And the greatest of these

George Will has a column here that breaks down a new book, by Arthur C. Brooks, asserting that conservatives give more to charity than liberals.

I resist putting people in boxes, but let's assume the data is essentially correct (Will does not say whether or not conservative giving includes giving to churches, which shouldn't be considered full charity - churches do a lot of good, but a lot of that money goes to pay people's salaries that often aren't directly related with helping others).

If forced to categorize people, I'd rather use a two-dimensional plane than a one-dimensional continuum. The two axises are personal (or social) freedom and economic freedom.

A classic "liberal" view is that government should stay out of people's personal lives but strictly regulate the economy. If people don't have health insurance, it's government's job to provide it.

A classic "conservative" view is that government should stay out of the economy (free markets) but regulate people's behavior. This is why many conservatives are in favor of marriage amendments, against the legalization of drugs, for a strong FCC, ect.

NOTE: In using the word classic, I mean the mainstream, in contemporary America, of either side. I don't, for instance, mean classical liberalism - which is much closer to libertarianism, which I discuss below. Again, I resist labels and categories that sweep so broadly over a population. Real people are far more complex.

The so-called neo-con movement has, unfortunately, failed to maintain an economic conservative approach. Many conservatives who support the President on social issues (and military ones) are aghast at the spending increases over the last 7 years.

Fascists take the conservative view to an extreme, communists take the liberal view to an extreme. My own opinion is that fascism and communism eventually lead to totalitarianism: government control of everything (i.e. restrictions on speech in the former soviet empire).

My leanings are that of a libertarian, who thinks freedom should abound on both axises. Government should have minimal interference. Extremism on my end would be called anarchy.

To wit, this article certainly makes a lot of sense, but shouldn't be ammo for anyone. If one group of people think government should take care of others, and one group thinks its their own responsibility, then of course the latter is going to give more to private charity.

Let me be clear: This should not be taken as reflection of the kindness or empathy of either group. Instead, its just a natural result of two philosophies about philanthropy.

My feelings are thus: It is society's job to take care of society. Those who have lots should help those who do not. But the help should not be dragged out of people at gunpoint, which is what social programs funded by the tax role does. Society IS NOT Government. We have responsibility to love others, but taking money from someone else, on the threat of jail, to provide charity is outside the measures of good government.

For further reading, I'd suggest this wonderful parable (I don't know if its true) about Davy Crockett.

Also, Frederick Bastiat's The Law, available here.

The Steady Pace

For me, the best future I can imagine for myself is a Heinleinesque take on what Jefferson always wanted: yeoman farmers. Independent freeholders whose government consisted of mutual defense, perhaps some roads or schools (administered at the local level) and little interference. The sad fact is that most of us are not independent. We currently need big, "evil" organizations, like Exxon-Mobil, Public Utilities, the Federal Government, AT&T and the Pharmaceuticals. We really do. I can't defend myself against an army, or drill for oil, or build giant communication networks, or make drugs to fight disease. I need those companies. For now.

I used to need big, old media - or I would have, had I not been born into the information age. I don't know anyone in Iraq, I don't know any of the presidential candidates, I don't know anyone at the UN. Thirty years ago the only way to get information was to drink from the big well: 3 major networks, 2 local papers (Dallas Morning News and the now defunct Dallas Times Herald), and perhaps a few nationals like the NYT. These "dinosaurs" still have a place, but the monopoly is over. And rightly so.

Anyone can find tremendously more information than they can possibly digest - and I couldn't be happier. The proliferation of online databases and sites like Google Scholar have made my life as a language scientist tremendously more productive.

I mentioned a moment ago that there was, essentially, too much information. It's certainly worth considering whether all this data has a downside. My answer? Yes, it does. Put thine lips to the firehose and try to slurp what you can.

But my point is this: it is now the individual's responsibility to decide what to believe, what to learn, what to watch, ect. We can be intellectual freeholders, if we choose so.

***

So big media is now not so big. What about the other mega-corps that we currently depend on? Here's a few suggestions how technology could reduce them to the status of mere "option".


1. Oil. See my post here and a cool video from switched.com about electric and high MPG cars. One point, I think from Elon Musk of Tesla Motors, about hybrids that I consider very important is that a gasoline/electric car, like the Toyota Prius or Honda Insight, is still 100% addicted to oil.
Again, I'm not against oil. I'm against the addiction to it - which, like many addictions, keeps us impoverished and under control. I like gasoline. It's smelly and dirty and combustion engines are a pain in the ass to work on - nothing better for men who enjoy ripping things apart and putting them back together again.

***

2. Energy. So what if the electric car makes it this time (as opposed to the myriad of other attempts to go electric)? We still need a source of reliable, cheap energy to plug into. Well, nuclear fusion is one option. The start-up costs just to prove it works, however, means an international approach is needed to finance and test it - and that means international politics. Might be a while.

Nuclear fission is another possibility, but the clean-up and long term storage of radioactive materials raises some significant problems.

The above, along with coal and natural gas (for most people), all require a large, organization - either corporate or government - to operate: which destroys the whole possibility of independent freeholders.

Wind and water power might work for some, since a relatively small company can install the powermill and transmission system into your home - but unless you're in West Texas or own a river you can dam, neither would provide enough to live off.

Which leaves us with solar. Right now, my suburban 1000 sqft house (with corresponding roof size) could get me about 50-60% of the electric power I need if I installed solar panels, like those from Solar City. We barely use 600KWH (kilowatt hours) a month during the winter and just about 1100KWH during the summer. We do use natural gas for heating (and water heating), so if we wanted to be energy independent we've have to covert to all electric and be able to produce 900-1500 KWH, per month from solar panels.

We'd also have to invest in some sort of massive battery system to store energy for night use.

Right now, along with the $10-15K price tag( just for the solar panels and installation, never mind the batteries), these problems mean that being an EI freeholder is outside the scope of reality for most people. I would need a tremendous amount of extra money and most of my back yard to make it work. People that live in smaller houses don't stand a chance.

But here are a few reasons I might in another decade.

a. See MIT's work on batteries and energy storage here. The clever engineers are also working on retrieving electricity from thermal loss, as seen here. The former means that we are going to see energy storage increase dramatically. The latter suggests that appliances and devices will use less and less power. We've already seen this happen over the last few decades (look for the energy star label on home appliances).

b. Solar panel costs are going to be coming down because of advances in the, as this article suggests, and because of increases in production as demand for them climbs.

c. The numbers above about how much electricity I could get for my home were based on solar cells that operated around 10% efficiency. New cells have climbed to 20%, and it's been shown, as prototypes, that cells can convert 40% of the sun's energy to electricity.

I fully expect that the next decade will provide relatively cheap, high efficiency solar cells, along with incredible battery technology - perhaps enough for individuals, with a enough investment, to become their own energy providers.

***

3. Water. Even when you can supply you're own energy, recharge your own car, you still need water. Water, however, is the world's most abundant resource - if you can drink it. Which brings us to some exciting news, as seen here. Essentially, the man who invented the Segway, Dean Kamen, has developed a device that produces clean water from mud. From saltwater. From urine. All you need is a plug. He's currently trying to distribute them to Africa and, as he says, save 50 million lives who would otherwise face death from drought or diseased drinking water.

***

4. Communication. The internet started with a basic premise: surfers and servers and ISPs. Servers serve information, surfers enjoy it, and the ISPs (Internet Service Providers) paid for and ran the wires and switches to connect everyone together. While the backbone of the internet is likely to remain the massive fiber network stretched across America, wireless technology is increasing in speed and range so quickly, I'm not entirely sure that we'll need the wires forever. I can envision a P2P (peer to peer) wi-fi cloud that does away with the need for ISPs. I pay for a cable internet connection now, but free wireless is so prevalent now that I could certainly remain quite connected without Time-Warner Cable, Comcast, AT&T, or any of the others. Throw in a VOIP, wi-fi phone, and the wires creep back a little further.

***

I don't want to suggest that we all need to hop off the grid. I'm not calling for revolution - just the recognition that the future before us need not be a mere continuation of the now: a faster, sharper, higher rez version of the present.

The industrial revolution lashed us together economically.

But for all the great accomplishments of the last two centuries, we've lost a great deal of self-reliance; and, as I see it, enslaved ourselves to increasingly large, increasingly impersonal, and increasingly inefficient corporations and government.

Conservatives have been traditionally wary of big government - progressives have long feared and fought against fascism. What progressives need to remember is that it is far better for people to take care of themselves than it is for government to - and conservatives need to remember that big corporations can be as bad as a giant, leering federal bureaucracy.

Let's let individual liberty, empowered by technology, be the defining characteristic of the next age.

The Star Child Goes Nova: Arthur C. Clarke going up at 90

Another passing, shooting, flaming soul goes rocketing (into the heavens/to Heaven). Interesting set of phrases there. Arthur C. Clarke, author of 2001, A Space Odyssey; and the subsequent 2010, 2061, 3001. My favorite, I think, was 2010 - it seemed the most mythic.

Clarke's work was always hopeful: for the wonders that technology could unfold to us, for the exploration of space, and most of all for the future of the human spirit, no matter the form.


For more, see his foundation's website here and a news story about his going up here.

Here is a subversive website that illegally hosts some of his works. Don't go to it and read his novels and stories for free.

UPDATE: Here is a farewall video from Clarke on the occasion of his 90th birthday.

Count

One breath gives us pause,
but two sets a pace,
and three is a regular beat;
and all the gasps from meeting to knowing
is a meter of urgency.

Or the heart beats in half-notes,
afraid for itself,
till the strings waltz us home;
and setting the tempo at zero and zero,
we keep the restless count.

She's better each hour,
like seeing in color,
radio songs at night
When each little joy's like falling in love
for the very, very first time.

- Wednesday, January Seventeenth, 2007

Dallas

For those not in the know - I live near Dallas. Not quite in Dallas, but enough that when I go to another state, I assert "Dallas" as my home.

And I like the city, for all its problems. I've spent the last six months reading Unfair Park on a daily basis; and I never fail to catch Jim Schutze's column in the Observer. I also enjoy Angela Hunt's blog.

Unfair Park posted a link to The Urban Fabric's impressive photo, which really is quite beautiful, and I think everyone should see it.

Prowling

What rains wash tonight feels cold, brought up to shiver and freeze:
all shiny roads, rattling windows, shaking knees, pink ears.

What rains wash tonight are hours, from midnight till O-dark thirty,
when bed calls, sheets rumple, blankets stacked, kittens a'prowl.

What rains wash is me, tense and undetermined,
restless and wide-eyed, all jitters and thoughts:

a rocket without flaps, a penny tossed over a tower's edge,
a blunted apple peeler, a misbehaving auto-focus lens,
an analog clock ticking away on a stuck second mark,
a blinking orange traffic light, a declawed lion,
a dented tuning fork a'hum, a list of foolish metaphors,
a counterfeit bottle of whiskey, a stubbed toe in the dark blue-light,
a passing car going home, a tornado siren silence.

What rains wash tonight is me, unsleeping, a'prowl.

- 2:19am, Saturday, January Thirteenth, 2007

Going Electric

First off, let me say that I like gasoline. I'm addicted, like everyone else; but I genuinely like it. Even if the best of all I hope for comes to bear and the world begins to shelve the combustion engine, I'll be that dude in 50 years paying ten dollars a gallon for it, for my "classic" 1990's tuned Honda that I'll tinker with and jet around through my retirement. I see these old-timers in Model A Ford customized roadsters and I know that is one of my possible futures: a relic of an unsustainable past - a crazy old-timer. Gasoline as a hobby, a weekend sport.

But before we bankrupt ourselves, financially and perhaps morally, on a gas addiction, I hope the commuters and families and daily drivers will go electric sooner rather than later.

*

To that end, congratulations to Elon Musk and the team at Tesla Motors, who yesterday started line production of the Tesla Electric Roadster. See more here.

A quick overview:
Tesla Roadster
$100,000
0-60mph in 3.9 seconds - and no torque curve: acceleration remains constant.
4+ hours to fully charge
200+ miles per charge
$.02 - $.05 per mile (depending on how much you pay for electricity)
Motor and batteries are designed to go to 100,000 miles.
TARGA (removable) top, looks like a Lotus because Lotus engineers helped design it.

The company has already stated that this high end sports car is an entry into the market: profit from selling these will fund R&D for a $50K sport sedan model, and then a $30K commuter.

Also, the batteries are non-toxic and can be safely thrown away - or recycled for cash to help offset the price of new batteries.

*

This car will not save the world. Electric cars will not save the world. But its the damn fastest and damn sexiest methadone for oil addiction that I've seen. Send in the electrics!

You're The Only One Who Knows

I was searching my computer for the Billy Joel song So It Goes, just because I need to hear it every few weeks, when I realized that it was on my other computer, and rather than boot that one up, I punched "so it goes" into youtube, assuming that a music video would come up and I could hear the song.

While that page was loading, I began talking to my friend Austin on a instant message chat. He asked how my students were doing, and I said "some are passing, some aren't...but so it goes" just thinking of the song. But that made him think of Vonnegut, who he's been reading intensely for several months now, and the line from "Slaughter-House Five."

So, interesting, yes. But when I turn back to youtube to see what my search brought up, it was this video, which is a lovely tribute to Vonnegut, but uses Billy Joel's song. I had seen it a year or so ago when Vonnegut had just died, so it goes.

I think this sort of idea that "there are no accidents" is probably something that Vonnegut would have disagreed with - most of his writing suggests to me that life is essentially random and that we might as well go along with it: embracing what is rather than imposing a make-believe order. I disagree with him (if I am accurately reporting his stance), but enjoy his writing nonetheless.

Kurt Vonnegut died on April 11, 2007, so it goes.

Haircut Photos

A little belated, but this was the process. I documented my attitude towards the whole shebang here.

Defining our Terms

Joy defines
the metaphor of truth
tromping down a path of winning
over evil.

Joy is my heart in love.
Joy is my soul in song.
Joy is my mind freed.
Joy is me in love.

Met

I first met Albert Swift
crying on the side of the street,
where he knelt, tearing at what
he held in his shallow palm,
for what he had done
in the sticky darkness of midnight.
But it was not him
who had grasped that
white
throat
I knew, I, I knew it was not him.