothesis: that the internet holds many false beliefs, the more fruitloopy of which we catalogue.

However, closer inspection reveals a different flavour. The above text is from a page (bit.ly/GlassLegend) entitled “Glass: Liquid or Solid – Science vs. an Urban Legend”. It is in fact debunking the ideas quoted. This is a prime example of artificial stupidity. The search ranking system cannot tell the difference between myths and statements that mention them.

The New Yorker’s Michelle Nijhuis summarizes the discussion concerning the proposal to designate the beginning of a new geologic epoch, the Anthropocene:

 The group’s members are pondering whether the human imprint on this planet is large and clear enough to warrant the christening of a new epoch, one named for us: the Anthropocene. If it is, they and their fellow-geologists must decide when the old epoch ends and the new begins.

Basically, if human activity is detectable in geologic activity, then we transition from the current Holocene. This is somewhat more momentous than it seems since a positive resolution would signify a recognition of human capacity to actually modify reality on a world-wide basis – although in a random, chaotic manner, rather than a planned manner; terraforming, the process of transforming an entire world, initially hostile to life as we know it, into a world that can support such life, is not yet within our grasp.

Nature has published “Defining the Anthropocene” (paywall), in which authors Simon L. Lewis & Mark A. Maslin put forth arguments for two dates, which Michelle notes for readers unwilling to risk the Nature subscription..  1610 is the first candidate, as Arctic ice cores identify that year for a drop in CO₂ levels attributable to the deaths of millions of American Indians: their farmland reverted to forest, in the process absorbing large amounts of carbon.  1964 is the second proposed date:

… in rock layers by its high proportion of radioactive isotopes—fallout from nuclear-weapons testing.

To my mind, a sustained signal in the geologic data is key to accepting either date.  The decision is up to a committee.

There decision is also interesting in how it may transform scientific communications with the public.  Consider this “One Minute Interview: All hail the Anthropocene“, published in NewScientist (21 March 2015) (paywall), with biologist and journalist Christian Schwägerl:

You say we have to end “Holocene thinking”. What does that mean?
Holocene thinking rests on the assumption that there is this big, inexhaustible alien space out there that we call the environment, from where we can get our raw materials and food and where we can dump waste. The environment will become the “invironment” in the Anthropocene – something we are deeply connected with.

What can people do to support this vision?
Don’t get colonised by destructive industries. Enjoy breathing, eating, being in a forest or a green city space, enjoy helping others, paying attention to the colours and smells and creatures around you. In the Anthropocene we may one day cherish a square metre of wilderness as much as a painting of the same size by Van Gogh or Cézanne.

Many sources for this; this particular image came from here.

Simron Jit Singh, who worked with the Nicobar Islanders before and after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami (NewScientist 21March 2015) , says in this interview that he witnessed a second catastrophe (paywall):

What happened next?
By the time I got to the islands, at least 60 NGOs had arrived. The initial rescue had already happened. Then a lot of relief was brought in, and a lot of it was totally ridiculous, like blankets: it’s a hot place and you give blankets? They brought in junk food, radios and gas stoves, but there were no liquefied-gas canisters on the islands at the time. The Nicobarese were mystified. The main thing they wanted was tools to rebuild their houses, and rice. The tools didn’t come for a long time.

They started by building tin shelters, but these were too hot inside and the Nicobarese refused to live in them. So each family was paid 3000 rupees [approximately $70 at the time] to occupy the shelters, so the media could see them living in “civilised” homes. Meanwhile, 7000 modern homes were commissioned to be built, with imported materials, to accommodate nuclear families.

The problem is that Nicobarese culture is based around joint families of 40 or 50 people, typically in one extended home, with a head of the family who is in charge of property and resources. Building homes for nuclear families meant the joint family system was not respected. The entire aid blueprint was based on nuclear families – the concept of giving aid to giant families was unknown. The flood of cash multiplied the problem.

Compensation was paid to nuclear families. In the Central Nicobars, the women usually had more power, but according to Indian law it was men who were heads of the family, so they got the cheques. For years after the tsunami the aid flowed and the men had control over the money and resources.

He defines the term “complex disaster” as

A complex disaster is a consequence of inappropriate interventions in the aftermath, which undermine and destroy the non-material attributes that normally allow any society to self-organise and stand on its own feet.

This bit will, perhaps, surprise Westerners who don’t remember there’s always a price to be paid:

Where people used to work together, now there is competition and jealousy. When a society becomes unequal, it affects solidarity. And ill health has increased, especially diabetes, hypertension and stress. This is because the Nicobarese are not able to cope with paying for a modern life.

I want one as a pet.

(h/t NewScientist 21 March 2015)

… or at least tell me that this isn’t as wrong as it looks like to me.

The transformation of relations with Cuba suggests we may begin interacting with Cuba on a more regular and useful basis, and so occasional tidbits should be of interest.  NewScientist (21 March 2015) contributor Penny Sarchet  reports a rather small tidbit on Cuba’s health system (paywall):

Cuba does more with less. Despite having been under US sanctions for decades, people in the country have similar life expectancies to US citizens. The island has one of the highest concentrations of doctors in the world, with a family physician living every four blocks, seeing patients from their house, serving about 300 local families. Regular visits mean health problems tend to be diagnosed early and vaccination rates are among the highest in the world.

My experience with the American health system, limited as that’s been, suggests we tend to centralize doctors and require everyone to come to those centers, and while that makes sense for specialists, I do like the idea of a General Practicioner who just drops by from time to time.

In this post, I suggested the drop in oil prices is the result of an American war on Russia, hitting them where they hurt the worst.  I was a little surprised, though, when I received a promotional mail from The Motley Fool quoting Ronald Reagan’s son, Michael:

“I suggest that President Obama might want to study how Ronald Reagan defeated the Soviet Union. He did it without firing a shot, as we know, but he had a super weapon – oil… Since selling oil was the source of the Kremlin’s wealth, my father got the Saudis to flood the market with cheap oil. Lower oil prices devalued the ruble, causing the USSR to go bankrupt, which led to […] the collapse of the Soviet Empire.”

The Motley Fool goes on to promote one of their services, but only signing on to this thesis.  A little poking around found Jon Greenberg not quite agreeing:

We can see what happened with oil markets during Reagan’s time in office by looking at volume — how much was pumped out of the ground — and price. The U.S. Energy Information Administration provides the production numbers, and what we see partly backs up Reagan’s point and partly does not.

Total Oil Supply (Thousand Barrels Per Day)

For the first five years of Reagan’s administration, Saudi production fell steeply. Then in 1986 it popped up, followed by a dip the next year, and ending with another rise.

The Energy Information Administration also provides pricing data and it too both supports and undercuts Reagan’s statement. Prices fall in 1986, then recover in 1987 followed by a decline in 1988. Prices remained below what they had been in 1985. …

By several estimates, the drop in prices cost the USSR $20 billion a year. If the plan was to hurt the Soviet Union, it succeeded.

What is unclear is whether the Saudis ramped up production at Reagan’s request. We look at what the record shows on that front.

Jon is mainly concerned with history, not current events.  But Andrew Critchlow at The Telegraph connects the two and mixes in some Middle East politics as well:

Although 25 years have passed since the Berlin Wall signalled the end of the last Cold War it appears that the US and its allies are fighting Russia’s belligerent President Vladimir Putin with the same economic weapon that defeated his masters when he served in the KGB….

Such is the precarious economic situation Mr Putin has placed Russia in by pitting the country in an ideological battle with the US and Europe that Deutsche Bank expects its economy to slip into recession next year.

Of course Saudi Arabia – as the world’s only true swing oil producer – is taking advantage of the situation to reinforce its strategic importance to Washington, which appears to be moving closer to Iran. Mr Putin has also handed Riyadh and the rest of Opec the opportunity to fire a warning shot across the bows of shale oil drillers in North America, which depend of prices above $70 per barrel to remain profitable.

Matriphagy.

Medical science has completed its first successful penis transplant:

It began with a ritual circumcision for a teenager in South Africa, from the Xhosa tribe. And it ended with the world’s first penile transplant, completed in December and disclosed last week.

So far, it looks like a success. After the nine-hour procedure, Andre van der Merwe, the surgeon who led the transplant team at South Africa’s Tygerberg Hospital, was relatively confident that his patient, then 21, would eventually have a fully functioning penis. In time. Van der Merwe reckoned that it would take a couple of years for that to happen.

But just five weeks later, the patient informed him that not only was he achieving erections, but he had also engaged in intercourse. “I was shocked. I didn’t know what to say,” recalls van der Merwe, adding that he also feared that the early action might lead to a blood clot.

But this is certainly one of those medical procedures mainly motivated by traditional cultural practices, this time that of the southern African tribes Xhosas and Ndebeles.  While certainly accidents and disease can also result in the loss of the penis, just reading about this traditional practice will raise the eyebrows:

Tricking the boys, some as young as 9, into attending initiation schools; law concerning age and medical fitness are often ignored:

While many initiation schools are officially sanctioned, others are unregulated and allow bogus surgeons to operate with unsterilised blades. According to Rijken, who works in the region, 825 boys have died from complications since 1995 and many more have suffered from what he calls male genital mutilation.

Billing the parents for the cost of the school:

The family was informed that the fee for both of them would be R1,420 (US$192), a significant sum considering their only source of income is two child support grants totalling R420 (US$57) a month.

Using ostracization to sustain the practice:

In 2012, Asanda lost his penis to gangrene in a botched circumcision ritual performed by a traditional surgeon wielding the same spear on more than a dozen initiates. He was an unusual case among thousands of men hospitalized after such ceremonies in past years because he broke a code of secrecy about the tradition and spoke out in protest. For that, he endured public humiliation and even a severe beating a few months ago.

“People would just stare at me, as if I were not a man,” 25-year-old Asanda told The Associated Press. He did not want his family name published for fear of a bigger backlash from his community.

They won’t use anesthetic, though:

Steve was circumcised by a traditional practitioner soon after arriving at the school. No anaesthetic was administered; bearing the pain of the cutting is considered vital to the process of becoming a man. A disposable blade was used, but the wound was not bandaged; the only protection against infection was the application of some traditional medicine.

The communities involved are not insensitive to the problem:

In a nearby hospital, a mother is in tears as she strokes her son’s head. He is still frail following months of treatment for a septic circumcision which also resulted in a penile amputation.

“Our children are dying like ants. I want the people doing this to be arrested and punished,” she says, angrily.

But the people involved are not about to give up their privileges without a fight:

Dr Dingeman Rijken said he had set up a website to reveal the “dark secrets of the ritual” because traditional leaders had shown “shocking” indifference and incompetence to the annual toll of death and injury.

The leaders have condemned Rijken for breaking a cultural taboo and reported his site to South Africa’s Film and Publication Board, demanding it be shut down. …

But critics argue that Rijken has betrayed their culture and should have handled the matter differently. Nkululeko Nxesi, from the Community Development Foundation of South Africa, told the AFP news agency: “That website must be shut down with immediate effect. He should respect the cultural principles and processes of this nation.”

Patekile Holomisa, a former leader of the Congress of Traditional Leaders of South Africa, took a similar view. He told AFP: “We condemn the exposure of this ritual to people who do not practise it. Women should not see what happens at initiations.”

I suppose to an individualistic culture, this doesn’t make much sense; but for those that are more communitarian, a shared, horrific experience acts as a bonding process, something you know your mates have experienced, have in this case just survived, and perhaps marks your and your group as special.  Horrific?  So much the better.  As one of those individualists, I find this horrifying; but if you’re trying to build a community, institutions such as these may be necessary to instill necessary mental attitudes.

Gah.

Andrew Sullivan of the now dormant The Dish raged against traditional Western circumcision here.

(h/t NewScientist 21 March 2015)

… but I will say I saw it tonight, and that it was intriguing, and perhaps even inspirational.  At least I feel like I should try harder to do what I do better.

BTW, it’s a documentary on a pianist.  Who gives music lessons.

Gallup’s recent poll indicates the GOP doesn’t yet have a powerhouse contender for the nomination:

Underscoring the relative weakness of the potential 2016 crop of Republican candidates compared with their forerunners in prior campaigns, the candidates with the best scores at this early stage of the 2016 campaign would rank as only third best among the 2008 field, behind Giuliani and eventual nominee John McCain, and as fourth best in the 2000 campaign behind Bush, Dole and Steve Forbes.

Certainly nothing close to Hillary in terms of being known.  It’ll be interesting to see how these numbers fluctuate as the contenders spread their message – and their missteps.  The latest declared candidate, Rand Paul, is right in the thick of things:

Correlating these numbers with the candidates as they reveal more of their agendas should give an interesting insight into the composition and collective thoughts of the GOP.

The water problems in Palestine are not, unsurprisingly, related to climate change, but rather the political climate, according to AL Monitor’s Ahmed Melman:

Israel started controlling water resources in 1948, and began impeding the development of wells and water springs, in addition to exploiting the existing resources for the benefit of settlements and agricultural purposes at the expense of the Palestinians. In the mid-1960s, Israel began exploiting the water of the Jordan River basin that feeds the Dead Sea and diverting the water to private settlements in Negev settlements south of Palestine through the National Water Carrier; it also drained Lake Hula in northern Palestine. After Israel’s occupation of the Golan Heights, the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967, Israeli control over water resources increased. This happened through preventing drilling, bridging springs and refraining from issuing licenses as the governing authority until it controlled 90% of Palestinian water resources using military orders and laws. The water issue was moved to final-status negotiations within the framework of the Oslo Accord due to its importance and complexity. Phase I (Declaration of Principles) of the accord, which was set at five years, included the transitional arrangements for the establishment of a self-governing interim Palestinian Authority (PA); this was to lead to a permanent settlement in order to deal with the six key issues the parties agreed to move to final-status negotiations five years from the signing of the accords.

The future of water in Palestine does not look promising and might be headed toward a catastrophe in the coming years, especially in the Gaza Strip.

PWA Minister Mazen Ghoneim told Al-Monitor, on the sidelines of the World Water Day celebration in Ramallah on March 26, “The water situation in Palestine is very complex in light of Israel’s control over 90% of water resources, in addition to its refusal to increase the amount of drinking water sold to Palestine since 1995, which totals up to 52 million cubic meters, for $55 million.”

“The biggest water catastrophe on earth is in the Gaza Strip, as 97% of the coastal aquifer water is unfit for human use because of seawater intrusion and leakage of sewage water into it,” Ghoneim said.

AlJazeera publishes Charlotte Silver’s piece:

Israel credits its use of desalination plants and drip-irrigation with enabling the desert to bloom – the iconic image reinforcing the still-lingering notion that the land of historic Palestine was a dry one, while further impressing Israel’s world audience with the young country’s wizardry with water.

Less attention is given to the Knesset report commissioned in 2002, nearly four decades after Israel’s national water carrier began diverting the Jordan river to Israeli citrus orchards in the Negev region. The report concluded that the region’s ongoing water crisis – a desiccated Jordan river and shrinking Dead Sea – was “primarily man-made“. …

In fact, Palestinians have not historically wanted for water. But the characterisation of Palestine as a desperately arid land has, as Clemens Messerschmid wrote in 2011, “naturalised” the water crisis that Palestinians experience every day. Gaza, which is currently subsisting off of a water source that is 95 percent non-potable, long served as an oasis for travellers crossing from Cairo to Damascus. This history – and more – is important to consider amid the recent enthusiastic clamour over Israel’s miraculous water surplus that promises to provide a glimmer of hope for peace and cooperation, but is, in truth, a helpful cover-up for its ongoing theft and exploitation.

I cannot say if the facts cited are true, or out of context.

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz contributor Amira Hass writes:

So here are the facts:

* Israel doesn’t give water to the Palestinians. Rather, it sells it to them at full price.

* The Palestinians would not have been forced to buy water from Israel if it were not an occupying power which controls their natural resource, and if it were not for the Oslo II Accords, which limit the volume of water they can produce, as well as the development and maintenance of their water infrastructure.

* This 1995 interim agreement was supposed to lead to a permanent arrangement after five years. The Palestinian negotiators deluded themselves that they would gain sovereignty and thus control over their water resources.

The Palestinians were the weak, desperate, easily tempted side and sloppy when it came to details. Therefore, in that agreement Israel imposed a scandalously uneven, humiliating and infuriating division of the water resources of the West Bank.

* The division is based on the volume of water Palestinians produced and consumed on the eve of the deal. The Palestinians were allotted 118 million cubic meters (mcm) per year from three aquifers via drilling, agricultural wells, springs and precipitation. Pay attention, Rino Tzror: the same deal allotted Israel 483 mcm annually from the same resources (and it has also exceeded this limit in some years).

In other words, some 20 percent goes to the Palestinians living in the West Bank, and about 80 percent goes to Israelis – on both sides of the Green Line – who also enjoy resources from the rest of the country.

Hass finishes with:

Instead of spending time calculating whether the average Israeli household’s per-capita consumption of water is four times or “only” three times that of Palestinian consumption, open your eyes: The settlements bathed in green, and across the road Palestinian urban neighborhoods and villages are subject to a policy of water rotation. The thick pipes of Mekorot (Israel’s national water provider) are heading to the Jordan Valley settlements, and a Palestinian tractor next to them transports a rusty tank of water from afar. In the summer, the faucets run dry in Hebron and never stop flowing in Kiryat Arba and Beit Hadassah.

So it seems better management is required; but my impression is that tribalism is too strong, and tensions will continue, although there is a joint project underway to solve the water problem:

In a rare display of regional cooperation, representatives of Israel, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority signed an agreement on Monday to build a Red Sea-Dead Sea water project that is meant to benefit all three parties.

The project addresses two problems: the acute shortage of clean fresh water in the region, especially in Jordan, and the rapid contraction of the Dead Sea. A new desalination plant is to be built in Aqaba, Jordan, to convert salt water from the Red Sea into fresh water for use in southern Israel and southern Jordan — each would get eight billion to 13 billion gallons a year. The process produces about the same amount of brine as a waste product; the brine would be piped more than 100 miles to help replenish the already very saline Dead Sea.

Hillary appears to be stumbling a little:

Not only is this Clinton’s weakest favorable rating of the past year, but it is the lowest since 2008 when she was competing in that year’s Democratic primary elections. Prior to that, her favorable rating sank to 45% or lower at points between 2001 and 2003 when serving as U.S. senator from New York, and to 43% at one point in 1996 when she was first lady.

The latest rating comes from an April 3-4 Gallup poll, conducted roughly a month after Clinton began responding to criticism of her use of a private email server for official business while secretary of state and as news reports continued to indicate she was gearing up to announce her presidential candidacy. The previous result is from a March 2-4 survey, conducted prior to Clinton’s March 10 press conference in which she vigorously defended her email practices.

If her next poll indicates a continued plunge, it may be an opening for potential rivals, such as O’Malley and Biden.  Eric Zuesse is convinced Hillary is doomed.

Her arrogance (or else stupidity) in having wiped clean the hard drive of the private server she had used for her emails while she was the U.S. Secretary of State adds insult to the injury already done to her incipient campaign by the earlier revelation that she had evaded the State Department’s record-keeping system and had used her private server for all of her State Department emails and not only for her personal emails. (The NYT had headlined March 2nd: “Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email at State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules.”) 

MSNBC reports that potential Presidential hopeful Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin is starting to avoid questions after recent misstatements:

The whole point of a presidential candidate going to the border and taking a tour alongside a far-right Republican governor is its symbolic value – public relations is the sole purpose of visits like these. It’s Republican Presidential Campaign Politics 101: the candidate shows up, he or she looks concerned, he or she shakes some hands with border guards, and he or she tells reporters about the importance of “getting tough.

But Walker has decided to remove political reporters from the equation. As Byers noted, this isn’t limited to Friday’s border tour – last weekend, the Wisconsin Republican became the sixth national candidate to visit Greenville, S.C. but the only one of the six who wouldn’t take questions from the media.

So my question is, does the press think about just not reporting on candidates who refuse to take questions?  Of course, there was the Sharron Angle candidacy of 2012, wherein her terror-stricken run from reporters resulted in nasty news reports; but you have to wonder if a public campaign, asking all news organizations to sign a pledge to not cover candidates who refuse questions, might be in order.  Sure, that’ll lead to ‘reasonable vs unreasonable’ questions, but, hey, we all need a little entertainment during the political season – and we don’t need candidates who can’t field questions and at least get the simple ones right – and know enough to say, like Governor Ventura during his candidacy, “I don’t know, but I’ll find the best person to answer that question.”

(h/t  Billionaires for Wealthcare)

One of the key parts of the GOP strategy going forward may be to never, ever say you’re sorry.  This fellow (the piece is unsigned) on Unqualified Offerings brought it up in a piece in which he suggests Governor Scott Walker may win the GOP nomination:

Apologizing or even admitting error represents weakness, period. So Mitt Romney titles his campaign book No Apology; Ted Cruz insists the 2013 government shutdown is why the GOP walloped the Democrats in the 2014 elections.

We can also see this in the public flailing about of Governor Mike Pence over the Indiana Religious Restoration Act.

“Over the past week this law has become a subject of great misunderstanding and controversy across our state and nation. However we got here, we are where we are, and it is important that our state take action to address the concerns that have been raised and move forward.”

Or here:

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence on Sunday defended his decision to sign a religious freedom bill into law, saying that it was ”absolutely not” a mistake.

In an interview on ABC’s “This Week” the Republican governor repeatedly dodged questions on whether the law would legally allow people of Indiana to refuse service to gay and lesbians, saying that residents of the state are “nice” and don’t discriminate and that “this is about protecting the religious liberty of people of faith and families of faith.”

As a political strategy, you want to say it’s a political miscalculation: adult human beings make mistakes and own up to mistakes; voters will recognize the immaturity (or worse) of the GOP candidates and reject them.

Sadly, I do not think this will be true, because of the underlying assumption of good knowledge, by which I mean everyone is aware of what’s going on and when public mistakes are made.  I believe there are two factors at work:

1. We’re too busy to keep track of such things.  Look at the hours we work – 47 a week, and then there’s all of our “leisure” activities, child care, etc.  How many folks keep careful, sober track of the candidates and their performance?
2. That’s the jobs of the other side.  Not any longer.  It’s hard to believe the other side, no matter who they are.  The polarization of politics leaves me shaking my head; sure, some are just ridiculous [DailyJot], but when a former Minnesota Rep indulges in ludicrous hyperbole, then I have to doubt anything anybody on either side says.  There are precious few with any stature left.  Obama I will seriously consider, as I see him as an old-style politician to whom honesty has some weight over Party loyalties; maybe Reid.  I’m not even sure of Klobuchar and Franken, my Senators, who generally seem fairly likable.  On the GOP side, there’s just no one.  They have not cultivated a reputation for honesty, for reasonable analysis.

So this will be the unintended consequence of the GOP culture cultivated over the last couple of decades: they do not have a reputation of honesty, of fair dealing, of mature government (for a glaring example, see the entire Bush years).  They have a rep of unreasoning enmity, of extremism, of a failure to acknowledge that their opponents no doubt have the future of the Nation at heart – they just throw mud.  As an independent, it’s hard to consider voting for a GOP candidate these days.

No wonder the Millenials evidence little enthusiasm for the GOP.

And the Democrats seem to have a hard time figuring out how to respond to this immaturity.

(Updated misspellings and missing links 21 September 2015)

Being a FIREFLY fan, this is interesting news….

(h/t Lee Norman)

Here’s a piece of blank verse for a rainy day:

When All the World Is Grey…

When all the world’s comprised of shades of grey
you learn to see the beauty in the differing tones;
the infinite variety of muted hue and subtle shadow,
the cleverness of light against dark,
and myriad shadings in-between.

When the earth is the grey of a winter sky,
you’re compelled to see the charm in a cozy room.
Cloud-washed walls reflect the dappled light of a leaden landscape,
as blue-white snow blankets ashy, bare-branched trees
that grow like gateposts beside a black ribbon of highway
stretching to the horizon.

When the sky holds the grey of a summer rain,
you’re allowed to feel the healing
of nature’s softly falling tears;
tears warm and wet, washing clean the dirt and sorrow and regret
of a thousand missed opportunities, a hundred misunderstandings,
and a world full of misapprehension and fear.

When all the world is grey,
you begin to see the color living deep within the tones;
the subtle blues of steel and smoke,
the effervescence of opal, pearl and nacreous shell,
the hard-edged spark of silver,
and the warmth of dusty lilac, mauve and taupe.

When all the world is grey.

–D.J. White

A DALY is a measurement of the impact of a disease on a human life.  It was developed in the 1990s, but only just recently came to my attention – I’m not sure how (I owe someone a h/t). The World Health Organization goes into more detail:

The YLL basically correspond to the number of deaths multiplied by the standard life expectancy at the age at which death occurs. The basic formula for YLL (without yet including other social preferences discussed below), is the following for a given cause, age and sex:

where:

• N = number of deaths
• L = standard life expectancy at age of death in years

Because YLL measure the incident stream of lost years of life due to deaths, an incidence perspective has also been taken for the calculation of YLD in the original Global Burden of Disease Study for year 1990 and in subsequent WHO updates for years 2000 to 2004.

Seems useful, but the charity research site Give Well has some problems with it:

The DALY metric is used to provide a single number to capture all of the health costs caused by a disease (or averted by an aid program). 1 DALY could represent 1 year of life lost (due to early death), 1.67 years spent with blindness, 5.24 significant malaria episodes, 41.67 years spent with intestinal obstruction due to ascariasis (a parasite), or many possible combinations of these and other symptoms.4 There is no way of knowing, from just how many DALYs a program is said to have averted, whether it has saved lives, prevented large numbers of minor health problems, or some combination thereof.

We feel that this creates a number of problems for donors seeking the charity that best fits their values. More in our blog series on DALYs, available here.

So Give Well would like a dimensional number; this yardstick is a little too simple for them.

I tried to discover if DALYs are used by pharmaceutical corporations to select the next disease to work on, but I found no evidence of such.  I suppose those corporations where the execs are wedded to the notion that they exist to make as much money as possible wouldn’t be interested in the concept; it would take a more idealistic executive team, such as we hear about now and then from the Millenials, to consider using DALYs.  However, in the category of other factors, companies are often driven by inner competencies, rather than external needs, and so targeted diseases are selected by a less fortunate motivation; and if they are screening drugs against a spectrum of illnesses, then it’ll be fortune that selects the disease to treat.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation funded research to put DALY numbers to a variety of diseases.  The results are provided here by the venerable journal The Lancet, and requires a free registration.

Can they ever make up their minds?  First they expunge our favorite dinosaur from the science books:

But then, in 1903, Elmer Riggs said that classification was wrong. He based his premise on the number of sacrum bones (where the tail attaches to the spinal cord) of each dinosaur, according to Wired magazine. The Apatosaurus sacrum has three bones, while the Brontosaurus had five. Instead of being a different species, Riggs contended the Brontosaurus was a younger version of the Apatosaurus.

… and now they’re dragging the poor guy back from the grave …

Both were long-necked and long-tailed creatures, among the largest to roam the Earth in their time. But now an extensive study published online in the journal PeerJ, finds that there are considerable differences between the two — enough, the researchers say, to conclude that they belong to separate groups.

A team of paleontologists spent five years researching and analyzing hundreds of different physical features of dinosaur specimens. The study’s lead author, Emanuel Tschopp from the New University of Lisbon in Portugal, says, “Generally, the Brontosaurus can be distinguished from Apatosaurus most easily by its neck, which is higher and less wide,” according to Scientific American.

Tschopp tells the magazine that while both dinosaurs are massive and robust animals, Apatosaurus is “even more extreme than Brontosaurus.”

Yes!  All of us middle-aged dinosaur junkies with our affection for “thunder lizard” may soon rejoice — Brontosaurus may be back!

A whimsical search of the Internet for Surveys for favorite dinosaur yielded tantalizing hints, but results were as hard to come by as some dinosaur species.

The Dinosaur society is here.

A Facebook correspondent, in response to a post concerning an increase in citizens identifying as political independents, requests

Now show a chart that shows people who actually vote.

This leads to this interesting article discussing precisely this subject, also published by the Pew Research Center.

Among Republicans interviewed in October, 17% did not identify as Republicans in November. Among Democrats interviewed in October, 10% no longer identified as Democrats. Of those who declined to identify with a party in October, 18% told us they were either Democrats or Republicans when we interviewed them in November. Overall, 15% of voters gave a different answer in November than they did in October.

We also see party affiliation changing in understandable ways over time, in response to major events and political circumstances. For example, the percentage of registered voters identifying as Republican dropped from 33% to 28% between 2004 and 2007 during a period in which disapproval of President George W. Bush’s job performance was rising and opinions about the GOP were becoming increasingly negative.

Similarly, the percentage of American voters identifying as Democrats dropped from 38% in 2008 – a high point not seen since the 1980s – to 34% in 2011, after their large losses in the 2010 congressional elections.

The Roper Center provides a chart of the information for the 2012 Presidential Election, entitled “How Groups Voted,” which I take to mean exit polls.  I’ve extracted this outtake:

For 2008, Roper provides this information:

In 2004, Roper provides this information:

For 2000, Roper provides this information:

From these few data points it appears the Republicans are suffering as both the Democrats and the Independents gain at their expense.  Of course, as the Pew report points out, loyalties can be variable, depending on the success of the Party, fidelity (or lack thereof) to espoused principles, and even the American belief that the grass is always greener with someone else in charge.  Still, given the aging demographic of the GOP, this trend is not surprising.  The interesting part will be the adjustments the GOP will make in order to stay viable as a national force.  Some have suggested the redrawing of voting districts is one of their early strategies; this can be of limited effectiveness since it’s easily detectable and can be taken to court, as in this Texas example.