YOU AND THE WORLD BANK RIOTS
Recently, the Woodley Park Neighborhood Association asked to be excused from the next World Bank riot. You see, twice or more a year, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund or the World Trade Organization agree to get together and attract a riot.
September's riot was to be held in the sleepy Washington neighborhood of Woodley Park, mainly because it has a number of upscale hotels and conference centers, and, of course, because it is quite near to the Center of the Universe, downtown DC.
However, the President of the Woodley Park Neighborhood Association believed that tear gas, rubber bullets, police baton charges, helicopters, and all the rest of the Living History that attends a World Trade Organization riot, would not enhance the charm of Woodley Park.
Now Woodley Park is not the richest enclave in the District of Columbia, but it is not without political clout. So the riot was rescheduled for downtown DC. near the headquarters of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (and the new headquarters of the National Park Service) at 18th and G St.
Chief Ramsey of the Washington, DC police has requested an additional $38 million from the federal government for overtime, equipment and to bring in several thousand police from other jurisdictions to help handle the riot. He stated that he expects around 100,000 protesters in various degrees of ill temper and representing various causes and stages of anarchy.
In addition to police reinforcements, an enormous 9 foot high, 2 mile long woven wire cyclone fence is being erected in downtown DC. It will enclose 220 acres including the White House, the World Bank headquarters and, of course, the new headquarters of the National Park Service. Chief Ramsey, a veteran of the Washington DC World Bank Riot of 2000, in which the protesters were successfully, but expensively contained, politely requested the International Monetary Fund to shorten its meeting from a week to two days to cut down the expenses--and provide less targets. (Although the three players, the World Bank, The International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization are three separate organizations, they often cooperate, and in the demonology of the Left, they merge into one huge capitalistic ogre to be attacked when and wherever one or more of the organizations meets.)
While the vast majority of the protesters are peaceful, even friendly, there is an extremely violent minority led by what is called the "Black Bloc". They are young, athletic, well trained, extremely mobile, and have excellent mountaineering skills, permitting them to climb or descend the walls of tall buildings (As was done at the Main Interior Building when they unfurled a banner that was unflattering to Secretary Norton and President Bush.) They are called the Black Bloc from their black head to toe costume of black ski mask, jacket, pants, and boots, and perhaps because black is the traditional color of Anarchism (no leaders) whose creed they profess.
The Seattle police were caught completely off guard at the first meeting of the World Trade Organization and the resulting riot was quite bloody and newsworthy--from the point of view of the protestors.
The next encounter in Washington, DC went comparatively well from the point of view of the Establishment as police preparedness was high (you can only do Pearl Harbor once) and police intelligence and infiltration was good and the rain gods cooperated. (Readers will recall that the Christian Bureaucrat himself was briefly menaced by members of the Black Bloc while drinking possibly rain forest unfriendly coffee at Starbucks, but was rescued by a posse of DC motorcycle police).
Still, the learning curve has been slow. Both the Quebec riot, the Stockholm riot and the more recent riot at Genoa, Italy were most satisfactory from the point of view of the more radical protesters with plenty of bloodily battered young people testifying to the TV reporter.
Now the folks that run the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization are reputed to be among the most intelligent in the world, yet they keep making the same tactical error: You don't hold controversial meetings in a major city. (hint: One reason for the slow learning curve may be that the former president of the World Bank was Robert McNamara, who graduated to that position after conducting our tour through the Viet Nam War. It figures.)
Why shouldn't you hold World Bank conferences in big cities? Well, because cities by their physical and sociographic nature, are friendly ground for protestors. They are easy to reach from any part of the globe by air, bus, train or automobile and entry is hard to monitor due to the vast number of ordinary citizens going about their business. Cities by definition have large populations, some of whom can be counted upon to share the beliefs of the protesters to a greater or lesser degree. They can be counted upon to provide food, shelter, transportation, funds, and orientation to the protesters.
Cities are rabbit warrens of streets, alleys, abandoned buildings, storm sewers and utility tunnels that allow protesters to appear and disappear like mice in Swiss cheese.
Cities have newspapers who are generally moderate to liberal and working reporters and photographers who are decidedly liberal. (We exclude Texas on this one) Cities also have TV stations and roving camera crews with a hunger for local news events.
Cities always have two or more universities, whose students and faculty proverbially hunger and thirst after justice. The university campus may be offered as a safe haven for protesters.
Cities are the home address for many organizations that sympathize with the protestors and can offer logistical support.
Cities have a plethora of lawyers who will offer their services pro bono to the protesters.
Cities often have a minority population that can be stirred to act as "cannon fodder" for the protesters.
Last but not least, there will be the great mass of citizens who find they must involuntarily serve as "extras" in this guerilla theater, adding to the drama and prime time publicity.
But if you don't put World Bank or World Trade Organization conferences in major cities, where would you put them?
There is the obvious possibility of holding such conferences on military bases. The bases are highly secure and one can be assured that one's hosts are not only on your side, but are heavily armed to boot.
The equally obvious downside is political and psychological. To put the conference on a military base would suggest that there was some substance in President Dwight D. Eisenhower's warning about a possible "Military-Industrial" conspiracy in his famed "Cross of Iron" speech more than four decades ago.
Canada will host the next World Trade Organization conference and Canada's premier made the correct and wise choice. No WTO conference in any Canadian city: The next conference will be held in a Canadian national park.
Lake Louise in Banff National Park to be exact. The setting is spectacular and there is adequate accommodation and conference facilities in the world famous lodge built by the Canadian Pacific railroad around the turn of the last century. The idea of national parks as venues for controversial conferences is one of those obvious decisions that leaves one slapping one's head and saying "Now why didn't I think of that!
National Parks have all the advantages that cities lack from a security standpoint. They are usually remote, often on islands or reached over high mountain passes that can be easily defended. They are usually located in sparsely populated areas, where the going and comings of strangers is noticed.
Unlike cities, there is comparatively little public transport to the national park, and best of all, automobiles must pass through a "choke point", the entrance station, where the occupants can be scrutinized. The superintendent may authorize a temporary "no alcohol" or "no firearms or fireworks" restriction and instruct his entrance station personnel to ask if they might "take a quick look through the car". All this has a dampening effect.
National Parks have capacities: A superintendent can declare that his/hers is plumb full up, come back next week.
The protesters will be on unfamiliar ground; most large cities are similar, but each national park is different.
The protesters will also be on hostile ground. Unlike cities, rural areas usually are not liberal. Most national parks are located in areas of "traditional conservative mores" (which translates to: If the local cops beat the crap out of trouble-making outsiders, no local is going to complain)
Unlike cities, there are no support groups such as civil rights organizations. Lawyers will have to be imported. Bail may be high or non-existent. Reporters from liberal papers and TV will be there, but not in the numbers available had the conference been held in a city.
Now that we have agreed with the Canadian premier that national parks make the best venue, we must select which American national park should host the next World Bank, IMF or World Trade Conference when it is our turn.
Security is a big issue, but so is housing and conference facilities.
Parks that are on (or are) islands have a natural advantage from a security standpoint.
Hawaii Volcano National Park on the Big Island of Hawaii is a strong contender as it has the island advantage and one must be a fairly well-heeled protester to get to the Island. However, housing and conference facilities in the park are limited. (Haleakela National Park on the island of Maui has the same defects) Hawaii's very remoteness is a problem. Only one of the eight members (Japan) hails from that part of the world.
Isle Royale National Park in Lake Superior offers almost total security as the entire island is owned and patrolled by the NPS. Unfortunately housing and conference facilities are limited to the point of nonexistence for a conference of this size and access to the island is cumbersome.
Virgin Islands National Park on the island of Saint John in the American Virgin Islands offers an excellent venue for a winter conference. Most of the island is NPS owned and that which is not is owned by folks pretty much friendly to the NPS. The Rockefeller Resort of Caneel Bay would offer excellent housing and conference facilities and the park is reasonably accessible, if you have money or are on some sort of per diem.
Acadia National Park is another island park that should be considered. Closest national park to Europe and major North American centers, it is located on Mount Desert Island (technically, it is not quite an island, as it is connected to the mainland with a causeway. However, the causeway can be easily secured) Unfortunately, the NPS controls only about 3/5ths of the island. The rest of the island is private, including the crucial town of Bar Harbor, which contains most of the accommodations and conference facilities. The Islanders famously resist any restriction on their movements to and from their property, so Acadia, though promising, should be eliminated from discussion.
The Alaskan parks should not be overlooked. While Denali is sufficiently far from any significant nest of liberals, the fickle weather and limited accommodations would make a conference a difficult proposition in that beautiful but remote park.
Such is not the case in Glacier Bay National Park. The conference delegates would arrive as do most of the park visitors--in a chartered cruise ship. There they would remain, doing their work and taking occasional kayak trips or other excursions to the glaciers, This would be perhaps the least invasive and logistically the easiest place to site a conference and may very well be the cheapest if one factors in the lack of need for a heavy police presence. (A Navy SEAL team or two should be able to restrain the few protesters that reach this sea locked park that can only be reached by sea or air.)
Moving south, I fear we must strike most of the national parks of the Pacific Northwest and California from consideration. Although Mount Rainier, Crater Lake, Yosemite, and Sequoia are beautiful and thought provoking and have sufficient accommodations, they are within a day's drive of such liberal covens as Seattle, Eugene, Berkeley, and San Francisco.
Moving into the Rocky Mountain West, we are on firmer ground, riot control-wise. The population is conservative and, while, they may not entirely like us feds, they most certainly don't like liberals. Rocky Mountain National Park is a bit dicey however, as it is within a day's drive of the University of Colorado at Boulder and its main accommodations and conference centers are located in Estes Park, just outside the park boundary and thus more difficult to control.
This is not the case with Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park in Montana and Alberta. It has excellent accommodations within the two parks, is inspirationally beautiful and is sufficiently remote from liberal influences on either side of the border.
Grand Teton National Park has excellent accommodations in the form of the Grand Teton Lodge and Jackson Hole is famously international and wealthy, having one of the few jet airports near a national park. Wyoming is the home of our Vice President and local law enforcement cooperation should be excellent.
Yellowstone offers even more numerous, if scattered, accommodations and much for the delegates to see and do. Its four automobile entrances are easily monitored, although the Black Bloc and other persistent protesters can infiltrate cross country. As the world's first national park, a conference venue here would have immense symbolic value in improving the image of the World Bank, IMF and WTO as supporters of the environment.
Moving on south, we must not overlook Zion and Bryce Canyon National Parks. Although accommodations are somewhat limited, access can be easily controlled, particularly at Zion. (The local Mormon militias should terrify even the Black Bloc.)
Farther south, we have Grand Canyon National Park, North Rim, the Lodge and cabins should be sufficient and can be booked far in advance. The single access road from Jacob's lake can be easily controlled and cross country infiltration can be politely dealt with by infra red sensor devices placed along a perimeter and rangers who can ask to see the wilderness hiking permits of those netted, detaining those who are not properly papered. (The South Rim of the Canyon has more accommodations but is more chancey from a security standpoint due to better access and proximity to population centers (though Phoenix is not exactly a hot bed of liberal thought.)
An interesting, if not very practical alternative would be to send the Conference through the Grand Canyon on a rafting expedition, holding the conference around campfires at night. While it would be a logistical nightmare, it would certainly bring the Conferees close to nature.
Perhaps the ultimate in Conference security would be Big Bend National Park and its sibling, Big Bend Ranch State Park (Walt Dabney, prop.) Together they constitute the Tibet of Texas, a virtually impregnable venue for a controversial conference.
The two parks are surrounded on three sides by hundreds of miles of Texas (and Texans). Protesters arriving by car will face literally days of driving through rural Texas and facing scrutiny by hordes of various deputy sheriffs doing their famous imitation of the Dodge Sheriff ("You in a heap a' trouble, boy!"), not to mention the Texas Department of Public Safety and the storied Texas Rangers.
The Border Patrol need not be inactive. It can quite legitimately set up check points on the (few) highways in an arc 100 miles from Big Bend, asking all and sundry to prove exactly who they are and why.
There is no concentration of liberals within 500 miles of Big Bend (Jim Hightower and Molly Ivins do not constitute a concentration). The nearest University, Sul Ross, 80 miles away at Alpine, Texas, is a cow college with a major in "rodeo science". They will not be interested in harboring anarchists.
The nearest big city newspapers in Odessa-Midland can be counted upon to demand in their editorial pages that any caught protesters be staked to the nearest fire ant hill.
The Mexican side of Big Bend country is shared by Chihuahua and Coahuila, two of the wildest and wooliest states in Mexico. Only two lonely and seriously secondary Mexican roads lead into the Big Bend Country. Doubtless, the ingenious Black Bloc will find other entries, but the Mexican Treasury Police will eventually find the Black Bloc. (The Treasury Police are inheritors of O. Henry's famous description of the Rurales as "Supreme Court Justices with Winchesters" in that they dispense justice, retribution, and burial.)
All things considered, I believe that the State Department and the Department of Interior would find Glacier Bay National Park the best from a security and cost analysis basis, with Big Bend running a close second. (Of course, everything would depend on the time of year of the conference as both parks are famous for their opposite extremes of climate.
Ah, yes! You have a question! Why is it necessary for these people to hide out in a national park in order to have their conference? What is it about the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization that prompts thousands of people to mobilize against them?
It does not seem necessary for the government to appropriate $38 million dollars to protect, say, the National Hardware Dealers Association, or the National Corn Growers Association, from howling mobs when they hold their annual conventions.
So what is it then, that upsets people about The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization? What is it about these boring bureaucrats in three pieced suits that will send (according to the DC police Chief) 100,000 demonstrators against them?
And more importantly, how does it affect you?
First of all, what is The World Bank? (Do they offer free checking and no minimum balance?)
Well not exactly.
The World Bank was set up to provide funds for the reconstruction of Europe after the Second World War. As that worked rather well. it was suggested that the poverty stricken countries of what was then known as the Third World could be lifted out of poverty through judicious loans to improve their infrastructure, agriculture and manufacturing and thus join us in the First World (huzzah!).
The International Monetary Fund was set up to help with the international transfer to capital to where it was needed and advise in the repayment of debt.
The World Trade Organization was designed to break down trade barriers and misunderstandings between nations so that goods and services could flow like water between all nations, those rich and those temporarily not so rich, to the benefit of all the peoples of the world.
Now neighbors, these are all Mother Theresa type goals. If you were a boy scout and got merit badges in the stated goals of these organizations, you would probably be an Eagle scout!
So, why the riots?
The devil is in the details, friends.
With the World Bank, the key word is "judicious". The World Bank financed a number of extremely expensive and extremely dubious projects in countries that were outright dictatorships or more politely, "Guided Democracies". The World Bank has only recently or thought it could be disregarded as they were despoiling the environment on an international rather than just a national basis. The dictators did what dictators do: Money to friends and family, the rest to Swiss Bank Accounts. Interest comes due.
Enter the International Monetary Fund. Not nearly as friendly as before. Even if you have tossed out the dictator, you still have to pay interest on the dictator's loans Often the yearly interest bill is the sum of the educational or health budget of developing country. The interest must be paid, or the IMF can place sanctions on your economy that make a voodoo curse seem benign.
But will the World Trade Organization save you? Forlorn hope, neighbors! The WTO is sort of like a sullen teenager who doesn't like no rules and no boundaries, no how. And you better not get in his way.
It's kind of like the WTO is saying "Hi there! We're the Free Trade Fascists! The Adam Smith Commandos! If you have any environmental regulations that impede free trade, consider them repealed. If you have any labor unions, they better be tame ones. If you have any laws about child labor or prison labor, consider them modified or null and void. We answer to no one except the best interests of world trade and we decide what that is, so there!
You see what kind of frustrates people about these three organizations is that you can't write their supervisor or your congressman or member of parliament about these people. They are sort of like the weather, volcanoes, or other natural phenomenon. You can't talk to them. You can't attend their meetings. You can't ask to see their books. You can't vote them in or out of office, but they may play a greater role in your life than any elected official.
Hence the protests and riots.
Now is this good for you as a park ranger?
In the short term, this will be good. You will accrue considerable overtime guarding these organizations in the various national parks as they move furtively about (Sort of like a second fire season, if you will.)
In the long run, it will not be so good. The World Trade Organization even has the capacity to tick off Republicans (which is quite a feat.)
Michael Kelly, Republican columnist for the WASHINGTON POST allowed as how that over the long run, unrestricted free trade would indeed raise the world standard of living, it would mean the end of what used to be known as the American Dream. You know the thing of getting an fairly ordinary job that provided you enough to get married, buy a house, raise kids and put them through the local college and then retire. Competing with virtual forced labor in other parts of the world, unhampered by environmental restraints, driven by capital seeking the lowest possible costs, our American Dreamer faces a Hobbesian future that is nasty, brutish, and short.
Voters faced with such a life, might wonder if they can afford such middle class fripperies as national parks and environmentalism as they themselves were no longer part of the middle class.
So it is something to consider as the tear gas wafts past the new NPS headquarters at 18th and G.
THE MONTHLY SAFETY MESSAGE
This month's safety message involves one of rangers' most favorite activities (No, not that one, the other one, coffee drinking)
Folks will often "nuke" a cup of water in a microwave to provide a base for the addition of instant coffee. Some folks regard a "rolling boil" as a sign the water is ready and thus leave the mike on for three minutes. Bad move.
When water is heated from the bottom of an open container by flame or electric plate, water bubbles form and the water "boils" but doesn't get any hotter than your altitude prescribes, and more importantly, doesn't go anywhere.
On the other hand, water heated from the top and sides by microwaves for 3 minutes or more often does not form bubbles and becomes super heated, while remaining deceptively calm.
The simple act of lifting the cup can cause an explosion of superheated water onto your hand, arm or face.
It is best to boil your coffee water over a "traditional" heat source, or, if you absolutely insist on using a microwave, put a wooden chopstick in the cup to break the surface tension and provide a surface for bubbles to form.
Like a cup of coffee or tea while doing the dishes? Don't reach for the boiling water kettle with a sudsy hand. Not only may it be slippery, but soap bubbles magnify the intensity of heat and can cause sudden and intense pain (I am not sure of the physics involved, but can testify to the effects due to involuntary experimentation.)
Happy coffee drinking.
ABBEY DRAINED
One of the most interesting of the American Southwest's quirky periodicals is the CANYON COUNTRY ZEPHYR, put out bi-monthly by Jim Stiles at Box 327, Moab, Utah 84532. A year's subscription, (6 issues) is $15).
If you have done time in the Canyon country, or would like to do time in the Canyon country, then Stiles is your man and the ZEPHYR your paper.
The latest issue, August-September, 200l is devoted to the life and times of Edward Abbey and his friends and their acerbic opinions. Thus, if you are a friend (or even an enemy) of Abbey's memory, you might want to spring for at least this issue.
Like Abbey, Stiles was a seasonal ranger at Arches National Monument and a good friend of Cactus Ed.
Here is a bit of Abbeyiana from the current ZEPHYR:
I (Stiles) had a plan to get rich and Ed (Abbey) was fully supportive as long as he could share in the wealth. Here was the deal. During my own obscenely long stay at Arches National Park as a seasonal ranger, I had witnessed the long and steady stream of pilgrims who came to Arches just to visit the site.
Of course, I speak of Ed's trailer site at the Monument during the 1956-57 seasons. Decades later, the trailer was gone and most of the other artifacts had been picked clean. (The last rusty Ed Abbey beer bottle cap was dug up and claimed by a tourist from Lawrence, Kansas in 1979.) But what still remained at the time was a corroded segment of Ed's leach field pipe.
When the Park Service installed the old trailer, there wasn't enough real soil to build a proper septic system and underground leach field. So the Park Service laid the pipe on the bare slickrock and then simply covered it with a lot of Moenkopi shalestone. It would not pass health codes today.
Over the decades, the Moenkopi eroded away and the pipe was exposed.
I contemplated a use for this pipe for years. Finally I went to Abbey with a proposition. What if we cut this pipe into one inch sections and mounted it on an attractive wooden plaque with the brass plate that reads:
"Authentic Edward Abbey Leach field pipe Arches National Monument 1956-l957 Ed Abbey crapped through this pipe"
Ed nodded enthusiastically. "Yes!" he said "And I could autograph each one of them. Not only would it authenticate the plaque but we could get more money for it!"
But I think I hurt his feelings when I suggested a $19.95 asking price.
"Christ!" he complained "We ought to get more for it than that."
The idea never came to fruition. Thieves made off with the pipe.
It is sad but true, neighbors. Due to lack of funds, the cultural resources of the National Parks are not being protected in the way they should.
CARPING CRITICISM
Now neighbors, one of the many advantages of the Internet over the previous paper copy is that THUNDERBEAR gets passed on to folks around the world, even to such remote tribes as the U.S. Congress, with the speed of light. Naturally, while we are delighted by this turn of events, there is a downside. By entering cyberspace, THUNDERBEAR has left the warm, sheltering parochialism of the National Park Service and the other land management agencies, and entered into the deep, dark world of differing opinion. Nay! Even the heretical thought that THUNDERBEAR could be wrong (Joseph Stalin was correct: Thinking is a habit that requires guidance and monitoring or the State in danger).
We have a letter from a Ray Darby of the California Energy Commission, who takes issue with our alleged claims for photovoltaic electricity in the article "The Thunderbear Shingle, Siding and Roofing Company" in issue # 239.
Ray coyly allows as how he is "not exactly" the spokesperson for California Energy Commission, but really, sort of, is. (I understand, Ray, the various Directors of the NPS would hang themselves from the rafters of Main Interior before admitting your kindly editor as spokesperson). However, they call Ray the "Energy Guy" where he works and his opinions do carry some weight. So let's hear what he has to say:
I'm always interested in global warming perspectives!
Unfortunately, this (Thunderbear article) was far too light-hearted an approach given the serious nature of the climate change problem. And it demonstrates a serious lack of perspective regarding sensible solutions to climate change.
The tendency to confuse electricity with energy (It's just one form of many) and to imply that PV (photovoltaic) is the Answer to our energy problem is not only horribly simplistic, it's really BAD advice....PV is actually a very expensive proposition for solving a small part of our energy related problems.
While I agree that PV as well as other renewable forms of electricity generation require MANY times more public investment than currently provided, the author misses the big picture. This is surprising, considering that many energy experts are regularly asking Bush, through the media-"what does oil from Alaska have to do with electricity?" Apparently the beer-guzzling flying bear hasn't been reading the papers.
Consider the following:
- Transportation is the #1 cause of consumer-generated global warming gases (at about 33% PV isn't typically used for powering transportation (Except in the case of my family..but we're not typical!) Instead of asking the government to subsidize PV for this use, it's much more sensible to urge the half of the population interested in buying SUV's to consider "practicality and future generations" over the current fad.
- Energy used for buildings is the #2 cause of consumer-generated global warming (at about 30%: 20% is electricity and 10% is fuel), but most of this is associated with space heating, cooling and water heating (side note: this varies a lot; these are averages for the nation, California and the Pacific northwest have much LESS global warming from electrical use due to nuclear and hydropower) As a result, because PV isn't generally used for heating, cooling, or water heating, the reduction of global warming gases is minimal. Instead, design with climate (literally almost too cheap to meter" should be used for space heating and cooling and solar water heating should be used for hot water (expensive, yes, but still much better ban for the buck than PV) For additional perspective, consider the fact that about 30% of California's TOTAL electricity use during peak periods is A/C which can be significantly reduced (commercial buildings) or completely eliminated (residential buildings in most California climates through "design with climate". A poll of PV retailers who have sold systems for people to power their A/C units would be a real eye opener (I'll wager $20 with you the number is less than 5%--It's just a small number of "stinken 'rich" people who simply don't know any better)
- One must recognize (especially environmental writers!) that PV in reality can provide just a small portion of the total energy fa family uses. For the energy that's left over, after # 1 and #2 above, we can start talking about "alternatives". It's cheaper to save a watt than to make a watt (or an ounce of conservation is worth a pound of generation)
So while I hear so many environmental do gooders advocating PV as Our Salvation, I hear, in startling contrast, next to nothing about design with climate or solar water heating. It turns out that, while PV is the most expensive way for a consumer to save energy, it's currently the "sexiest" (Like SUV's are sexy, I suppose) so it gets the most "air play" and interest. It' effectively become another fad (although admittedly, I'd rather see people wasting their money on PV than on SUV'!....This sort of reporting (and corresponding "enviro position" is one of my biggest "pet peeves"
Another "pet peeve" are people that seem under the impression that the government is responsible for fixing the problems "we the people" have created. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? A classic example of this is a self-described "super-environmentalist" I work with who just bought a Chevy Blazer and then, the following week, urged myself and others to write Bush to say "Hay, how come you're not taking the Climate Change thing seriously?" Hello!?!?
I wonder if the Thunderbear publishes letters from readers?
Ray Darby
Well, Gee! Ray, does this mean you're not going to invest in Thunderbear Shingle Siding & Roofing any time soon?
I was particularly startled by the information that our approach to global warming was "too lighthearted". Would you prefer the no-nonsense seriousness of our elapine-eyed vice president, Dick Cheney? Mr Cheney's approach to the energy question is a variation on the old saying "If your only tool is a hammer, than all your problems are nails". In Cheney's case, the only tool is a drill and the problem is a lack of holes.
I regret if I implied that one could pick up the phone and the smiling, happy installers from Thunderbear Shingle, Siding & Roof would arrive to solve your energy problems any time soon. I suspect that what you say about the relative inefficiency of photovoltaics is quite correct (However, if the PV industry would like to comment, his e-mail address is RayDarby@TheEngeryGuy.com).
On the other hand, your statement about how PV as well as other forms of alternatives (to fossil) energy should get MANY times more public funding , is both correct and extremely cogent. As you know, a small pyramid of aluminum caps the Washington monument, because at the time the monument was completed in the late 19th century, aluminum was more precious than gold or platinum. Research has brought the cost down to where aluminum beer cans are a small but manageable trash problem.
The same was true of computers. They used to occupy half a city block in the vacuum tube days and could be afforded only by governments interested in keeping tabs on citizens. Now they are portable and can help citizens keep tabs on government.
You may not see a Thunderbear Shingle, Siding, and Roofing truck in your neighborhood, but I wager your great grandchildren will. In the meantime, keep looking for "blonk".
Your kindly editor
PRESIDENTIAL IQ
Now neighbors, the thought being kicked around by the chattering classes in the Washington-Boston corridor is that President Bush (fils) may be the dumbest president the nation has ever experienced.
That's a pretty tall order, friends, and will demand a pretty tall order of proof.
One bit of alleged evidence put forward is the President's rich and varied use of malaprops and spoonerisms as he works his way through the English language. Articulating his thoughts clearly does not come easily to the 43rd president. One can see (and occasionally hear) the strain of the bending and lifting required as "Dubya" heaves ideas, words, and phrases into approximately the correct order.
Not so his predecessor. It is said that Bill Clinton was cerebral enough to converse with two persons while doing the NEW YORK TIMES crossword puzzle (the downside was that he was probably working on two shady deals simultaneously).
One WASHINGTON POST writer, Richard Thompson has been thoughtful enough to arrange "Dubya's verbal slips into verse form that he entitled:
MAKE THE PIE HIGHER
by George W. Bush
I think we all agree, the past is over
This is still a dangerous world
It's a world of madmen and uncertainty
and potential mental losses.
Rarely is the question asked
Is our children learning?
Will the highways of the internet
become more few
How many hands have I shaked
? They misunderestimate me,
I am the pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity
I know that the human being
and the fish can coexist.
Families is where our nation finds hope,
where our wings take dream.
Put food on your family!
Knock down the tollbooth
! Vulcanize Society!
Make the pie higher! Make the pie higher
One THUNDERBEAR reader sent your editor an article pulled off the Internet allegedly written by someone called "Jennifer L. Borenstein" which claims to be research on the IQ's of our more recent presidents. You may have seen the article, but as we will discuss it at length, here it is:
The Intelligence of Our Presidents The intelligence of our presidents has never been seriously scrutinized at any time in our history until now. There is a widespread perception that President G.W. Bush is not qualified for the position he holds. That increasing awareness by the people has led to a study of the intellectual ability of all presidents for the past fifty years. There have been twelve presidents in that time, from F.D. Roosevelt to G.W. Bush. All were rated based on scholarly achievements, writings that they alone wrote, their ability to speak effectively, and a number of psychological factors. The conclusions of the study , conducted by an independent think tank located in Scranton, Pennsylvania were surprising (I'll just bet they were, Jennifer: However, even by the rather loose rules of Internet journalism, you should provide us with the actual name of the "Independent Think Tank" rather than list an over-the-hill mill town in the Pennsylvania rust belt--and has there ever been a truly "Independent" think tank? Who, after all, pays for the results? Anyways, let "Jennifer" continue: Ed)
This think tank includes high caliber historians, psychiatrists, sociologists, scientists in human behavior, and psychologists. Among their ranks are Dr. Werner Levinstein, world renowned sociologist, and Professor Patricia A. Williams, a world-respected psychiatrist. All members of the think tank (name, please, "Jennifer) are experts at being able to detect a person's IQ from the criteria stated earlier. (Really? The NPS has got to get a contract with this "Think Tank" to select future superintendents!)
After four months of research these learned men and women have determined the IQ's of each president within a range of five percentage points. (That close? Beats the hell out of most standard intelligence tests now administered!)
The IQ's listed below are the norms for each president. ("Jennifer", you should have used "scores" for "norms", or readers other than the T Bear editor will think you an undergraduate hoaxster whose name may not even be "Jennifer")
Anyways, according to "Jennifer" and the "Think Tank", here are the "norms" for each president
147 Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
132 Harry Truman (D) )
122 Dwight Eisenhower(R) )
174 John F. Kennedy (D) )
126 Lyndon B. Johnson (D) )
155 Richard M. Nixon (R) )
121 Gerald Ford (R) )
175 James E. Carter (D) )
105 Ronald Reagan (R) )
099 George Herbert Bush (R) )
182 William J. Clinton (D) )
091 George W. Bush (R) )
According to "Jennifer", "The non-partisan researchers who evaluated the twelve presidents determined that the six Republican presidents for the past 50 years had an average IQ of 115.5 with President Nixon having the highest I.Q. of 155. President G.W. Bush was rated the lowest of all the Republicans with an IQ of 91. The six Democrat presidents had IQs with and average of 156, with President Clinton having the highest IQ at 182. President Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126. The margin of error is plus or minus five percent. This study was initiated on February 13, 2001 and completed on June 17, 2001. This study validated the widespread feeling of people about the sitting president. President Bush was rated low because of his inability to command the English language, his lack of any scholarly achievements, and an absence of anything authored by him that would reflect an intellectual effort."
Thank you, "Jennifer"
Now lets deconstruct this hoax. Understandably, the mysterious Scranton Think Tank found the Six Republican presidents to be comfortably stupid with an average I.Q. of 115.5, while the six Democrats were comfortably brilliant at an average I.Q. of 156.
(One thus wonders about the "non-partisanship" of the researchers, indeed one wonders about the existence of Professors Levinstein and Williams as their names don't seem to show up in any of the professional associations that such "high caliber" academics might belong to. Perhaps they're not joiners).
One can understand that a liberal hoaxer would want to award Ronald Reagan with a rather paltry I.Q. of 115. (After all, Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin were undeniably towering intellects. To have their system laid low partially through the efforts of a grade B movie star who was upstaged by an ape in his last movie must be unbearable!)
Although JFK was undoubtably bright (perhaps not quite 174, but still pretty smart), one wonders why, according to "Jennifer", Lyndon Johnson turned out to be the dumbest Democrat in recent times. The answer seems to be that dependable ol' villain, the Viet Nam War. In the eyes of "Jennifer" not even the Civil Rights Acts and the War On Poverty, could up LBJ's IQ from that of most retarded Democrat.
One surprise is alleged IQ of Richard Nixon, the smartest Republican with an assigned IQ of 155, only 19 points shy of that provided his contemporary, JFK. Why the leniency on the part of Jennifer? Perhaps the idea is to show "non-partisanship". Another possibility was that some folks considered Richard Nixon as the Prince of Darkness, The Personification of Evil. It will not do to have a dumb devil if you want to gain glory struggling against him. Such a villain must be evil, but brilliant and resourceful, if you are to shine. (Actually, Nixon was probably as smart as the average Rotarian, and just about as interesting)
According to "Jennifer", the Bush family seems to be the new Jukes or Kallikacks of American politics, evolving to ever lower IQ scores as they reproduce. Although Bush the Elder (99) or Bush the Junior (91) were both pilots, they were both able to struggle back to base in spite of their alleged intellectual impairment. This makes low IQ's doubtful. (Despite some sort of reading problem, "Dubya" is probably as smart as you or I, which is sufficient for the task at hand).
Hoaxes can be amusing, if they are not evil or malicious.
"Jennifer's" essay, however, promotes the pernicious idea that "intelligence" per se is virtuous. (Conservatives have an equally pernicious idea that wealth equates with moral superiority.)
Stepping back in American history, we have the example of Thomas Jefferson, a true polymath and a man of prodigious intellect and genius but seemed to have a mean streak when it came to race, ascribing all sorts of pseudoscientific negative attributes to Blacks. These ideas and hypocrisies shocked Jefferson's neighbor, Edward Coles, a man of lesser intellect, but of far greater moral character, who urged him to help get rid of slavery. The Polish patriot Thaddeus Kosciusko who had fought in the American Revolution alongside George Washington, had offered to set up a trust fund to educate Jefferson's slaves, if Jefferson would free them. Jefferson turned down the offer. Indeed, the historian Conor Cruise O'Brien was hard pressed to find any kind word from Jefferson about the main source of his wealth.
Moving on to another Virginian, Woodrow Wilson, the only Phd to hold the U.S. Presidency, and arguably the most intelligent man to hold that office, we find that his favorite motion picture was the viciously racist "Birth of a Nation" which prompted Wilson to order segregation in federal offices. Later on, Wilson had some of his thugs in the Justice Department arrest and imprison the great socialist leader, Eugene Debs on charges of insufficient enthusiasm for the First World War. (Wilson's successor, President Harding, a Republican of singularly dim intellect, but a decent and fair man just the same, pardoned Debs.)
The 1930's were a particularly interesting period of right vs wrong and, in retrospect, "intellect" did not always put one on the side of the angels.
Franklin Roosevelt, while not an intellectual giant, was quite intelligent, but saw no reason to disturb segregation or make the smallest efforts toward civil rights. He actively worked to prevent Jewish refugees from settling in South and Central American countries, acts that cost thousands of lives. His successor, Harry Truman, poorly educated, of rural southern background, and not the sharpest tool in the drawer, promoted the first civil rights legislation and helped see to it that the State of Israel became a reality.
In Europe during the Second World War, most Jews and other enemies of the Nazis were rescued by people of decidedly ordinary intellectual accomplishment. On the other hand, the Nazi's recruited so many Phds into the feared SS, that a new rank, Herr Colonel-Professor was created for them.
Back in the USA during the 1960's, the most effective anti-civil rights efforts were led not by ignorant fools in KKK robes, but by intelligent businessmen such as Bill Simmons, Rhodes Scholar, graduate of the Sorbonne--and head of the White Citizens Council for Mississippi.
Finally, we arrive at Bill Clinton, virtually the lodestar in any effort to prove that Intelligence, Virtue, and Honor are not necessarily one and the same. It will not be necessary to rehash all the sordid details, merely say "case proven"
So where does that leave us with "Dubya"?
The good news is that he is not going to get any dumber. What we have intellectually is what we will get. however, there is additional good news, while like the rest of us, his IQ level is set, his moral level is not fixed. Indeed, judging from his track record of rising from a truly obnoxious frat rat type with a propensity for overindulgence ("When I was young and irresponsible, I was irresponsible" as "Dubya" so famously put it) So while "Dubya is not going to get any smarter, there is the sturdy hope that he will simply become a better person. It is something worth waiting for.
Finally, while "Dubya" may be no more intelligent than you or I, he does possess powers that you and I do not. I refer to the famous "Texas Soul Search". This is a variation on the "Vulcan Mind Meld" as practiced by Mr. Spock. In the case of "Dubya", he looked deeply into the soul of Vladimir Putin, the Russian premier and found it good. I believe you will agree with me that The Texas Soul Search is a valuable tool for any politician.
MR. PHOENIX
Recently, my doctor suggested that I undertake a regimen of weight lifting to defeat the possibility of osteoporosis and assure my immortality.
Now lifting weights when you don't have to is arguably one of the most boring and stupid tasks known to man.
I firmly believe that ancient piles of rock like Stonehenge, Easter Island, and the Pyramids of Giza were not religious shrines but actually prehistoric health clubs whose members were conned into paying good money to push huge rocks uphill to develop muscles to impress the girls and fellow tribesmen.
Someone should invent a health club that would provide a visible reward for one's effort. Say, if you pumped iron, you would actually be pumping water up into a reservoir so that you would be rewarded with a fountain or waterfall at the end of your set. The more effort the more spectacular the fountain or waterfall.
I met Mr. Phoenix while doing the barbell bit. He was a genial Black giant whose slabs of muscles covered him like sand bags.
He worked out in a dutiful, workmanlike manner. He was not a narcissist and was not trying to sculpt himself into an anatomic drawing. I had the feeling that his muscles were not decorations, but tools to be maintained for a purpose. I also had the feeling that his real name was not "Mr. Phoenix".
Finally, I asked him if he was a cop or firefighter; someone whose profession required them to be in good shape.
"Something like that" Mr. Phoenix responded genially, "I'm a bounty hunter".
A bounty hunter. A trade I had never encountered before.
"Sounds interesting" I said, rather unimaginatively.
"It is" he said, explaining that when he was "on the road" everyday was different.
Bounty hunting, according to Mr. Phoenix, was a public service job in which one enriched the community by taking bad people off the streets (sort of like being a missionary with muscles) for a fee. Who paid the fee? The grateful citizenry? No, the bail bondsman who had put up the insurance that the miscreant would indeed show up for his trail date. The bail bondsman would pay the successful bounty hunter 10 to 30% of the bond for bringing his "client" in.
I was surprised to learn that, depending on the state, one needed no special license or authority or even training to be a bounty hunter. How can they do that? Easy, it's called Citizens arrest.
You can do it too! Most Americans are not aware that if you happen to be watching AMERICA'S MOST WANTED and note that the America's leading serial killer seems to be working at your local convenience store, you need not bother with the red tape of calling the police or the FBI, you can toodle on down there and arrest the guy yourself! However, not even the most public spirited people do this as a hobby. The bounty hunter gets paid for making a citizen's arrest IF the guy jumped bail.
Generally speaking, Mr. Phoenix and his associates,"Reggie and"Gerald" did not carry weapons, relying on their physical size to intimidate the "client". Mr. Phoenix and Associates were all ex NFL linemen who had failed to make the cut (I always wondered what became of those guys) On the plus side, the nation was their oyster, as citizens there is no problems about jurisdiction (except in the few states that forbid bounty hunting). and also you don't have to worry about those darn Miranda warnings (You're just a citizen, remember?)
Over the weeks at the gym, we became passably well acquainted and he told interesting war stories. One day Mr. Phoenix asked me about my work. I told him that I was retired National Park Service.
"Ah! Smokey the Bear" he said appreciatively (Smokey was the best thing the Forest Service ever did for the NPS).
"I bet you miss the action" he said.
I allowed as not recently.
Mr. Phoenix then told me he had a problem he thought I could help him with. How would I like to be a bounty hunter?
I was flattered, but searched for a polite way of pointing out that I was not 6 foot 6, did not weigh 300 pounds and it was unlikely that I ever would be no matter how much I lifted these damn weights.
According to Mr. Phoenix, size didn't matter, at least initially. It seems that size didn't matter. The problem was getting through the door. You see, when a "client" looks out through the peephole, and sees a couple of Black guys about the size of refrigerators. What does he think? Are they librarians in search of overdue books? Jehovah Witnesses in search of lost souls? No, our man comes up with the correct conclusion and acts on it out the back window.
Mr. Phoenix needed a small White guy to talk the door open. After that, "Reggie", "Gerald" or himself would quickly join me like surprise siamese twins and take it from there. The theory seemed sound. Sort of reverse racial profiling. Like that famous remark of Jesse Jackson about "Who among you have not heard footsteps behind you on a dark street, turned and were relieved that it was only a Whiteman?"
Mr. Phoenix smiled encouragingly at me and waited for an answer.
I responded like any other red blooded American in search of adventure:
"I'll have to check the idea out with my wife and then I'll get back to you." I responded with grave sincerity.