There is such a thing as global warming. There is also politics.l
 When they mix it becomes a witches brew. Recent days have seen an effort on the part of the administration to highlight recent scientific reports that draw attention to global warming. Is the cause being helped or hurt? The naysayers are convinced in their zeal that there is no global warming. They dismiss the evidence as unconvincing or fabrication. There is a problem. Scientists have a great deal evidence that points to global warming from a variety of causes, mostly man-made causes. The best science comes from quantifiable evidence. The weakest science comes when scientists slip into the subjunctive and extend their evidence into a Draconian future scenario that "could be" "might be"; and even worse "100 or more years from now". Meteorologists boast that they have developed accuracy when forecasting weather 12-24 hours ahead. After that the drop-off in reliability becomes a steep downward curve. The politicization of reporting on global warming has pushed some scientists to walk the limb of prediction with their subjunctive conclusions. This creates holes in their arguments that an amateur naysayer can drive through easily and raise doubts that undermine the few facts we do know. My craft of journalism is complicit to the extent that the tradition of writing leads and headlines goes for the worst case scenario. Today's NYTimes leads is a good example. Here is the lead story with my comments and annotations.

 Scientists Warn of Rising Oceans From Polar Melt
By JUSTIN GILLIS and KENNETH CHANGMAY 12, 2014

A large section of the mighty West Antarctica ice sheet has begun falling apart and its continued melting now appears to be unstoppable, two groups of scientists reported on Monday. If the findings hold up, they suggest that the melting could destabilize neighboring parts of the ice sheet and a rise in sea level of 10 feet or more may be unavoidable in coming centuries. Global warming caused by the human-driven release of greenhouse gases has helped to destabilize the ice sheet, though other factors may also be involved, the scientists said. The rise of the sea is likely to continue to be relatively slow for the rest of the 21st century, the scientists added, but in the more distant future it may accelerate markedly, potentially throwing society into crisis. “This is really happening” (what is really happening?) Thomas P. Wagner, who runs NASA’s programs on polar ice and helped oversee some of the research, said in an interview. “There’s nothing to stop it now. But you are still limited by the physics of how fast the ice can flow.” Two scientific papers released on Monday by the journals Science and Geophysical Research Letters came to similar conclusions by different means. Both groups of scientists found that West Antarctic glaciers had retreated far enough to set off an inherent instability in the ice sheet, one that experts have feared for decades. NASA called a telephone news conference Monday to highlight the urgency of the findings. The West Antarctic ice sheet sits in a bowl-shaped depression in the earth, with the base of the ice below sea level. Warm ocean water is causing the ice sitting along the rim of the bowl to thin and retreat. As the front edge of the ice pulls away from the rim and enters deeper water, it can retreat much faster than before. In one of the new papers, a team led by Eric Rignot, a glaciologist at the University of California, Irvine, used satellite and air measurements to document an accelerating retreat over the past several decades of six glaciers draining into the Amundsen Sea region. And with updated mapping of the terrain beneath the ice sheet, the team was able to rule out the presence of any mountains or hills significant enough to slow the retreat. “Today we present observational evidence that a large sector of the West Antarctic ice sheet has gone into irreversible retreat,” Dr. Rignot said in the NASA news conference. “It has passed the point of no return. (Is there now a consensus that to counter the effects of global warming we must “return” to an earlier time?) Those six glaciers alone could cause the ocean to rise four feet as they disappear, Dr. Rignot said, possibly within a couple of centuries. He added that their disappearance will most likely destabilize other sectors of the ice sheet, so the ultimate rise could be triple that. A separate team led by Ian Joughin of the University of Washington studied one of the most important glaciers, Thwaites, using sophisticated computer modeling, coupled with recent measurements of the ice flow. That team also found that a slow-motion collapse had become inevitable. Even if the warm water now eating away at the ice were to dissipate, it would be “too little, too late to stabilize the ice sheet,” Dr. Joughin said. “There’s no stabilization mechanism.” (That we know of) The two teams worked independently, preparing papers that were to be published within days of each other. After it was learned that their results were similar, the teams and their journals agreed to release the findings on the same day. The new finding appears to be the fulfillment of a prediction made in 1978 by an eminent glaciologist, John H. Mercer of the Ohio State University. He outlined the vulnerable nature of the West Antarctic ice sheet and warned that the rapid human-driven release of greenhouse gases posed “a threat of disaster.” He was assailed at the time, but in recent years, scientists have been watching with growing concern as events have unfolded in much the way Dr. Mercer predicted. (He died in 1987.)

 Scientists said the ice sheet was not melting because of warmer air temperatures, but rather because relatively warm water that occurs naturally in the depths of the ocean was being pulled to the surface by an intensification, over the past several decades, of the powerful winds that encircle Antarctica. And while the cause of the stronger winds is somewhat unclear, many researchers consider human-induced global warming to be a significant factor. (“somewhat unclear” “many researchers…” And what do others think who don't join the many? As to “somewhat unclear” what publishable conclusion is there when something is “somewhat unclear”?) The winds help to isolate Antarctica and keep it cold at the surface, but as global warming proceeds, that means a sharper temperature difference between the Antarctic and the rest of the globe. That temperature difference provides further energy for the winds, which in turn stir up the ocean waters. Some scientists believe the ozone hole over Antarctica — caused not by global warming but by an entirely different environmental problem, the human-caused release of ozone-destroying gases — may also be adding energy to the winds. And natural variability may be contributing as well, though scientists do not believe it is the primary factor. (This all adds up to: we have theories and some facts but WE DON'T KNOW, we are theorizing.) The global sea level has been rising since the 19th century, but Antarctica so far has been only a small factor. The biggest factor to date is that seawater expands as it warms. But the melting from both Greenland and Antarctica is expected to be far more important in the future. A United Nations scientific committee, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has warned that the global sea level could rise as much as three feet by the end of this century if stronger efforts are not made to control greenhouse gases. The new findings suggest the situation is likely to get far worse in subsequent centuries. (That’s a lot of “ifs” and assumes no balancing efforts.) The effects will depend in part on how much money future governments spend to protect shorelines from a rising sea. Research published in 2012 found that a rise of less than four feet would inundate land on which some 3.7 million Americans live today. Miami, New Orleans, New York and Boston are all highly vulnerable. Richard B. Alley, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University who was not involved in the new research but has studied the polar ice sheets for decades, said he found the new papers compelling. Though he had long feared the possibility of ice-sheet collapse, when he learned of the new findings, “it shook me a little bit,” Dr. Alley said. He added that while a large rise of the sea may now be inevitable from West Antarctica, continued release of greenhouse will almost certainly make the situation worse. The heat-trapping gases could destabilize other parts of Antarctica as well as the Greenland ice sheet, potentially causing enough sea-level rise that many of the world’s coastal cities would eventually have to be abandoned. “If we have indeed lit the fuse on West Antarctica, it’s very hard to imagine putting the fuse out,” Dr. Alley said. “But there’s a bunch more fuses, and there’s a bunch more matches, and we have a decision now: Do we light those?”

Question: The studies referred to were published in peer-reviewed journals where peers can judge the value and context of the research. When politicians use this type of evidence and journalists report to a wider audience, what have we accomplished? Is the evidence here conclusive enough to warrant a NYTimes lead. The international edition of newspaper online does not carry the story. Does that say something?

THE SECOND TERM Whatever comes of the President's State of the Union speech in a few hours there seems evidence that the President's second term already has signs of his intentions. There is evidence of the Obama that some people hoped for in the first term and were disappointed when he did not fulfill their wishes. Among the first term priorities, if not the first priority was re-election. That produced the kinds of political restraints that disappoint ardent followers of ideology. The second term based on conventional wisdom has a two year window before the mid-term elections and the last two years are lost to lame duck disease. There may be another scenario. Perhaps the President has calculated that he has nothing to lose by challenging conventional wisdom. He has a light breeze at his back with an economy that is in slow recovery, but recovery is key. Fiscal cliffs and short term "kick the can down the road" solutions abound, but there are also solid signs of progress. Reduction in health care costs is a big deal. Deficit reduction attendant to health care and military spending cuts are a big deal. Both of these events are happening quickly and in the face of political headwinds. Fortunately for the President the Republicans have thus far been their own worst enemies. Their obstructionist tactics, so successful during the first term, are less successful if not failed efforts thus far in term two. Cuts in military spending alone are worth watching closely. These cuts hold the greatest promise for real change. If they can be accomplished in the obvious areas of political spending spread across the Congressional map to shore up so many districts and embellish the record of the sponsoring Representative, then there is the promise of real change without necessarily harming the military establishment. The end to weapons development that no one wants, least of all the military. The closing of redundant bases. Watch for Naval expenditures. Ships have long lead times and particularly high costs. The F-35 to the tune of 2500 orders? There is talk of halving that order, and even then , 1250 fighters? Really necessary in this day and age. Is that number likely larger than the total number of fighter planes of all potentially significant adversaries. We are not alone. There is a NATO. There are the Middle Eastern "allies", themselves well equipped with fighter aircraft. The impact of all this on the US economy. It could be significant. But what if the civilian economy rebalances, however slowly? What if real jobs continue to grow and the US finds its growing export footing and entrepreneurial leadership? And lest we forget, we live in a globalized economy where many US companies are invested around the world and less dependent on domestic growth alone. Lots of what ifs. But the charm and challenge of the Presidency is decision-making. Obama shows evidence of accepting his biggest asset: no need to worry about re-election. But what about the D party and 2016? If the President's bets pay off. If the economy continues to grow. If the second term is not lame duck at all but has the signs of bold policy steps, what greater gift could the outgoing President give his party? Pie in the sky? Glass overfull? Too many optimistic assumptions? Possible. But looked at from a Presidential perspective, this second term might be based on a different set of assumptions by President Obama. He is a noted lone thinker. He listens to those close to him, and then synthesizes. He may have decided that what some may consider "bold", others "foolhardy", yet others "risky" as his opportunity to follow his vision. What a grand luxury.

A CAUTIONARY TALE There is a gremlin in my life. This Gremlin’s principal occupation has been the esoteric skill to know when I am traveling and where. With that knowledge the Gremlin then arranges for the plane I am on to be parked at the farthest gate from the main terminal. The day of the year, the season, the hour, the airport, the continent, the century is no obstacle to this Gremlin. Take Beijing Capitol airport in China. A monstrosity of modern design built to accommodate the Olympic traffic. Beijing Capitol Airport has reached the top ten among international airports based on traffic. Woe be to the traveler who flies there. The place is big enough. Far too big. Distances rival mini-marathons. Day or night, even in the wee hours when there is little traffic at the airport, my flight, irrespective of airline, is parked at the outer reaches of the airport. It happened at 02:00 one morning. Surely there would be empty gates close to the center of the terminal. And indeed there were empty gates, by the dozens. I counted them as we taxied by to our destination at the end gate. I suppose there is some solace knowing you will be way out there. My hometown airport, Shantou, newly built, has, like many Chinese airports been built with the future in mind. There are many more gates than flights at this stage of development. My Gremlin thinks is a grand opportunity to do its thing. I frequently take a late flight from nearby Guangzhou that lands at 11:55pm. Invariably we are parked at the farthest gate. Odd too, because the early morning flight to Guangzhou at 07:30, the reciprocal number of the incoming flight, often leaves from a gate next to airport security. I suppose they move the plane from the night before; or switch aircraft. Makes perfect sense. Why would an airline use the plane from the last flight in the night before as the plane first thing out in the morning to the same destination? Foolish me. Stick with me in case you find a way to avoid this Gremlin because the Gremlin acquired a new skill this morning. I was scheduled to take my daughter to the airport in Seattle at 06:15. Knowing my penchant for zombie behavior in the wee hours, I prepared everything I needed the night before. Clothes laid out. Gym bag with clothes and wallet and phone and e-reader inside. And my car keys were placed in the side pocket of my warm-up suit; the usual spot. You’re getting the picture? Up and at em at 05:45. Glass of OJ placed the night before on my desk to wet the whistle. Contacts installed, teeth brushed, clothes on and….. OOOOOOPS. No car keys. “I never lose my car keys”. I am not the misplacing or losing kind. I forget lots of stuff. Anniversaries, birthdays, why I crossed the room, items three and four on the shopping list I should have made but said to myself the fateful “I’ll remember”. But car keys. Never forget….that I can recall. I wore clothes with a total of six pockets. Gym, shorts, warm-up jacket, and down vest, each with two pockets. Checked em all. Twice, then three times. Checked inner pockets where I never put keys. Suppressed panic. “This morning of all mornings when daughter needs to get to the airport.” Check last night’s clothes. Trousers. Different down vest. Nada. Nothing. Curses and mutters when I realized the little bastard, the Gremlin was taunting me. It had been weeks since I flew and the Gremlin was clearly using this pretext to keep its skills honed. “Drive the poor SOB nuts because he won’t be thinking of this.” My mind raced. Alternate plans. “Borrow” my host’s car. He’s fast asleep so can’t ask him permission. He’s a good fellow and understanding. Thank heavens a solution. I’m early. Once more through all the clothes and all the pockets. Desperately reworking in my mind every step I took last night after I put my car to bed. Can’t be in the car, otherwise I couldn’t have locked it. Checked anyway. Car locked. Checked under the bed. Keys might have dropped on the floor. Found someone’s glasses. Not mine. Looked inside shoes and under chairs. Checked every corner of every room I had been in. Nada. Zilch, Niente. Started up friend’s car. Gas gauge close to empty. Can’t make the airport on fumes. I’ll make it to daughter’s house and we’ll use her car. Plan C or D by now. That Gremlin just sat there grinning silently. GOTCHA….again. Daughter had a spare key for my car. WHEW. Last time I checked, 8 years ago, a new key for a VW was $135 dollars. I can imagine what it costs today. We made the airport with plenty of time to spare, then I back-tracked. Leave daughter’s car at her house. Keep her keys. Pick up friend’s car, put gas in, and return to friend’s house. Its just 07:30 and he’s still asleep. Another WHEW. My clothes now bulge with my spare car key, my daughter’s car key to be returned later, my friend’s car key and, and, and, what the hell is this in the right hand pocket of my warm-up suit. My original car keys. By now the Gremlin is rolling on the floor laughing its fool head off. It’s sneering at me. GOTCHA GOTCHA GOTCHA. Have you ever done this: I pulled the keys out, looked at them as if I had never seen them. I put them back into the pocket where I found them. I pulled them out and did it again; just to be sure they wouldn’t disappear again. Forewarned is forearmed. The next time you are parked at a far gate, think for a moment: this may be only the beginning of your woes. Cheers peter

THE ABOMINABLE CENTER In the waning days of the American Presidential campaign, former Governor George Romney has moved toward the center by adjusting his fluid positions. The recent Conservative Party gathering in the UK had Prime Minister Cameron doing a soft-shoe dance trying to straddle the center of his party’s increasingly fractious factions. He might have had the sympathy of former Governor Romney who had sailed far right during the increasingly fractious primary campaign In both cases the Party leaders were following conventional wisdom. The middle is where the deciding vote is in all but a runaway election. The Abominable Center. Abominable because in the USA the country is saddled with a breakdown in the core concept of compromise in the political system. Democrats should neither complain nor cheer; it could just as easily by their party that plays the blocking game. Both sides with great help from a sophisticated use of legislative rules have perfected the art of gridlock. In the UK PM Cameron’s problem is not only with a gradual descent in popularity, the resulting sharks who always circle the center of power see a vulnerable PM and move in to push and pull the PM in their direction. Short of that they will eat him. The center once worked. The center worked when there was a soto voce understanding that you give it your all defending or attacking policy and legislation. When positions have been established and two or more sides recognize the arguments have gone as far as they can go, there was – more often than not – compromise. The negotiating rhythm was understood and accepted. Signals of willingness to compromise were not difficult to give. “Run it up the flagpole” was a common expression that is heard less frequently now. More often than not the song in the House of Representatives is “never”. Forget the issue, forget the merits, and forget the comity. “Never” There is only victory and defeat. In wartime that is a concept that last worked in WW II, and later in Nicaragua and Grenada. One great victory and two nonsensical wars. Increasingly military commanders go to great lengths to avoid what might be their natural inclination: fight. Fighting gets you nowhere is the lesson of the last 50 years. And fighting between the political parties is even less productive thanks to hardened positions. That leaves the center unattainable, because to get there you need compromise. Thus the Abominable Center. The result is that for Mr. Romney, whatever his real position, no one believes him anymore in any of his positions. The President has fudged so often, twisted this way and that in an effort to straddle the middle, he has little credibility and has left behind the promise that got him to the White House. And still the candidates race to the middle in the closing days of the campaign. Conundrum. Is there any other choice? Political suicide by standing on principle and speaking truth is not inviting when you throw away a billion dollars of OPM (other people’s money) who count on you to win. Yet there may be truths that are worth the risk. Had President Obama countered Governor Romney’s attack on the mishandling of the Libyan terrorist attack by saying: “We handled that poorly Governor. There were mistakes made. I take responsibility, but I assure you I was more upset than you are and I will stay that way until I can report to the American people exactly what went wrong and why and how we intend to keep it from happening again. But I can also assure you that one thing I have learned in my first four years, in a government with xxx departments and xxxxxxx workers; there are no perfect days. I don’t ever have a perfect day, perhaps you day, but I like President Truman’s approach: When I make a mistake, I recognize it and make decision to correct the mistake and keep it from happening again.” You smile. You dismiss the naïveté. You may value the idealism but you laugh at the thought of ever hearing this from any office holder. Senior executives have learned this lesson. The best of them handle their pechees in exactly this manner. They standup before we the howling mob of journalists, and admit error, take responsibility and say what they intend to do about it…including resignation when the error warrants it. The time wasted on Libya is not an honor to the four who lost their lives. The discussion continues to be a petty political game without a principle at its core, other than “if you lose, I win”. There are issues that may worth a win0lose approach, if there is a hope for compromise at the other end. Gun control, equality in all respects, racism (that no one mentions but remains alive and sick), gender issues, health, education. It is hardly a short list. But in that now-crowded middle there is a muddle, a meaningless muddle because neither candidate stands above the fray. No one believes the candidates because they do not have the courage of their claimed humanity, their flawed perfection. How many examples of personal courage are needed before politicians generally (there are sporadic examples) dismiss their attackers by saying: “You are right, I/we blew that one. Not my finest hour, but here is what I learned and why it won’t happen again.” None of this would poll well. Would focus groups buy it? We may never know because the “professionals” who shape and guide these campaigns have even less courage than the candidates. Go ahead, run the negative ads if you remain convinced they work so well, and likely they do with your vaunted base that delights in eviscerating the other side. But when you debate show your humanity, it will so shock the opposition that you might win a close one.

My friend and former colleagues from our CBS News days Robbie Vorhaus sold his successful PR company and now enjoys the challenge of commentary that often appears on the Huffington Report. Robbie recently sent me the following contribution (with a link to the full text). He was clearly moved by the rhetoric at both nominating conventions. So was I. Here's Robbie's contribution and my response. cheers peter Good Morning, Peter, After watching both political conventions, I thought it would take real guts, and garner real votes, to give this speech: Click here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-vorhaus/say-this-and-ill-vote-for_b_1855463.html Here are is an excerpt of what I wrote in the HuffingtonPost: Dear President Obama and/or Governor Romney: I will vote for you, and work tirelessly in support of your campaign, if you were to say this: Dear friend and fellow co-occupant of our glorious planet, and citizen of the great United States of America, My opponent is a good man with honorable intentions. I respect him, and I encourage you to do the same. He, like us, loves his family, is devoted to a higher power, cherishes his liberties, and is a powerful advocate for democracy and the values we as Americans hold dear. Although our ultimate goal is very similar, our ideas, plans, strategy, and tactics to deliver those results differ. Allow me this opportunity to now discuss with you my specific, straightforward, constructive, and attainable action plan, which I, along with my team, believe will achieve measurable results in the areas of the economy, health care, our national debt, education, taxes, government reform, energy and the environment, social security, homeland security and defense, the current state of politics, immigration, woman's issues, crime and justice, campaign finance, endowments to the arts, and other important issues influencing our national, international, and global success and sustainability. Then, on the morning of November 7, 2012, the day after the election, regardless who wins this race for the most humbling job in the world, the president of the United States, we will work together to heal our divisions, inspire all Americans to join together, and despite any differences, as our founding fathers wrote, "form a more perfect union." Would you like hearing a speech like this, too? As always, I love hearing your thoughts, or if you want others to see, leave your comments under the post. Hope to see you soon and all the best, Robbie On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 8:48 AM, peter m herford wrote: 1. You have to stop smoking those funny cigarettes! 2. Your suggested speech reminds me of a great routine the comedian/ad guy of 30-40 years ago did around the recording of a new soap commercial. "Bloopers soap is real good." That was it. A radio ad. The announcer reads it and it sounds fine. Click from the control room. "Ah the client would like you to hit the product a little bit harder." "OK, take two." "BLOOPERS soap is real good." Click from the control room. "Ah, the client thinks it might help if you added "soap" to the juice you put behind BLOOPERS." "Sure, here goes: 'BLOOPERS SOAP is real good." You get the point, the final take has the announcer screaming into the mike. The client loved it. Now the serious part. I don't like your suggested speech because it does just what the US doesn't need: you obscure the differences under a veil of politesse. Bill Clinton had a good line when he said: I don't have to hate the opposition to disagree with them." The worst of the right wing hates anyone who disagrees with them. As the shrink would say: Get that out on the table and deal with it. The USA has a lot of anger inside. Yes, much of it can be attributed to tense economic times (made more tense by vicious rhetoric). But politesse only makes it worse. From Passive-Aggressive to taking to the guns, the solution is not found by papering over the anger. Nail the SOB who opposes you with facts. Not fudged facts, but facts that will stand up to scrutiny. Not "if my opponent gets his/her way then the consequences will be.." But a graph like this: "40% of the USA is undereducated and illiterate. 20% of Americans are absolutely illiterate, can't read or write; the highest rate in the developed world by far. 20% of Americans are functionally illiterate. Can't read a simple how-to manual (and who writes those monstrosities anyway?). Guess what folks. That evil Communist Fidel Castro took an island of illiterates and has achieved 99% literacy. It will take (research the figure) to give the USA what it has lost, the best free secondary ed system in the world. And I emphasize free. I don't want any child missing the first step on the ladder to success because his parents cannot afford it." I have sections on public transportation, infrastructure, to say nothing of health care, and the defense budget that go the same way. Not "my system is better than your system" (Read length of penis.) But the bold facts, day after day, each day a new reality and what I will do about it, and how much it will cost and what you the voter will sacrifice. Its called social responsibility. various gods teach it, yet instead we fight religious wars. OK, I think benevolent authoritarianism is worth a try. One of two outcomes. Election by acclamation, defeat by acclamation. In the latter case there is a solution: its called Canada, which ain't perfect but a damned site better in public policy Climate tends to suck though. Cheers peter

Representative Paul Ryan's speech to the Republican Nominating Convention has many commentators up in arms over playing fast and loose with facts. Amazing. A politician playing fast and loose with facts, and at a moment of highest drama in his political life. Many columns and commentaries point out that it is SOP. Others suggest a turning point in journalism and politics because there are now the tools to instantly correct factual errors or twists. The inflated rhetoric of the political season plus the cacophony of so many voices competing for attention has caused a general inflation of reactions. Politicians routinely lie. They always have and it is tempting to say they always will, but "always" like "never" are words best avoided even in science where the weight of evidence is much more convincing than in politics. My reading of Mr. Ryan was more taken with what I sensed was nervousness and an odd level of verbal discomfort for a man accustomed to campaigns and campaigning. The old-fashioned word is stage fright. He had a bit of stage fright but soldiered on and did his duty. He had me when he juxtaposed President Obama's promise to save the auto industry and its jobs during his first campaign with what Ryan said was what appeared to be the post-election, post-bailout closing of his hometown GM plant. And I should know better. My antenna should have been up and with the internet at my command I could easily have checked this fact. Damned fool, believing a politician - and its not a party-exclusive trait to bend or mutilate facts, or just lie. But then I contented myself with the knowledge that Vice Presidential candidate Ryan was not speaking to me. He was energizing his base and bases are often united in their willingness to believe everything good about their leaders and everything bad about their political foes. The ruckus caused among journalists about "our role" in correcting errors, the range and frequency of comments from citizen commentators is still underway, but it will not last. We will be distracted by Presidential Candidate Romney's "all important" speech, that will be forgotten (unless he makes a mighty gaffe and is bludgeoned with it for the rest of the campaign) when the Democrats have their day next week. In turn both conventions will recede rapidly from attention and memory. The political guns of October will fill the air with salvos of claims and accusations that will reduce Candidate Ryan's fact game to child's play. Every election cycle is proclaimed to be the dirtiest, the most vicious, the lowest, and the cry of will-it-never-end will be heard around the land. Journalists are the ones who will writing this and saying this, again and again. If we don't know better we should. 20th and 21st century campaigns cannot begin to match the viciousness of the earlier days of the Republic. But then we would have to know history to understand the differences. The partisan nature of some cable channels and certain newspapers is decried as if the craft of news had hit new lows. Not by a long shot. When newspapers circulated by the thousands instead of hundreds of thousands and there was no broadcasting; when politicians went from town to town to deliver themselves of political hyperbole, the lies abounded, but they rarely made it from one town to the next. There were no multipliers to turn a misspeak or an outright lie into a national, if not international, kerfuffle. The fact is, thus far, this campaign has been notable for only one reason that characterizes every Presidential campaign in the last two decades: increasingly expensive. There's the rot in the system.

ON THE NY REVIEW OF BOOKS REVIEW of Michael Spence's new book THE FUTURE OF ECONOMIC GROWTH

Time I got back to this blog. A colleague recently sent me a piece from the NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS, a review of a new book by Michael Spence: THE FUTURE OF ECONOMIC GROWTH. I have only read the excerpts dealing with China in the NY REVIEW piece. But that set me off on a favorite subject that I offer here: I'm not running out to buy this. Spence is fairly typical of the perspective seen through what he knows: the Euro/US filter. He treats China and India as if there were analogies he assumes to western development and development patterns. He asks whether "this time will things be different"? Things have been different from the beginning of China's entry back into the world. One danger traveling academics and others face and almost invariably leads them astray is the view of "modern China" that looks so much like home. So they never stop to think that Beijing and Shanghai are not China. That because the US is a big powerful country they know something about big powerful countries. "Gee its so modern". Yes, but the rice farmer down the road is still plowing with a water buffalo while the high speed train passes nearby, while the farmer pauses to call his wife on his smartphone to tell her "honey, I'll be late for dinner." Right, its all very familiar. Just like home. T'ain't so McGhee. Spence is not so much wrong, he isn't. Much of what he says is correct in an isolated and theoretical way. I will spare you a somnambulant inducing diatribe with a short version. China is doing something no other country on earth has ever done. Every economist will tell you that there is no theory that includes the ability for a country of any size to grow at between 8-10% a year for 30+ years. Remember cycles from econ 101? Not here baby. Does that mean the Chinese are on to a secret new form of economics? Balderdash. They invent as they go. The principle of Party control remains in force. That is as close to a philosophy as they have. Marxism/Leninism be damned. The task is simple. Make sure there are 22 million new jobs every year; that is what China needs to satisfy the turnover, them what gets turned over into the earth and them what retires. That requires 8% growth. Simple formula. The best way to insure the growth is keep as much of the big economy in the hands of the Party; banking, steel, coal, power transportation. Its a command economy behind a scrim that looks a lot like capitalism. Thus far it has worked. Will it keep working? Beats me, and I am convinced it beats them to. They, the top leadership, wakes up every morning thanking someone that they made it through the previous day. Now make a world econ theory out of that with the Spencelike approach to mixing analysis of what has passed (and that can be debated long and hard) to the near-useless attempt to predict future paths. Might as well throw darts at a target you can't see. It depresses me the extent to which the speculators all include the military option fairly high in their agendas. Damned alpha males waving their dicks at each other. Where is it writ we gotta to war or they have to go to war with us? Oh yes, its always happened therefore its gotta happen again? Now there is a deep thinking. Has someone conveniently forgotten where we have come to. Nuke's baby, hydrogen nukes. Like the end of the world if you use that stuff. Get real. The challenge is not to end the world. Ending it is easy. just follow your dick. Further questions?