Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Taking the race card out of play

kw: opinion, politics, candidates

I sent the following to a Philadelphia talk show host, who spent Tuesday evening (March 18) discussing Senator Obama's speech in Philadelphia from earlier in the day:
Last evening I got the feeling you were panning Senator Obama's speech, that you thought he was "playing the race card."

If he can't talk about race, who can? He is uniquely positioned to discuss race in America. I don't think he was playing the race card; I believe he intends to take the card out of play.
I think this speech one of the great speeches of my lifetime, that is, since WWII. To let the Senator speak for himself, the speech follows, as prepared for delivery:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
“We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.”

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America’s improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation’s original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution – a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part – through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign – to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together – unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton’s Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I’ve gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world’s poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners – an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

It’s a story that hasn’t made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts – that out of many, we are truly one.

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either “too black” or “not black enough.” We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.

And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

On one end of the spectrum, we’ve heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it’s based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

“People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend’s voice up into the rafters….And in that single note – hope! – I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion’s den, Ezekiel’s field of dry bones. Those stories – of survival, and freedom, and hope – became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories tha t we didn’t need to feel shame about…memories that all people might study and cherish – and with which we could start to rebuild.”

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety – the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity’s services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America – to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through – a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, “The past isn’t dead and buried. In fact, it isn’t even past.” We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven’t fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today’s black and white students.

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments – meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today’s urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families – a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods – parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement – all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What’s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn’t make it – those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations – those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicia ns, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committ ed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren’t always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It’s a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy – particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction – a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people – that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American – and yes, conservative – notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright’s sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen – is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds – by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.” This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can’t learn; that those kids who don’t look like us are somebody else’s problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don’t have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn’t look like you might take your job; it’s that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should’ve been authorized and never should’ve been waged, and we want to talk about how we’ll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

I would not be running for President if I didn’t believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation – the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

There is one story in particularly that I’d like to leave you with today – a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King’s birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.

There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that’s when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother’s problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn’t. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they’re supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who’s been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he’s there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, “I am here because of Ashley.”

“I’m here because of Ashley.” By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.

Sunday, March 16, 2008

Mary Shelley vs HG Wells et al

kw: book reviews, fantasy, gothic horror, satire

It took me half the book to figure out the locale, Whitby. Meeting "Mr. Alucard" solved that one. Long prior to that, the heavy, thudding hints dropped by Brenda, the heroine of Never the Bride, led me to peg her as the Bride of Frankenstein. In between, human-Martian (à la War of the Worlds) crossbreeds spend a week at her B-&-B by the sea before fleeing pursuit from the Martian-dominated denizens of their remote town.

On the theme of "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it," Paul Magrs has brought together all the archetypes from the Gothic horror films of the 1930s, and dug up a few more of other genres, such as the Thief of Time. Some, including Brenda, Alucard, and a few more "ordinary" humans, are the "good guys", while others range against their efforts to keep an overburdened netherworld from spilling back into this one...or so it seems.

In spite of the clashing genres, it is an enjoyable read. Elsa Lancaster would have loved the rôle.

Thursday, March 13, 2008

Reversal stories

kw: book reviews, story reviews, science fiction, fantasy, anthologies

The anthology is Eclipse One, edited by Jonathan Strahan. A blurb on the cover states, "New Science Fiction and Fantasy". To my mind, only two of the fifteen remotely resemble SciFi: "Electric Rains" and "Lustration" (see below). As a solar eclipse reverses the sun/sky relationship, these stories are intended to turn assumptions topsywise. They do. The ideas:

  • Unique Chicken Goes in Reverse by Andy Duncan – A frizzled chicken (one with feathers that grow in backwards) with healing powers, which she names "Jesus", is a lonely girl's favorite companion.
  • Bad Luck, Trouble, Death, and Vampire Sex by Garth Nix – When one's grandmother is the world's most dangerous witch, her death leads to, well, all hell breaking loose...
  • The Last and Only or, Mr. Moscowitz Becomes French by Peter S. Beagle – A psychological version of Kafka's "Metamorphosis".
  • The Lost Boy: A Reporter at Large by Maureen F. McHugh – A mildly occult story of amnesia.
  • The Drowned Life by Jeffrey Ford – A parable of losing the rat race. The metaphor is living underwater.
  • Toother by Terry Dowling – An ugly story of a person with a bite fetish, who vanishes at a crucial moment.
  • Up the Fire Road by Eileen Gunn – Is the Sasquatch a shape-shifter?
  • In the Forest of the Queen by Gwyneth Jones – A modern take-off on English forest mythology.
  • Quartermaster Returns by Ysabeau S. Wilco – Putting the old saw into words: You aren't allowed to die if you owe the Army anything.
  • Electric Rains by Kathleen Ann Goonan – The sky is full of nanostuff, driving most folks to get uploaded. A girl is taking hear dead protectress to a burial place, avoiding being rained on.
  • She-Creatures by Margo Lanagan – A brooding riff on alien abduction fears.
  • The Transformation of Targ by Paul Brandon and Jack Dann – A bad guy with nice urges tries to reform. His "educator in evil" shrink has other ideas.
  • Mrs. Zeno's Paradox by Ellen Klages – You really can't get there from here. At some point you have to halve the Planck length, and it's only 143 steps from halving a centimeter.
  • The Lustration by Bruce Sterling – A wooden computer, mafioso priests, and artificial intelligence in a thoroughly alien milieu.
  • Larissa Miusov by Lucius Shepard – Perhaps some folks really can go down a hole and pull it in behind them.

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

The Watts Towers, a first look

kw: vacations, sightseeing

They comprise the largest work of art produced by one person working unaided. For 33 years, Simon Rodia worked alone to build these towers, using no blueprints, scaffolding, welds or bolts, using only tile-setter's tools. The tallest tower is 99½ feet (30.3 meters). When the city of Los Angeles wanted to destroy them as an "earthquake hazard", a consortium of preservationists made a good case for an engineering test. When the main tower was unaffected by a 10,000 lb test, they were deemed safer than the skyscrapers then a-building downtown, and allowed to stand.

Their innards are reinforcing rod, textured steel bars, wired together (no welds), and covered with a concrete coat a couple inches thick. Into this coating, the artist embedded shells, tiles of many sorts, pieces of rock, broken china and glass, the bottoms of colored bottles, and other found materials. He must have spent a lot of time collecting stuff! You can find out a lot more about the Watts Towers at the Watts Towers website and in this Wikipedia article.

My father, his friend, and I visited the afternoon of March 10, 2008. Dad has been there a few times, but it was the first time for me. This picture captures the tiny feeling I had looking up at them. But there is a lot more than just a few towers. At their web site, you'll find out about the Gazebo, the two decorated walls, the staircase, and other marvels built into and around them.

A closeup shows examples of the seashells, dinner plates, and tiles used for decoration. Other panels had stamped impressions in the concrete and rock and slag coatings.

The Watts Towers Arts Center has been set up nearby to teach and lead tours of Rodia's monument. We visited on a Monday, when everything is closed. Tours are scheduled only on Friday-Sunday, and the Center is closed on Monday. We did talk to a guard, who gave us a brochure with Rodia's biography and a short description of the towers' details. The web sites above are much fuller.

Conserving the structures has turned into a time-consuming job for a number of people. When an earthquake did come, the towers pretty much shrugged it off. However, the concrete cracked in a number of places, so people had to remove and restore some sections to prevent rusting of the steel inside. The towers were completely photographed in the 1970s, so whenever a piece of tile or other decoration is found on the ground, they can get it back to the spot it came from. Still, I found a number of gaps where stuff had fallen off and not yet been restored.

These details aside, the Towers are awesome.

Monday, March 10, 2008

Cash upon demand

kw: book reviews, science fiction, science fantasy

In recent years, Terry Pratchett has focused his Discworld novels on the careers of an individual or two at a time in his hyper-legendary city of Anhk-Morpork. The city's coat of arms has hippopotami rampant, its symbols are the Ankh (the loopy Egyptian cross) and the Morpork (an odd owl), and its central character is the Patrician, Lord Vetinari, as clever a rogue as ever managed a metropolis. Two prior posts of mine (
here, in an omnibus review of four books, and here) cover Pratchett offerings that focus on Commander Vimes of the Guard. I seem to have missed an earlier book that introduces Moist von Lipwig, but in Making Money we get a view of his career once he has straightened out the Ankh-Morpork Post Office.

Moist, under another name, had been hanged ... almost. Lord Vetinari had him "hanged" into a catch-basket, after which he offered him more honest employment, on terms he could hardly refuse, as they involved continuing to breathe. As Making Money opens, Moist has succeeded wildly, but is bored, and is found climbing buildings by night, to keep sharp. Vetinari has anticipated this, and contrives to lure him into the post of chairman of the city's largest bank and its mint, but with a twist: the bank is owned by a pug dog, and Moist must keep himself, and the dog, alive, long enough to resurrect the city's flaccid banking industry...in the face of a banking family that compares well (evilly?) with the Borgias.

Pratchett writes in a lovely parody of classical rhythms, and his plots loop one around until you think you're seeing the back of your head. He uses trolls (siliconic variety), golems, vampires, zombies, and other "species" as stand-ins for the ethnicities we aren't supposed to poke fun of in print. The author's fun-poking, however, far from perpetuating stereotypes, exposes and detoxifies them.

Here, however, I wish to comment more on form than on substance. In most fiction, the visual artistry of a book, between the covers and endpapers, is confined to a "readable and balanced" typeface and perhaps dingbats to indicate longer time periods between certain sections. Where drop capitals are used, they are usually enlarged, bolded letters from the text font. In his books, Pratchett takes advantages of several tropes of 19th Century typography: each chapter's opening page contains not just a title and a paragraph or two, but also a clever graphic such as the A-M coat of arms and a humorously cryptic summary of the chapter's contents (the hand guides the unwary reader). Sections begin with a drop-letter, as used in many publications, a nod to the much earlier practice of initial-letter illumination. In this case, they are of an elegant incised hollow font also used in the chapter headings. Click on the image to see more detail.

These elements adorn a writing style that indicates a writer who is enjoying himself hugely, and intends to pass on as much enjoyment as possible to the reader. Here is a sample:
When he was a child, Moist had prayed every night before going to bed. His family were [sic] very active in the Plain Potato Church, which shunned the excesses of the Ancient and Orthodox Potato Church. Its followers were retiring, industrious, and inventive, and their strict adherence to oil lamps and homemade furniture made them stand out in the region where most people used candles and sat on sheep.
Pratchett is also the apparent coiner of a lovely phrase, "War is a wicked waste of customers." This is my new favorite.

He does indeed ensure the reader's enjoyment.

Sunday, March 09, 2008

A day on the rocks

kw: vacations

I am on vacation in California, visiting relatives. On Saturday, March 8, my brother and I drove out into the desert to collect rocks. Once I download my pictures I'll post more. We collected 30-40 pounds of Lavic Jasper, mainly in tumbling size pieces. I always enjoy seeing the Joshua Trees, like those shown here. This is a stock photo from Joshua Tree National Monument, which is a couple hundred miles from Lavic.

Thursday, March 06, 2008

Weapons as toys, toys as weapons

kw: book reviews, science fiction, future fiction, politics

The first edition of The Zap Gun by Philip K. Dick was published in 1965, written in 1964. I suppose he thought it safe to put his novel forty years into the future. Of course, now 2004 is mostly four years in our past. I found it mildly interesting to see the trends that have reversed on him. Principally, while there remain tensions between the US and Russia, the world has not rigidified into a Wes-bloc and Peep-East (the latter from PRC plus Eastern Bloc). He couldn't have imagined resurgent Islam or a terrorism-dominated Mideast.

Linguistic trends hold up better. Many terms are shortened, so we have Indy (independent) filmmaking, iPods (I used to know what it acronymizes), and "the burbs"; we don't have Dick's cogs (cognoscenti) or pursaps (poor saps; all who aren't cogs).

We didn't settle the cold war by agreeing to "plowshare" our weapons development (all image, no substance), a process he also calls "weapons fashion". No, the richest nation on Earth simply made weapons of domination and occupation too costly for anyone but themselves, but then began selling them at a discount to all takers. Ergo: well-armed terrorists.

Dick wrote at a time that we could still dream of steaming jungles on Venus (we didn't quite know it was a steamy 800°). He makes use of telepathy and clairvoyance. He, like many, expected air cars. Here's why we never will have air cars: wheels on the ground are cheaper than any hovering technology, for getting you through your daily commute. Even maglev trains are becoming white elephants (France's TGV still beats out all maglev contendors, economically; the "lifting current" exceeds the propulsion current).

For the same reason, economics, the concept of "Slavers from Sirius" that is this story's backdrop, just doesn't make sense. Robots are cheaper than slaves, once you have the tech infrastructure.

The title of this post probably gives away too much of the story. It is a game, of a sort, that overcomes the interstellar slavers. But in Phil Dick's hands, getting there is all the fun. It is a classic I'm happy to have run across.

Wednesday, March 05, 2008

Detoxify? You'll have to try harder

kw: observations, opinion, nutrition

Very early this morning (~1am, Wed, Mar 5) I finished a midnight phone call, a fortunately rare occurrence. Being a bit jazzed, I read a little, then turned on the TV. I saw the last half of an Oprah interview of Dr. Oz. Two of the segments interested me the most, because they overturn ideas Dr. Oz had once promoted.

First, twin teenage girls, a pair who say they drink lots of water to keep their skin in top shape, were tested for that proposition. One had to double her water intake, the other one could only drink the minimum needed to avoid a "dying of thirst" feeling. So one went form drinking a liter daily to two liters, the other to just under a half liter.

Measurements were made, before and after a period of several days, of skin flexibility and several other measures of general health. The result? No difference whatever, except that one twin went to the restroom lots more often. Dr. Oz explained, "Even a piece of steak is 65% water after cooking medium-well", and that fruits are typically more than 75% water. We get lots of water in everything we eat, unless someone has their morning Wheaties without milk.

Secondly, a common "detoxify your blood" diet uses lots of juiced vegetables and things my brothers and I used to call "lion milk" (a concoction our mother tried on us for a while). Twelve young women were split into two groups of six. The members of one group were forced (and after a while, it took a bit of force) to detoxify almost exclusively, the others ate a more ordinary, but healthy, diet. I don't recall the term, but I think it was two weeks. The result? No difference between the two groups, based on before-and-after blood work.

Again, Dr. Oz had a possible explanation: Our body is quite good at eliminating waste and toxins, if we simply refrain from taking in any new ones.

Bottom line: modest measures typically accomplish nearly all of the good.

Monday, March 03, 2008

It is not just the belts

kw: book reviews, nonfiction, biographies, scientists

There is little I could say, or ought to, about a recent biography, James Van Allen: The First Eight Billion Miles by Abigail Foerstner. So much is written already—about him and about the book— since he passed away in August 2006. See the University of Iowa's James A. Van Allen page, and particularly their tribute page (the first link). By the way, I'm puzzled why the Library classifies the book in the 523 section (Specific celestial bodies & phenomena): I suppose for his cosmic ray research, a lifelong passion. It ought to be a BIO.

The book itself is great, but the man is greater. He, more than anyone, "invented" science rocketry. Before that, however, he invented and developed the radio proximity fuze (I found out that "fuse" refers to burnable fuzes; "fuze" is the more general term).

Prior to the development of nuclear weapons, the proximity fuze was the anti-aircraft weapon that was winning the war, in both European and Pacific theaters. My Dad spent a couple years in New Guinea and nearby islands in the 1943-45 period, at times sheltered by the A-A shield these shells provided. Interestingly, Van Allen was there in 1943 with the Navy. Dad, an Army man, doesn't remember meeting any sailors, and we had tens of thousands of troops of all military branches there.

Of course, his name is nearly a household word for the "Van Allen Belts", two concentrated tori of radiation that encircle the Earth. They are composed of energetic particles trapped by the magnetic field; the protons and electrons form distinct belts, segregated by their mass-to-velocity ratio (each has a single charge, but their masses differ by a factor of 1,800).

Dr. Van Allen exemplified the unusual scientist who excels both in hands-on science and as an administrator and executive. Primarily for the latter reason, whether driving the scientific use of captured V-2 rockets in the 1950s or the development and deployment of the Voyager and Pioneer spacecraft in later decades, his skill as a motivator made him the father of space science. The subtitle of the book indicates that, by the time of his death he was continuing to monitor the information being received by three of these spacecraft at distances of eight billion miles (about 86 AU's).

Thursday, February 28, 2008

My meteorwrong

kw: information, space science, meteorites

Proving myself wrong about a rock

I've carried this rock around for so many years I've forgotten where I found it. I suspect, though, it was on a trip to San Benito County, California, with a group of fellow Geology students looking at the ultramafic rocks there.

"Ultramafic" refers to rocks with high Magnesium and Iron content; the County is host to a sequence of rocks derived from the upper part of the Mantle during a continental collision.

The connection of this rock with that trip is only in retrospect. Since finding the rock in a box several years ago, I've considered it might be a meteorite, mainly because it is rather heavy and sort of "looks right". Recently I decided to find out.

I decided to first measure its density. I don't have lab equipment available, so I used what I found in the kitchen: a spice scale (capacity 0.5kg) and a 0.5 liter measuring cup. I weighed the stone (210g), then put the stone in the cup and added water until it was covered, turned it all ways with a spoon to knock off all bubbles, then topped it to 500cc, the top line on the cup. I fished out the stone and read "a little below 450", which I estimated as just above 440cc. So the difference was less than 60cc, and I called it 58-to-60cc. Divide these limits into 210, and the result is 3.5-3.6 g/cc. That's in the right range for a stony-iron meteorite.

Checking relative accuracy, I decided I wasn't quite satisfied. The scale is marked each 10g, and can be read to 5g with care, so 210±5 meant a range of ±2.3%. The measuring cup, however, is only marked each 50cc, and it is hard to read a fifth of a marking, particularly because their spacing changes on the tapered cup. Generously assuming I can read to 10cc accurately, I still was faced with a range of ±10cc out of about sixty, or about ±17%. And there's no telling how properly printed the markings are...

So I used weight instead of volume. I tied a thread harness to the rock, so it would hang flat. I put the rock into the cup with enough water to cover it when I lifted it clear of the bottom. The whole rig exceeded the capacity of the scale, but not when I lifted the rock above the bottom of the cup, yet still under the water. I could just make it: 490 grams. Then I lifted the rock all the way out, and the reading dropped to, as nearly as I could tell, between 435cc and 440cc. I split the difference at 52.5±2.5cc, an error figure of ±4.8%. Now we're getting somewhere.

The result was 4.0g/cc, ±5.3%, or a range from 3.8-4.2. The former measurement, 3.55 with a ±17% range, covers a possible span of 2.9-4.2! Anyway, it doesn't contradict the new measurement. Now...what has a density of 4?

Stony meteorites have a density in the range 3.0-3.3. Iron ones are near 8, and even stony-iron ones are typically less than 3.8. My stone is either too heavy or too light to be a meteorite, and is not magnetic, so stony-iron is out. A closer look provides a further clue.

This broken surface, which is in the shadow to the left of the first photo, shows holes inside the rock.

A quick look at the Meteorite Realities page confirmed my suspicion that no meteorite formed with internal holes; there is no gas in space to open the holes, and these are clearly gas bubble holes. Though they appear to constitute only a few percent of the rock, they indicate that the bulk density without porosity ought to be several percent greater, at least 4.2-4.4 g/c. Now I'm in trouble...

The rounded lump at the arrow is reddish compared to the solidly gray background. Is it a garnet? Perhaps the garnet (or whatever) is one of the denser types, but it has to constitute most of the rock to have much effect. The usual sort of garnet peridotite seldom exceeds a density of 3.5, and this rock isn't green enough to be a peridotite (think the black sands of Hawaii, which are really blackish green, formed of peridot sand).

This image, around the end of the stone from the other two views, shows a squarish, reddish crystal (see the arrow). Maybe a garnet, or possibly a spinel. The reddish stain below gave me another clue, and there are several around the stone (see the first image). Now I remembered that trip to San Benito. I still don't know if that is where I got the rock, because we also visited a number of mines on that trip and later ones during my Senior year as a Geology student.

What is clear is that this is a combination of garnet or spinel in a siderite-hematite mix. These occur together in metamorphic assemblages, and both San Benito County and other places I frequented in those years were metamorphic terranes with plenty of sources for iron ore, which is just what this is.

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

An Ender Sidebar

kw: book reviews, science fiction, space fiction, political fiction

Testing limits is a process of crossing them repeatedly, in both directions. So-called "cross-genre" or "multi-genre" writers are really limits testers, Orson Scott Card exemplifies the breed. His "Ender" series (two disparate series), while appearing as military space fiction, is really political fiction in a space setting. Once you have read most of them, you realize that Ender and his brother Peter are mirror images: almost identical but with a twist. The "Alvin Maker" series, ostensibly magical realism, is psychological exploration, as is the "Homecoming" series. I have read none from his other series.

But as I read A War of Gifts, a novelette in the Ender series, I found myself wondering, not for the first time, "Why are Card's positive protagonists so neurotic?" Sometimes it reminds me of my favorite neurotic writer, Isaac Asimov, who was also a limits-explorer, one who cut his writer's teeth on robots exploring the universe of the "Three Laws". Asimov identified with his robots to the point that, when in late life he brought together the "Robots" and the "Foundation" series, he made his favorite robot into a god. He'd been working up to that for decades, most notably with "Bicentennial Man", who became human rather than divine..."a little lower than God" to quote the Psalmist.

But we were talking about Card. Is he as neurotic as Asimov? Having lived among Mormons, I don't automatically label them crazy at the outset, and I don't think so here. Rather, Card is more consciously exploring limits than many others.

This offering is about offerings, or Christmas gifts, to be precise. It begins with a most painful caricature of pseudo-Christian fanaticism, and I almost put it down at that point. Fortunately, Card is wise enough, and knows the Bible well enough, to expose the falseness of this particular sect while maintaining the integrity of faith in general.

What I found fascinating was not the rebellion of a space-bound mini-world full of brilliant children against their military mentors. Rather, it was the very adult attitudes of two of them, Dink Meeker and Andrew (Ender) Wiggins, though they are presumably in the 8-10 age range. I've been fortunate to spend time with some of the brightest kids around, the kind that need a special IQ test to find out they are 180 or so (It's energizing and exhausting, as I limp along with a mere 160). Though they have remarkable stability and focus, they are still children, and I find the children depicted in A War of Gifts rather incredible.

But the story, as all of Card's are, is a story of redemption, and this being the "Ender" universe, it is Ender who must be the suffering redeemer. Sobeit.

A closing word on the use of "Spare the rod and spoil the child" and "beat your son with a rod, and you will save his soul from hell." These word were written by Solomon. Do you know who Solomon's older half-brothers were? Amnon, who raped his half-sister Tamar, and Absalom, Tamar's full brother, who murdered Amnon and later rebelled, driving his father David the king, from Jerusalem. The Bible story makes it clear that Absalom went to hell, and the familiar Proverbs are Solomon's exaggerated rebuke of his dead father David for being one "who never asked his sons, 'Why have you done this?'."

Parents! Do Not use these verses in Proverbs as justification to beat your children!! There are much better ways to correct and discipline a child. Do not teach them that you believe violence solves anything. You just make them more prone to violence themselves.

Monday, February 25, 2008

Doom of a Hero

kw: book reviews, nonfiction, biographies, medicine, aviation

When I saw the title, The Immortalists, I expected a book about the work of people such as Robert Ettinger, author of The Prospect of Immortality (1962). Ettinger was a pioneer in cryonic preservation (both his wives are on ice; he still lives at age 90 as of this writing. He leaves the discovery of resuscitation and repair techniques to future scientists).

What I found was quite different. In The Immortalists: Charles Lindbergh, Dr. Alexis Carrel, and their Daring Quest to Live Forever author David M. Friedman brings us a double biography. Lindbergh was the most beloved hero of the early 1900s, later a much-maligned antiwar spokesman, and much later returned to hero status. Carrel was a Nobel-winning surgeon who became first beloved then hated for his pro-eugenic speaking and writing, and who remains controversial since his death in 1944.

By the midpoint of the book, just before the monochrome plates, I knew all I wanted to about "Lucky Lindy", and much more than I cared to about Dr. Carrel. The aviator-become-bioscience researcher was not just "Lucky": He was one of the most gifted mechanical engineers of his day. He was also a sharp avionic investigator who early judged that the German air force was capable of taking on the whole world and winning. His judgment proved mostly correct, but he had been hoodwinked as to the range of their bombers.

The Doctor was, as judged by examples of his own writing, a monster. To be fair, I looked outside the book for further quotes, and my first impression was upheld. He was a bigoted advocate of "the white man's burden" and an anti-Semite. Yet his bigotry was not without relief, and he saw a need for "the right kind of Jews" to leaven a populace.

His influence on Lindbergh was almost beyond belief. Every sociological notion of Carrel's was emphasized and exaggerated in Lindy. Carrel had said of him, defending his employment of the aviator to make equipment for medical experiments, "...men who achieve great things in one area are capable of great accomplishments in all domains." (p 78) We have many examples of how tragically wrong such a notion is, but in this case, Lindbergh did happen to be a marvelously capable technician.

He was, however, pretty blind socially. The author remarks at one point, "...Charles Lindbergh was less interested in people than in machines." (p 105) He remained strongly anti-Semitic and anti-"colored" until quite late in life. Thankfully, he did moderate his views quite a lot around 1970.

Carrel started out a moderate bigot and stayed that way. In his book Man, the Unknown he advocated a super-priesthood, an "Academy of man" to tell everyone else what to do...or else. A large step beyond Plato's Republic. He is thought to have carried out some of the French eugenic experiments that occurred after his return to France in 1939, but I can't find solid evidence either way. But any supportive truck with the Vichy government tars him, in my view. It is his involvment in the underground French Resistance that partly redeems him.

Lindbergh and Carrel collaborated for about a decade on equipment and techniques intended to keep organs alive outside the body. Perhaps damaged or diseased organs could be repaired while artificial or temporarily transplanted organs took their place. Perfusion pumps made by Lindbergh were a key to these experiments.

Lindy's pumps were based on, and greatly improved upon, a mechanism by which Dr. Carrel kept a piece of chicken heart alive and throbbing for more than twenty years. It was learned decades later that the tissue was continually replenished because of stray heart cells in the serum that bathed it, which was frequently topped up with fresh preparations. Heart muscle cells and some stem cells would incorporate into the lump, replacing cells that died off, then multiplying as needed. Probably, the last original cell died out in the seventh or eighth year. Chicken heart cells have a natural lifetime of about five years. This was not deliberate deception on Carrel's part; he didn't know it was happening.

The aim of these experiments was physical immortality. During a soul-searching time in Utah, Lindbergh thought, "If man could learn to fly,...why could he not learn how to live forever?" (p 21, quoted from Autobiography of Values, 1977) Only since 1990 have we learned how misguided the experiments were. Once genuine life-extension technology is actually developed (if ever), even today's foolish experiments with stem cells will seem equally mistaken.

Friedman is a good writer, but he had a tough couple of subjects. I confess I skimmed over quite a bit in the second half. I did find one bit of comfort in it all. The "boomers" aren't the first generation to bridle against the strictures of mortality...just the richest.

Sunday, February 24, 2008

Most faithful friend image gallery

kw: book reviews, nonfiction, photos, dogs

Dogs by Catherine Johnson, with a few words by William Wegman and others, needs few words. It barely has a thousand words itself. Ms Johnson, not the author of this book but its collector, has collected photos of dogs, mainly family pix with dogs in them, all her life. She shares the best of her collection with us. Here are a couple examples, one showing the format of the quotes about dogs, to be found on about one page in ten.



There's no telling what page number these are found on; the pages aren't numbered. This is a photo album after all, and do you number the pages in your photo album? If you've read the prior two posts, you now know the origin of the image I used as an example.

Saturday, February 23, 2008

A Descreening follow-up

kw: instructions, images, tools

Trust a spate of writing to get the juices flowing! After writing the prior post, I tinkered around a bit with the scanner. I found some better settings and procedures.

Most scanners have a Twain or similar driver screen, and an Advanced mode, where you'll find color tuning and various filtering operations such as Unsharp Masking, often including Descreening. Preview runs fast, so I could pre-outline the area to scan (my older scanner did this more "up front", it took until today to find it in the new one). After setting the area desired, Zoom lets you refine it if needed (an example appears later).

I Previewed the image of the girl and her dogs and Selected just that area, set 150 dpi for final output, and then clicked Descreen and Scan.


First, these clips illustrate the differences between the automatic method and my multi-step "hand" method (you can jump down and skim the prior article—or click here if you're viewing single posts; use Back to return—to get familiar with the method).

The clips, as before, have the corner of the girl's mouth at the upper right. The 30x30 shown here is the result of Auto-Descreening, and the 120x120 is a 4x resize to see the pixels. The two clips below it show the result of my 5- or 6-step method, which begins with a scan, unfiltered, at 600 dpi. The result of either method is an image with 150 dpi resolution, and the halftone dots and their Moiré pattern removed.

The unsharpened version is closest to the Auto result, but a little inferior. The sharpened version has more visual interest for me, but take a look at the white dot in the lower-right clip, on the girl's neck near the collar. That may be real, but he faint ring around it is a sharpening artifact. To my judgment, the Auto process gave slightly better results.

This is the full image of the picture from the book. It is very nearly the same physical size on my screen as the picture in the book (its size on your monitor will depend on its own dpi). Click on the image to see all that its 150 dpi resolution can show. Blogger limits images to about 400 dots vertically, and the 150 dpi image is 752 dots tall. It will slightly overfill the browser window (or the left half of it) on a 1024x768 screen.

This points up a practical matter. No matter how nice your original image is, if you are going to use it in a blog be sure it looks "pretty good" at that size. I once had a graphic with lots of details, and the lines were so thin, they mostly vanished. I had to redraft it and simplify it. It just wouldn't do to say, "Click on this critter to see it better...sorry for the mess you see right now".

So, after all the Sturm und Drang, I've obtained as good a copy of the book's photo as technology (that I can afford) currently allows. I decided to try a full-color picture from a magazine. I needed something small...


I happened to have a recent issue of AARP The Magazine around, and saw an article by Dr. Andrew Weil, with his image in the byline. This is the Preview/Zoom screen view of an early stage in capturing a picture of Dr. Weil. A small (¾ x 1 inch) face-photo accompanies his articles in many venues. The halftone dots are quite clear, particularly around the eyes.

This image is about what you'd see in a raw 300 dpi scan. The larger one that a click will reveal is close to 360 dpi. This is a screen capture image, and its resolution depends on the way the scanner driver runs its Zoom routine.

I had two ways I could proceed. I first used the Auto-Descreen from the scanner, then I loaded the screen capture image and, without any blurring at all, resized it to 0.24 to match the 150 dpi image (it has a boundary the other image doesn't have.) I used the Lanczos filter for resizing, the slowest and best filter offered in IrfanView.

The small image on the left is the Auto-Descreened result. It is very good. The other is the shrunken screen capture shot. There is a bit more background noise, but to a quick glance, the images are very similar in quality.

I reckon I'll keep fooling around with hand descreening, but I've determined the Twain driver does a fine job, and I'm switching to it for production.

Friday, February 22, 2008

Descreening with IrfanView

kw: instructions, images, tools

OK, if you like to edit digital photos, then before you go any further, go to /www.irfanview.com/ and download IrfanView. I use it almost daily.

A book I'll soon review contains mostly photos. In the past, I've used scanned photos in the blog, and I did a lot of work on them for viewing on the computer. My scanner has a "descreen" option, but I found I could use a few steps in IrfanView and get a better result. The following procedure is to completely descreen an image scanned from a halftone print. The example image is a 2-tone Sepia-toned reproduction of an old photo, but the method is the same for monotone or full color.

Halftone on glossy pages such as a magazine or photo-oriented book has from one to four (sometimes seven) hexagonal dot patterns with a pitch of 120 to 180 dots per inch; 150 dpi is most common at present. Halftone on newspaper pages and other non-shiny paper has a pitch of 80 to 120 dpi; 100 dpi is most common. There is a whole discipline of picking the angles for the different screens so they won't produce unsightly Moiré patterns (interference banding). So it makes no sense to try for a final image with more than 100 or 150 dots per inch.

To descreen, one must begin with lots of resolution; much of it will be discarded in stages, but it is needed at first. I scan at 600 dpi. This seemingly large image is a 1.33x1.75 inch clip from a larger image on the book's page. At 600 dpi, full size is 797x1039 pixels.

This 120x120 clip from the image, with a corner of the girl's mouth at upper right, shows the halftone pattern well. If you click on the larger image, you'll see the pattern over the whole image when it is shown at full size. The "circly" pattern is a very small moiré pattern of the black and brown screens overlaid at an angle (I think it is 37°). This amount of interference cannot be avoided.

Of course, the "proper" way to descreen such an image is to use Fourier series filtering. It doesn't simply remove all frequencies higher than, say, 80 dpi; it removes the specific frequencies that pertain to the screen patterns, leaving some extra photo detail visible. It is thus better than both the descreen routine in my scanner and this procedure, but for most purposes our process will be sufficient. Those with the extra energy can get Fourier analysis software...it doesn't come cheap or easy.

The first step is to do a basic, full blur. In IrfanView I enter Ctrl+E (Menu Image/Effects/Effects browser...), select the Blur item and set the amount to 99. This causes complete mixing within a 1-pixel range. If you look carefully at this image, it has a smoother look.

This 120x120 clip shows that it is indeed smoother, the photo details look good, but some halftone remains.

For many purposes you can reduce this image to ¼ size so it is displayed at 150 dpi (or 50% larger than "life" on a 100 dpi monitor and 2x on a 75 dpi older monitor). In IrfanView, Ctrl+R (Menu Image/Resize) selects Resize where you can single-click a half-size reduction or enter any percent (use 25% for quarter size). Also, I use the slowest resize filter for best results; there are several in a panel on the Resize dialog.

However, I like a little better final results with no halftone remaining, so I blur twice more. Once at this size and once at an intermediate size.

This image results from repeating the Blur step.

This 120x120 clip shows that some remnant of halftone patterning remains. This is better removed by resizing and blurring again.

Some day I'll take the time to run a few pix through this process, then do it again skipping this blur step, to see how it impacts the final image.

A test image that I took using the scanner's Descreen option looked rather good at the outset (the scanner delivered a 300 dpi image). I blurred it once, reduced by half for 150 dpi, and it looked as good as a result from this process. However, to Descreen, the scanner scans in a peculiar version of 1200 dpi, capturing each color separately, so it takes much longer than an "ordinary" 600 dpi scan. I guess I prefer to be "doing something" for the same amount of time, such as fiddling with IrfanView! So, I do more steps.

Though this image is displayed the same size as the ones above, it is half the size "behind the scenes." Click on it and see. The resize averaging makes this look a little better than the prior image already, at this size.

This 60x60 clip covers the same area on the photo as the 120x120 clips above. The halftone patterning is less evident yet, just from the Resize operation.

This is the clip above, resized to 120x120 without smoothing, to show the pixels. Compare it to the clip for the prior photo, the result of two Blur operations. I have to look closely to see remnants of the halftoning.

I encourage you to experiment. I had a little theory to drive me; I knew in a general way what the Blur operation does, for example. It may be that starting with a 300 dpi scan and using fewer Blur steps, perhaps at a % different from 99, will work as well. I am usually in production mode, so I must consciously block out time to experiment or I don't do any.

This is the result of the last Blur operation, done on the half-size image.

A 60x60 clip shows things are a lot smoother, but some irregularities in the girl's complexion seem to have vanished. She may prefer for us to hide signs of acne or moles, but let's wait for the final result.

This is again the small clip resized to 120x120 to show the pixels.

I can see no hint of halftone patterns, not even the Moiré patterning. However, the edges are no longer as sharp as before.

We will be shrinking this image further, to get it to final dimensions and resolution. Remember, our goal is to display at 150 dpi, and this is still at 300 dpi.



This one ought to display at a smaller size than the ones above. This is now ¼ the size of the initial scan.

A 30x30 clip shows we have a pretty sharp image now, for this resolution, with no sign of the original halftone.

This 120x120 blowup of the tiny clip above shows the pixels. You can see that the edges are just two pixels across.

Many times, you can stop right here. At the risk of resurrecting some sign of the screens, I like to do a final sharpening step. Most of the time, I like the result better.

In the Effects Browser you can set the amount of Sharpening to do. I usually set it at 20%. Irfanview does a full sharpening (100%), which you can try to see how blocky it looks. But when you add 20% of that to 80% of the original image, it looks pretty good. This is my final, production image. Overall, there is a somewhat grainy look that makes this more like a photo than a halftone print.

The 30x30 clip is now displayed at the same resolution as the larger image. The total image has plenty of snap and interest. And let's remember that this started as a stamp-sized snip from a 3½x5 inch image.

This blowup of the 30x30 to 120x120 shows that the apparent width of edges is closer to a single pixel, as would be the case if we'd scanned at 150 dpi an original photo that had hundreds of dpi. Because of the halftone image we started with, 150 dpi is actually better than is warranted, but it gives a good combination of "look" and size.

There you have it. Start at 600 dpi, then Blur, Blur, reduce by half, Blur, reduce by half again (to ¼ size), Sharpen, and you're done. It really doesn't take long!

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Eclipse 2008 - the last for a while

kw: observations, astronomy, photography

Last evening I got out (in 5-minute spurts—it was well below freezing) with my camera to observe the last Lunar eclipse that will be visible in Eastern North America before 2010. The images in this montage are clipped from much larger frames; they are 300x300 clips from 6Mpx images. Image times are 9:02, 9:14, 9:24, 9:34, 9:46, 9:54, 10:04 and 10:19pm Eastern.

I've had my camera, a Nikon D40, about a year, and I really love it. However, it is not well-suited to astronomy. Two deficiencies bugged me: the lack of a cable release shutter (and too hard to work self-timer in the dark), and focusing troubles. As to the latter, I managed to get it into a mode so that it could autofocus on the moon, until it got too dim (the sixth image), after which I had to switch the lens to Manual focus and eyeball it. The lack of any of the focusing aids found in film SLRs made this very iffy. I basically took several pix at a time, refocusing each time, hoping to hit the sweet spot once each set. I did OK. Once shutter times got slower, however, camera shake became an added complication. At least I have a sturdy tripod.

It just occurred to me that I could have taken some of the earlier images, at least, by setting the camera to continuous shooting (2.5 per second), and held the shutter down while I slowly focused through infinity and beyond (only in a camera can you go beyond infinity!). I haven't tried continuous shooting with shutter speeds of a second or so!

This image was processed a bit to give the Moon an appearance closer to what I could see visually: lower contrast and more yellow/tan than orange/red. The tiny dot at the top is the star Regulus, which was 2° North of the Moon at the time. Saturn was also nearby, about 5° East, but my image frame wasn't wide enough to put the Moon on the autofocus spot and see Saturn also.

The ability to capture Regulus (Mag 1.4) in a 1/10-sec exposure at f/5.6 and ASA1600 gives me some idea what I'd need to do to get wide-angle sky images with this camera. First, I need a desert or dry mountaintop location, so stars of sixth magnitude are clear to my eyes. Then I need to mount my camera on a tripod with a clock drive, because each magnitude requires a 2.5x longer exposure.

To get a 1.0-magnitude star captured this well takes 1/15 sec; at f/4 (my wider-angle lenses), 1/30 will do. Then 6.0-mag stars would require 100x the exposure or 6.7 seconds. However, with proper setup, my telescope tripod will keep a camera pointed at the right part of the sky for a minute or more. A 60-sec exposure would then image 8.4-mag stars with similar intensity as that seen here, and probably show some a magnitude or so fainter. Of course, "visible" stars would be very overexposed, but that's typical of astrophotography.

The curvature of the Earth's shadow in the upper images gives one a feeling for the size of the Umbra, even 240,000 miles (385,000 km) away. The Umbra actually reaches, on average, 855,000 miles (1.38 million km) beyond Earth, and its diameter at the Moon's distance is still 5,700 miles (9,200 km), or about 2.4 times the diameter of the Moon. Though the Moon was off-center to the Umbra (as usual), and because it travels its diameter in just under an hour (orbital speed 2,100 mph or 3,350 kph), it was fully engulfed in the Umbra for just under an hour. According to the Sky and Telescope site, the central phase—totality—lasted from 10:00-10:52pm EST (UTC-5h).

Some folks wonder why the Moon turns orange. If you were on the Moon at the time, the Earth would appear dark except for a bright red rim where light scatters through the atmosphere. During the rare eclipse in which the Moon passes through the center of the Umbra, it gets much darker, as you can see to the left side of the later images. When the Earth has more cloud cover than usual, and the Moon hits the Umbra dead-on, it seems to vanish from the sky...slowly, like the Cheshire Cat's smile.

Monday, February 18, 2008

Archimedes - more modern than we knew

kw: book reviews, nonfiction, ancient history, manuscripts, history of science

It may hold the record for the most money paid at auction for the ugliest book (US$2.2 million). It was a wreck. Its sale has caused endless speculation—mainly about who bought it—and endless joy among historians of science, plus endless fascination by quite a variety of scientists who had previously had little truck with "old books."

Word of the day: palimpsest. Noun. "A manuscript that has been written on more than once; the earlier writing is often incompletely erased and partially legible." See FreeDictionary for more details) Origin: Greek palin (παλιν) "again" + psēn (πσην) "scrape". Why "again"? Parchment is animal skin, soaked and scraped to remove hair and fat. So to "erase" older writing, a sheet could be soaked and scraped again.

This helps understand the importance of a 13th Century prayer book comprised of sheets from a number of older works, including 10th Century manuscript copies of three documents written by Archimedes more than a millennium earlier.

This "ugly book", shown here during its display at Chicago's Field Museum, is a rare find indeed. It is the only surviving codex (bound book, as contrasted with a wound scroll) of Archimedes' work. All images in this post are Copyright the owner of the Archimedes Palimpsest, used by permission.

The Archimedes Palimpsest, AKA Archimedes Codex C, contains most or all (not yet sure) of the text of Floating Bodies, Method and Stomachion, works previously very little known from incomplete quotes. Why "C"? Two other codexes, "A" and "B", existed in "slightly modern" times, but vanished a century or two ago. We don't have them in Greek any more, but in translations...all partial, ranging from good to "interpreted" (i.e. paraphrased).

Late in 1998, when Codex C was auctioned, a museum curator somewhat hopefully contacted a well-known dealer in manuscripts with the suggestion that the Walters Art Museum might be a suitable venue for public exhibit and scholarly study. "The Walters" in Baltimore, Maryland houses and cares for a large collection of manuscripts. Imagine his surprise to find out the buyer already knew of the Walters and considered it the best such venue!

After a relatively short time (compared to the document's age) the dealer and the owner of the codex visited Will Noel to discuss its curation. This was a formality: the owner had it in a bag he was carrying, and that was that! Dr. Noel and a colleague, historian Reviel Netz of Stanford, became the lead investigators. After nearly ten amazing (and arduous) years of work, they have written The Archimedes Codex: How a Medieval Prayer Book is Revealing the True Genius of Antiquity's Greatest Scientist. The work has gone amazingly fast, primarily because the owner, is a "rich patron" who makes quick decisions and is very interested in the findings.

What is it like to deal with a palimpsest? Codex C has 174 "leaves", or parchment sheets, folded in the middle and bound together. This produces 348 "pages" with 696 "sides". This photo, taken in deep blue plus near-ultraviolet, shows the state of the art for a hundred years or so, since it became feasible to produce UV light. The sheet is oriented so the Archimedes text is readable, if you read Byzantine Greek. Two diagrams are also visible. The text was written in two columns.

The way UV makes both texts visible is by fluorescence. If you have a "black light" tube, shine it on your skin in a darkened room. That dim bluish look is flourescence (your teeth are much brighter-look in a mirror, but not for too long: UV is bad for your eyes). Ink is not fluorescent, whether it is iron-based or carbon-based. So the bluish light from the parchment is blocked by the older ink almost as much as the newer, because some of it had soaked into the parchment and absorbs light from beneath. To take such an image, the camera has a filter that blocks the UV but passes the fluorescent colors. The full-size version of this image can be found at the Archimedes Palimpsest web site.

The overlay of late Byzantine Greek prayers runs vertically, which is typical of a palimpsest: cut a re-scraped sheet in half (where it was bound) and rotate it, so you can write over it with less distraction from the remaining under-text. This text is in one wider column per "side". This is sides "017r-016v", or the reverse of half-sheet 17 and obverse of 16. Adding the other side, the sheet's contents are 15r-16v-17r-18v; "r" and "v" mean recto and verso, or front and back in Latin.

"Well," you might say, "It looks straightforward. Take the sheets out of the 'book' and photograph them in UV light. Then read it right off." But you knew, didn't you, that it isn't that simple? Firstly, taking out the sheets, or disbinding, was a horrific task; the book had been rebound a number of times, most recently with something like the "white glue" named after a famous cartoon bull. Modern polymer-based glues are hard to dissolve without also dissolving parchment!

Enter Abigail Quandt. Her work is the key to all later successes. Disbinding Codex C took her four years. That is around eight days per sheet (the profession's word for sheet is "folio", the term you'll find in the book).

Once she had "released" a sheet from its binding, Drs. Noel, Netz, and an ever-growing team could begin their work on it. This corner of a page shows a rather good section that is almost readable without doing a letter-by-letter puzzling out of the text...at least for someone who is familiar with 10th Century Greek manuscripts already! This image is a little more sophisticated than the prior one: digital images of UV and visible were subtracted to enhance a text that was all but invisible in UV light alone. But what to do with even-less visible text, and the few sheets with rather recently-forged iconography painted and gold-leafed over both older texts?!?

This image and that which follows are two similar methods of multi-spectral imaging. Several imaging teams have worked with the authors over the years, and on one occasion a competition was held between two teams. Both worked out schemes that emphasized the very slight color difference between the 10th Century iron-based ink (seen as red) and the later carbon-based ink (seen as blue-black).

My brother, one of whose skills is "scribe", described for me how medieval ink was made using red iron oxide, oak gall bitters, and carbon black. Later inks using linseed or other oils and carbon black were used because they are easier to make, and rooms full of monks busily writing at "publishing" monasteries needed an abundant supply...carbon black is easily made and needs no grinding.

These lovely images show the same portion of a sheet, with essentially no difference in legibility, but before the computer got hold of the various narrow-band images, the sheet looked blank under any "eyeball" presentation at any wavelength...at least there was no visible under-text. To these folks, the 13th Century text is part of "blank".

Over time, the extension of such techniques has yielded readable, or at least decipherable, text for all but the four sheets overlaid with forged images (it is supposed that someone in the 1920s or '30s tried to make the ugly book prettier for a quick, and more lucrative, sale).

X-ray fluorescence provided the answer. A proof-of-concept yielded an "iron image" right through the gold leaf...in fifteen hours for about a square inch. Work currently under weigh, or perhaps recently finished —it was just beginning as the book was printed—, uses the much brighter X-rays produced by an atom-smasher, and is much, much faster.

I've worked with folks on a project using such X-rays. You have to be careful with the beam. They typically keep a sheet of paper in front of the beam port. When it bursts into flame, the beam is "on". So you block the port, put the filters in place for your current experiment (usually, chunks of aluminum!), and open the port to make your readings. Of course, the blocking and unblocking of ports is done from outside the room!!!

What discoveries did all this lead to? Besides the texts themselves, they revealed an Archimedes who was much more modern in his thinking than we imagined. And his work was not the only material bound into the codex, but I'll leave off discussing the other documents with which his three texts have kept company for a millenium.

Firstly, Method reveals how Archimedes determined the area or volume of certain curved shapes. In at least one instance, rather than sneak up on the infinite quantities that can arise in such calculations, he used them directly. If you write your equation appropriately, you can divide two infinities and get a non-infinite result. This is the basis of all calculus, meaning all of modern engineering and much of physics. Before Codex C, it was not known that Archimedes was able to calculate using infinite quantities.

Secondly, On Floating Bodies reveals an Archimedes quite different from the legendary buffoon that ran naked through the streets shouting "Eureka!". He already understood the principle of displacement, and in this work he showed how to quantify the density of a floating, or sunken, body. I recently used his method to measure the density of a chunk of rock I've carried around since finding it in a barren field in Oklahoma. Its density is 3.6, which is dead-on for a stony meteorite, but too heavy to be a misplaced piece of basalt (3.0-3.2). Now I gotta get an expert to look at it...

Thirdly, Stomachion, the "belly-ache", is a playful puzzle, a square cut into fourteen triangles. It is rather hard to re-assemble after you mix up the pieces, yet there are 17,152 ways to put it together (and millions of ways to be wrong). Archimedes proposes determining how many ways there are, and the researchers found he had the mathematical tools to arrive at the correct answer, without need for a computer.

The story of this ugly book is not over. It has yielded conceptual beauty of several kinds, with much more to come. These people have job security!

Friday, February 15, 2008

One fish, two fish...

kw: musings, business, searching

For your translation needs, there's BabelFish*.

For everything else, there's the GoogleFish!



*BabelFish is a product of altavista™.


This editorial cartoon by Daryl Cagle showed up in the morning paper today, and I ran right down and scanned it. This is a de-halftoned, small version of the scan. You can also see an original color image (as long as the link lasts).

I think Mr. Cagle has captured the essence of just how important searching is. During the past decade, I've moved professionally from info tech to info science. Whatever IS was called in the distant past, it has been around since Mesopotamian herders began to use marks on clay take inventory ("Where'd I leave the tablet with Sam's receipt?"). We originated as hunters and gatherers: searchers. It is still what we do best and most obsessively. Ya gotta search to get work, food you can afford, a mate, a dwelling, transportation, and on and on...

Searching is big business. I work for an industrial company that does a lot of research. The library services division does mainly two things: catalog things so it will be easy to find them, and find things, particularly things that aren't well cataloged. Most of such "things" are books and smaller documents. I am now the main custodian of a thesaurus...not the book by Roget, but a large collection of keywords and key phrases ("terms" in the profession), arranged in a hierarchy, also called a "controlled vocabulary". The cataloging tasks aim to attach appropriate key terms to things like tech reports, so someone can later find documents that are useful to them. In this context, the cataloging is called "conceptual analysis," and employs a number of rather costly experts who can quickly read a document and extract concepts that they render as key terms from the thesaurus, anywhere from five to a couple dozen per document.

This kind of cataloging is quite a bit different from putting a Dewey Decimal number on a library book. Each book gets one key, and one only. The numbers keep the keys short. For example, DD numbers in the 800s are "Literature". 8n1 (n = a digit 1-8) means "Poetry", where 811 is "American poetry in English", 861 is "Spanish poetry" and so forth. Digits after a decimal further refine the subject. But in the poetry section, I have seldom seen digits after the 811 or 821 ("British poetry"); poets seldom stick to a narrow subject beyond a single poem. You'll see strings of three or four digits (after the decimal) for narrowly focused books. Longer strings are for multiple, discernible foci; but this is rare. If you see a humongous DD number, ask your librarian to explain it.

Of course, the people that search my company's document collection don't only use key term searches. They can also search for documents that contain any word(s) they like. Now that everything is automated and on disk, searching is getting simpler all the time. However, "free text" searches tend to return a lot of clutter. Thus, large companies find professional cataloging and indexing worth the cost.

What about the rest of us? We have Google. Google is so big in searching now, we use the new verb "to google" even when we are searching via altavista or Yahoo! or DogPile. By the way, for the opening page that Yahoo! used to display, they employed professional indexers to categorize the first set of links you'd get when you clicked on a category. That has become rather unwieldy, with millions of new web pages daily, and I don't think they do it any more. What does Google do, to retrieve pages we find useful? Two things.

Firstly, the thing they get all the press for: the "popularity ranking" method. When they track down web pages, they keep track of how many other pages link TO each page. A web page with lots of links to it gets a higher score than one with a few or only one. Of course, many pages (possibly most) have no inbound links at all. When you get a small number of hits, the screwy ones in the last half of the list are likely these poor orphans.

But secondly, they set up a smarter sorting method for searches against more than one word. Search for peach and only the first method can be used. Peach fruit, peach trees, and Peachtree software are ranked only by popularity (I just got 58 million hits on this word). Enter peach tree, and you'll get a much smaller number (297,000 just now). Now try tree peach (889,000). What happened?

In the past, with anyone but Google, peach tree and tree peach would get the same number of hits, perhaps not in the same order, and a much larger number than for peach alone. That's because you'd get every document that contained either peach or tree, in addition to the ones you wanted that contained both words, and if possible, the phrase peach tree. The Google method assumes you want every "significant" word in your search phrase to be in all your hits. The "significant" words are words besides "and", "the", "you", "that" and so forth; you can search for "dogs that are larger than forty pounds", and the search will really be done for "dogs+larger+forty+pounds".

Finally, the multiple words have a certain order, and phrases are given priority. If a lot of phrases show up, Google won't give you documents without the phrase. Otherwise, it gives you all the documents that contain all the significant words in any order.

Why go to so much trouble? People really care about what they find. Enough to buy lots of stuff based on their searches. Retailers and service companies pay Google a lot for help getting their web sites found more easily, and for priority placement (pay Google, and you go right to the top!).

That simple business model has made Google too big for Microsoft to eat whole, so it tried to eat Yahoo!...so far Yahoo! has slipped from their grasp. We'll see.

Thursday, February 14, 2008

About as white as a black man can be

kw: opinion, politics, elections

Churchill said, "Even a fool is right once in a while". I don't like almost anything Bill Clinton has to say, but when he said the other day that he'd waited his whole life to vote for a woman for President, and for an African-American for President, it echoed my own feelings. His next words, that he'd be voting for the woman this time, reflect a sentiment opposite to mine. I'd love to vote for a female candidate, but absolutely not this woman. Senator Clinton is the wrong woman for the job.

I wouldn't take much for Senator Obama to move to the right of Senator McCain. Were he to do so, he'd have my vote. Not because he's black (what, 25%, 15%? I am almost that black!), but because he's the most creative candidate on the stump, by far. Trouble is, he doesn't have a moderate bone in his body, so far as I can tell. Maybe after the Nomination we'll find out better, when he has to oppose not a Clinton but a McCain or a Huckabee (yes, he still could pull it off).

I am a Republican by registration; sadly, I find it necessary to also state that I am a conservative by inclination. Such a statement is no longer redundant. Further, considering the original meaning of the word, I am also a liberal, just the way Lincoln, Jefferson, and Washington were liberals: they were in favor of people being free, being liberated. Real liberalism helps people better themselves but doesn't replace them. Such liberalism is perfectly in accord with historical conservatism: keep the good stuff and mind your own business.

The modern use of the term "Liberal" (capital L is typically clearly pronounced, particularly by "conservative" commentators), is just the opposite. We don't have a term for the monstrosity that is modern limousine liberalism: the protect-everyone-from-everything-at-all-costs(especially to the taxpayer), we'll-do-your-thinking-for-you, you-deserve-total-care, be-nice-to-everyone(esp. terrorists)-and-they'll-be-nice-to-you, cradle-to-the-grave attitude that I'll dub "Nannyism".

At least a decade ago I read Alan Stuart Blinder's wise Hard Heads Soft Hearts: Tough Minded Economics (click here for more). "Hard heads" refers to conservatism, "soft hearts" to liberalism, as we understood them at the time. He showed that Congressional politics typically produces "solutions" that are hard hearted and soft headed. Just for one example, "welfare" programs have a noble ideal, but their actual implementation destroys persons and families and actually makes it very much harder for a person to return to "taxpayer" status than if nothing whatever were done! The present exceedingly miserable state of most African national cultures is a result of misguided nobility on the part of 19th Century missionaries. Look to 1980s Africa to discern the future of Nannyism.

Oddly enough, many members of both major parties are Nannyist, in different ways. Left-wing Nannyism we call Socialism, and right-wing Nannyism becomes Fascism. Both destroy everything that holds a healthy society together.

As a solution, I propose MYOBism, where MYOB means "Mind Your Own Business". We need a strong stance internationally to ensure we have the chance to mind OUR business appropriately, so I lean to the right when facing outward. We need clear-eyed policies to help those who need it most without preventing them from rising above that needy level, and without penalizing those who are in a position to support such programs. The Laffer Curve, much loved by Ronald Reagan, has been shown to work. The "Clinton economy" was really a result of Reagan's and Gingrich's policies at work, in spite of Clinton's best efforts to derail them. Ironically, these policies, derided by Democrats at the time, were also held at arms' length by Republicans, who found them too "liberal". They were! They are! Reducing onerous tax burdens is a historically Liberal stand. I lean to the left domestically.

But I am anti-Nannyist. Today's Nannyists would kill the goose that's laying golden eggs, even though that poor goose is struggling right now. Both Senators Clinton and Obama are sharpening their carving knives.

Who isn't? Senator McCain isn't totally in favor of a living goose, but he's quite a bit more likely to let it live, and for that reason, I'll vote for him. Uncertain survival is better than certain demise.