Friday, April 26, 2019

ANS -- Phases of the American Civil War

This is from 2014 but it's an interesting analysis of where the US is heading, and where we have been. It's about the perpetual fight between the South and the North.  If you are interested in discussion, the one after this is long and fairly intellectual -- even the few nuts could spell.  You would have to go to the site to read it.  
--Kim


LOOKING TOWARD THE FUTURE

Friday, September 19, 2014

Phases of the American Civil War

I frequently refer to our current era of American politics as the latest phase of the U.S. Civil War… in part because the political maps so blatantly copy a pattern that goes back almost 200 years. 

dogma-pragmatismCyclically, we find ourselves mired in dogma, instead of pragmatism, intransigent hatred instead of negotiation, nostalgia and romanticism, instead of belief that we can craft a better tomorrow.
Illustrating that others see this same breakdown, New York Magazine carried this article, A Southern GOP Can't Be the Party of Lincoln, decrypting how - politically - there seem always to have been two Americas. The Nixonian "Southern Strategy" flip changed the banners of the two sides, and Blue-vs-Gray has become Blue-vs-Red. Still, Jonathan Chait does a fair job of showing how consistent the political map has been.
This article, while mostly true and overall correct, misses a couple of key points.  First, the social movement called the "confederacy" has been at this for a long time.
Phase one of the American Civil War took place in the South, during the Revolution, when the British found their strongest support among Loyalist/Tory militias in Georgia and the Carolinas.  It was Scots-Irish hill settlers, fighting for Daniel Morgan, who tipped the balance in that struggle, toward what would become the American Experiment.
Phase two featured a period when southern politicians grew ever stronger in control of the U.S. federal government.  True, Andrew Jackson clamped down on John C. Calhoun's secessionism, in the 1830s, and kept the nation together. But Mr. Chait is correct that Jackson's overall sentiments were what we might call "confederate." Indeed, southern control over levers of power only grew until, by 1860, five of nine Supreme Court justices were slave-owners.
PAST-civil-warThis extended through the next phase, starting in 1852, when the Fugitive Slave Act turned the division violent.  Swarms of small units of southern irregular cavalry commenced rampaging across northern states, seizing anyone they wanted as an "escaped slave." These raider squadrons had the support of U.S. Marshals who were appointed by mostly-southern presidents. When outraged northerners started forming posses to defend their neighbors, those marshals called in federal troops. (See my earlier article: Past Keeping Faith with Future...and Day with Night.
In other words, the "confederate" social movement is not always anti-central-government!  It is only opposed to federal government when it does not control those levers of power.  Witness the tepidness of anti-government proclamations during the tenure of GW Bush.  Indeed, it is a wrathful unwillingness to let the electoral winners have their legitimate turn that was behind the hysterical reaction to Lincoln's election... and (one might argue) Obama's.
By the way, those rampaging bands of southern cavalry were self-defeating.  They radicalized northerners, causing them to arm themselves, revive their dormant militias and (eventually) vote for the abolitionist Lincoln. An effect that - were eyes open - one can clearly see happening across Blue America, today. (This is why Gun Control is such a pathetic hot button on the right.  No one is seeking more than tweaks.  Indeed, under Bush, many liberals started arming themselves.)
Up to this point, the Confederacy Society (CS) had lost phase one (allowing the establishment of a true federal republic), played for a draw in the Calhoun-Jackson era, and won phase three — in that its agendas controlled the national government and processes.
But finally, Blue America got fed up. And what ensued was phase four — the one we normally think of as "The Civil War." Unable to stomach their opponents ever even having a brief tenancy in just one branch of the government, CS did not bother trying to send even one delegation to negotiate with president-elect Lincoln, thus eliminating all right to refer to the Justifications for separation found in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence… that secession can be justified, but only when all other negotiations and redress have been exhausted. Anything short of that is oathbreaking and damnable treason.
BurnsCivilWarWe all know Phase Four very well. (If not, watch Ken Burns portray it magnificently, in his PBS series.) Hence, tra la I will bypass it and speed through the others:
Phase 5- The 1870s early end of Reconstruction... when the South bargained to let Rutherford Hayes and the Republicans into the White House, in exchange for what they really wanted. The "confederacy" won this phase, big time, when they dickered their way into an end of Civil Rights protections and a surge of Jim Crow laws that ripped from freed slaves the right to vote. The real losers, though? Not just minorities, but in every pragmatic sense the entire South, which thereupon slumped into a backwater of economic retardation and romantic, old-timey hatred of progress.
(You'd deny this?  Then explain how China in just 30 years went from poverty to economic superpower... when the US South has had 150 years and still blames its backwardness on Sherman.)
Phase 6 . The 1880s… this phase is not entirely associated with "confederate society" though it was part and parcel of the Democratic Party of those days. It featured William Jennings Bryan's white-christian populism, Free Silver and a rebuke to the steamroller effects of consolidated northern corporations. And for the first time, the states of the Great Plains began edging toward alliance with the Olde South. Northern oligarchs won phase six… unfortunately, in this case! (The one time the confederacy wing of our ongoing civil war had some real, moral justification on their side.)
What spun off from this phase was the Progressive Movement, which manifested all over America and was taken up by Theodore Roosevelt, whose family specialized in saving the wealthy in America from the inevitable price of limitless greed. If only today's oligarchs understood that their greatest need, right now, is another Roosevelt! Without gentle, moderate reforms, our current momentum can only lead to tumbrels and guillotines. Watch Ken Burns's wonderful PBS series "The Roosevelts" which is being broadcast as we speak.
PHASES-CIVIL-WARPhase 7 - The 1940s through 1970s … the civil rights movement, started with Harry Truman's bold desegregation of the military, then Dwight Eisenhower's firm support of school desegregation. The essential and too-long delayed resumption of Reconstruction… which also included Lyndon Johnson's effort to re-industrialize and re-invigorate the South. This phase was clearly won by Blue America (though the South benefited prodigiously, economically), but at a cost — which was….
Phase 8 - …the Nixonian, southern-strategy "flip" leads ultimately to today's full scale New Confederacy effort to finally destroy the United States of America. 

Not by force of arms, but by ending the effectiveness of politics as a pragmatic, open-minded process by which undogmatic citizens negotiate a mix of experiments and find out what works -- the methodology behind all of our successes. Replacing all of that with dogma more intense than communism ever was.
pragmatismPragmatism and science and re-evaluation are now portrayed to half our neighbors as enemies. A conviction of moral superiority that cannot be shaken by facts. 

Run through a long list of social ills: teen sex ages and rates, teen pregnanciesSTDsdomestic violencedivorce ratesbankruptcy and debt default rateseducation, economic productivity, net tax parasitism…even obesity rates… tell us clearly that outcome metrics do not support any claims that salt-of-the-earth types are better at life or raising kids than 'decadent' university-city-folk. Indeed, by all of those measures... and countless more... they get spectacularly worse outcomes.

So? The response is to utterly ignore statistics. Truthiness is all that matters.
I could go on, but the point is clear: this rebellion against the American Experiment is both ancient and culturally deeply rooted.  We are in its eighth phase (at least).
Does it even have anything to do with the metaphor pushed by both Fox and MSNBC?  The hoary-stupid-lobotomizing so-called "left right political axis?"  Looking at all eight phases, that would seem to map poorly onto our civil war, which seems to be far more emotional and cultural -- a clash of two immiscible strains of American utopianism.
Gettysburg
 In Ted Turner's wonderful film GETTYSBURG, one character opines that blue and gray America sang the same songs... but dreamed different dreams. Mark Twain commented that the confederacy side's relentlessly recurring rage is far more psychological than anything else, a deep romanticism and obsession with nostalgia that he blamed on Sir Walter Scott!  Certainly you can gain insight by tracing which regions sell more science fiction.
Where is it all heading?

Today's neo-confederacy is smart enough not to secede.  This time, it is working from within to slash the things that it always hated. Especially science, which is the enemy of nostalgia. But also any chance of American pragmatism prevailing in the kind of experiment-by-politics that has always been our national genius.
And yes, that campaign now includes seeking to ensure that "government of/by/for the people" SHALL perish from the Earth.
LincolnGettysburgAddress

ANS -- Greenland Is Falling Apart

Just in case you didn't see this one -- the ice is melting and would bring the sea level up 25 feet.  Do you know what altitude you live at? (we are 328 feet above sea level -- there's some site on the internet that tells you.  I don't know where.) Fairly short article.  
--Kim



Greenland Is Falling Apart

NASA researchers burn leftover wood on the Helheim Glacier, which is one of the fastest-moving ice floes in Greenland.LUCAS JACKSON / REUTERS

The Greenland Ice Sheet is the world's second-largest reservoir of fresh water sitting on the world's largest island. It is almost mind-bogglingly huge.

If Greenland were suddenly transported to the central United States, it would be a very bad day for about 65 million people, who would be crushed instantly. But for the sake of science journalism, imagine that Greenland's southernmost tip displaced Brownsville, Texas—the state's southernmost city—so that its icy glaciers kissed mainland Mexico and the Gulf thereof. Even then, Greenland would stretch all the way north, clear across the United States, its northern tenth crossing the Canadian border into Ontario and Manitoba. Kansas City, Oklahoma City, and Iowa City would all be goners. So too would San Antonio, Memphis, and Minneapolis. Its easternmost peaks would slam St. Louis and play in Peoria; its northwestern glaciers would rout Rapid City, South Dakota, and meander into Montana. At its center point, near Des Moines, roughly two miles of ice would rise from the surface.

Issue cover image

Suffice it to say: The Greenland Ice Sheet, which contains enough water to refill the Great Lakes 115 times over, is very large. And it is also falling apart.

A new study finds that the Greenland Ice Sheet added a quarter inch of water to global sea levels in just the past eight years. The research, published Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, covers nearly 20 years previously not included in our detailed understanding of the troubled Greenland Ice Sheet. It finds that climate change has already bled trillions of tons of ice from the island reservoir, with more loss than expected coming from its unstable northern half.

"The glaciers are still being pushed out of balance," Eric Rignot, a senior scientist at NASA and an author of the paper, told me. "Even though the ice sheet has [sometimes] been extremely cold and had low surface melt in the last year, the glaciers are still speeding up, and the ice sheet is still losing mass."

The paper casts the transformation of the Greenland Ice Sheet as one of the profound geological shifts of our time. Scientists measure the mass of ice sheets in "gigatons"each unit equal to 1 billion metric tons, or roughly the same amount of water that New York or Los Angeles uses in a year. Greenland, according to the study, has lost 4,976 gigatons of water since 1972. That's enough water to fill 16 trillion bathtubs or 1.3 quadrillion gallon jugs. That much water weighs about 11 quadrillion pounds. (A quadrillion is 1 with 15 zeros after it.)

More worryingly, the paper finds that Greenland lost about half of that ice—roughly 2,200 gigatons—in the years between 2010 and 2018. The ice sheet has also failed to gain mass in any year since 1998.

This melting isn't happening at a steady pace, in other words. Greenland's demise seems to be accelerating. Think of Greenland as a huge inland ice sea, surrounded by faster-moving ice rivers (which are glaciers) that empty the sea and carry ice to the ocean. The paper finds that those rivers are speeding up, carrying ice out of the island's core nearly twice as fast now as they did in the 1990s or 2000s.

That's an alarming result, because it means glaciers might now be shrinking Greenland from the bottom faster than hot weather can melt it from the top. And researchers believe that bottom-melting glaciers are less stable and more prone to rapid collapse. "If there's a risk of rapid sea-level rise in the future, it will be associated with glaciers speeding up, and not anything happening at the surface," Rignot said.

The paper's findings are stirring in part because they go much further back in time. "A lot of the publications [about Greenland's mass] start in 2000 or 2002, some go back to 1992, but this is the first time we go back another 20 years," Rignot said. Historically, most studies of Greenland combine data from radar flybys, GPS beacons, and laser or gravity-sensing satellites. But there's not enough data from before 1992 to be useful, so that's when estimates usually stop.

Rignot and his colleagues helped hit upon a new resource. The U.S. Geological Survey's Landsat satellites have circled the planet nonstop since 1972, imaging every speck of land on Earth every 16 days. This archive—which is a kind of Earth-science version of taking a photo of yourself every day for years—includes hundreds of images of Greenland. Rignot and his team taught a computer how to read those pictures of its icy surface, zooming in especially on the dozens of glaciers that connect the interior ice sheet to the sea.

"It's looking at two different pictures of a glacier, before and after. [In each frame,] the rocks don't move but the glacier moves, so it can compare and cross-correlate image points," Rignot said. "Then the algorithm searches around the window for where the pixel might have gone."

The team ultimately used this technique to calculate the speed of Greenland's glaciers from 1972 to 1992. Then they combined that data with modern observations of the ice sheet to estimate its historical mass. (They used a similar method to estimate Antarctica's ice loss in a paper published earlier this year.)

Rignot and his colleagues relied on another new resource too: OMG!

As in, literally, the project is named OMG, short for Oceans Melting Greenland. OMG is a five-year NASA mission, started in 2016, to study how warmer oceans are eroding Greenland's waterfront glaciers. Rignot helps lead it. "Thanks to OMG, we've been able to construct a [bedrock] model of Greenland that is pretty good under the ice, and is very, very good underneath the ocean," he said.

Brad Lipovsky, a glaciologist at Harvard who was not connected to the research, said in an email that the results "seem plausible at first glance," but that scientists would need to carefully check some of the team's methodology. The overall story of Greenland, he said, is that the ice sheet's flow is slowly accelerating. This "makes sense," he said, "because it takes the slowly flowing ice sheet a lot longer to respond than the rapidly evolving atmosphere."

Rignot believes that the new study should make glaciologists look anew at the speed with which Greenland could collapse. The ice sheet's bleeding-out could eventually raise global sea levels by as much as 25 feet. So the key question, Rignot said, is "How fast can you make these entities fall apart?" The answer will matter to all of us. The surface of Greenland doesn't have to move through magic to other parts of the world—already, today, its deluge is on its way.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

ROBINSON MEYER is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where he covers climate change and technology.

Thursday, April 25, 2019

ANS -- Elizabeth Warren, the Long-Distance Runner of the 2020 Race

Here's an opinion piece about Elizabeth Warren's run for the Dem nomination.  I am sending it because I had the same impression: I watched the whole five hours of "town halls" Monday on CNN.  I was surprised, but she came off sounding the best of them. Yet, her polling numbers are low, despite all the begging for her to run that occurred before she started to. One other comment he made in this piece that caught my attention -- that she would make the most difference if she wins the presidency of any of them.  But can a woman win?
--Kim


Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Elizabeth Warren, the Long-Distance Runner of the 2020 Race

The senator is struggling to gain traction in the polls, despite releasing a flood of innovative proposals. But she is exactly where she needs to be.

Amid all the chatter about whether the old white dudes of 2020—Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, and Wafflin' Joe Biden—are too long in the tooth to be running for president, it's been remarkable, and revealing, how rarely you hear that question asked about Elizabeth Warren. Age doesn't really factor into assessments of the Massachusetts senator, who turns 70 in June (though gender does—read on). You can't chalk this up to her newly revealed Game of Thrones fandom, nor to the more pertinent fact that she has so much antic energy that you could easily imagine this woman crossing the finish line at the Boston Marathon and then, without being winded in the least, rolling out a brilliantly devious new plan for defanging the plutocrats of Silicon Valley.

MOST POPULAR

  1. Living Off the Grid and Safe From Hurricanes in Puerto Rico
  2. I Work With Suicidal Farmers. It's Becoming Too Much to Bear.
  3. Democrats Are Hoping You Don't Understand What "Impeachment" Entails
  4. Another Big Victory for Labor
  5. The Impotence of "Stop Sanders" Democrats

More than anything, it's the bracingly different kind of campaign she's running that makes Warren seem like 69 going on 29. Though she's been hard-pressed to get any credit for it, in the very early going Warren is conducting the most cutting-edge effort of any 2020 contender—the closest thing to what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, if she weren't literally 29, might be offering herself.

Warren has given the finger to big donors—so much so that her finance director resigned in frustration late last month. She's banking on small donors and a big ground game. And she's broadcasting her message not in scripted bits, but in her own feisty voice—the one that called so resonantly last week for impeachment proceedings against Trump, while Bernie Sanders avoided the question, Pete Buttigieg punted, and Kamala Harris won the gold medal for mealy-mouthedness ("I think that there is definitely a conversation to be had on that subject, but first I want to hear from Bob Mueller") before reversingcourse on Monday.

But nothing is edgier than Warren's stubborn insistence on grounding her effort on—heaven help her!—big, bold, fully cooked policy proposals. At times, she's seemed to roll them out with the same numbing frequency that Trump tweets "Witch Hunt." And for the first few months of her campaign, the senator's weighty and worthy ideas about financial and democratic reform fell like trees in the proverbial forest, largely unheard. Stunningly enough, the senator whom the left had begged to run in 2016 was polling in single digits for 2020.

If there's any justice—which is, of course, always debatable—that's about to change. Riding the plaudits she won for her impeachment stance, Warren caught fire on Monday with a canny proposal for "universal free college" and student-loan debt relief. Younger liberals, in particular, cheered the plan, which would make public college tuition-free, boost low-income kids' prospects of matriculating, and cancel up to $50,000 in student debt for households that make less than $100,000. (Smaller benefits would go to those making up to $250,000.) Just as helpfully, in terms of her political fortunes, the idea also revived right-wing pundits' interest in railing at Warren. "This pander will not only be incredibly costly," Philip Klein fumed at The Washington Examiner, "but it will be a slap in the face to those who have already struggled to pay off their student loans without government assistance."

There's nothing like inspiring irrational bursts of fury from the right to jump-start a Democratic campaign. The notion that the older folks will despise their children and grandchildren for escaping the burdens they had suffered was nicely rebutted by Paul Blest at Splinter: "Social Security? Unfair to old people whose retirement plans consisted of dying in a ditch somewhere off the highway."

Warren herself ably parried the other inevitable objection on Monday night—the one about irresponsible big-government spending—while she took her turn in CNN's evening-long Town Hall-a-palooza. When an audience member asked about the proposal, Warren volunteered, "Do you want to know how I'd pay for it?" With that, she segued into her single most politically appealing policy plank: a two-percent "wealth tax" on every dollar above $50 million. "We say: Good for you," she said. "You got this great fortune. But you gotta pay something back so everybody else gets a chance."

Then she artfully linked this to her other greatest hits: her revolutionary plans for child care and pre-kindergarten for all. "Here's the stunning part," she said. "If we put that two-cent wealth tax in place on the 75,000 largest fortunes in this country—two cents—we can do universal child care for every baby, zero to five, universal pre-K, universal college, and knock back the student loan burden for 95 percent of our students and still have nearly a trillion dollars left over."

The knock on Warren, stemming in large part from her horribly wrong-footed attempt to defuse the Trumped-up controversy over her claims of Native American heritage, has mostly been that she lacks the sort of political savvy that'll be needed to dispatch the president. In policy terms, it's always been hard to deny that Warren plays master-level chess while her opponents, left and right, dabble in checkers. But if she were to win the Democratic nomination, would she fall again into Trump's traps? And with her tendency to frame everything as a "fight," would she be a one-note wonder on the stump?

She's gone a long way toward defusing those nagging doubts over the past week. Her initial response to the Mueller report was spot-on, both decisive and thoughtful. (And gloriously free of any tacked-on fundraising appeals.) On Monday night, Warren was even better when Anderson Cooper asked her about Democrats quailing at the idea of impeachment hearings because it might come at a political cost. "There is no political-inconvenience exception to the United States Constitution," she began, sparking wild applause—and it only got better from there:

Warren easily outshone Buttigieg (who was smooth as ever) and Sanders, who played all the old folk hits, on Monday night. She leavened her answers with humor and homespun straight talk that came across as real and unforced, and bore not the slightest resemblance to the "preachy and angry" stereotype The Daily Beast's Matt Lewis summed up for the ages a few months back, when he called Warren "a combination of the horrible math teachers I endured in middle school, and a friend's overly emotional mom."

The only reason anyone's ever cast Warren as "unlikable"—insert heavy sigh—has always been rooted in sexism. Nobody could say it better than Moira Donegan did in a Guardian column earlier this year: "The question of 'likability' as it is applied to women candidates has become a kind of cipher through which pundits, strategists and ordinary Americans discuss our collective discomfort with women in power." But for the first month of her campaign, likability was pretty much the only story being written about her, alongside the remnants of the "Fauxahontas" flap.

For anyone who doesn't believe the truism that women have to be considerably better than men to earn the same opportunities, the fortunes of Warren's campaign thus far offer a fresh dose of powerful evidence. It helps explain polls like the one from New Hampshire, her neighboring state, that popped up yesterday: While Sanders led at 30, followed by Biden and Buttigieg at 18 and 15, Warren had sunk to 5 percent. That isn't just weird; it's downright disturbing.

Warren certainly has a steep hill to climb, even if she may have begun the ascent with her stellar performance in the past week. She'll never match Sanders dollar-for-dollar. She can't snap her fingers, turn into a guy, and assure anxious Democrats that she won't get "Hillary'd" in a general election, as a town hall questioner put it. And she's not going to stop hinging her prospects more on policy than personality or consultant-approved rhetoric. This is a candidate who will, come hell or high water, keep laying down epic poetry in an age when people can barely muster up the attention span to get through a sonnet.

But by eschewing so much of what politicos consider sound practice, Warren has given herself a potential edge, if Democrats are ultimately capable of judging their field with clear eyes: She's running, defiantly, in a way that clearly suits her to a T. She is campaigning as her own damn self, wonky and fierce, occasionally funny and sometimes professorial. Can it possibly work in the end? Maybe not, if Democratic voters are too hopelessly shell-shocked by 2016 to "risk" picking the candidate who shows every promise of being the most consequential president in the bunch, simply because she's a woman.

It's early days in a long campaign, though. And we are living through a time when the old political rules not only don't apply, but tend to backfire on their practitioners. As much as everybody talks about American voters being fed up with this, angry at that, and hopelessly divided about every last thing, what people on both sides of the partisan divide have most emphatically demonstrated in both 2016 and 2018 is that they're sick of politicians who sound like politicians. Whatever they think of her, any fool can see that Warren is modeling the brand of politics she believes in. It might prove, in the end, to simply be an admirably doomed way to run. But you can't actually watch her campaign and not admit that she's awfully good at it.