Summer Blues

I’ve been neglecting ya’ll; sorry ‘bout that.  I’ve been a little busy, a little unwell, writing other stuff (I don’t limit myself to political rants), and feeling very disheartened and disturbed about our social, governmental and overall future.

The debt-ceiling debacle really knocked the wind out of me, and Bachman winning the Iowa Straw Poll as well as Perry entering the presidential race finished me off.  Except I reserved a little energy for knocking TV news over the head with a lead pipe.  Now if I could just get my hands on a pipe…

You know, I don’t sit around here in the Tower just being grumpy because I think I’m smarter than everybody else and I have the solutions to the mega-problems (and they are problems, not “challenges”) we’re confronted with here at home and around the world.  That said, there is something each day that renders me speechless because of its stupidity.

Yesterday, it was an article in the Times about new scientific research that “proves” men can truly be bisexual (it’s been assumed for some time that women can be bisexual, because our sexuality is more “fluid,” no puns intended, I’m sure).  I just sat back and sighed.  I had no idea there was a question about this, let alone that someone doubtless got a major grant to confirm it.

Among the stupidities that most distress me are (1) the frequent obtuseness of those who practice science and their insistence on applying a hard-wired “testing” process while ignoring all “anecdotal evidence,” by which they’re saying that human experience doesn’t “prove” anything.

And (2) the ridiculously rigid way that science – and people in general – regard human sexuality.  It has been my experience and observation that all sexuality is “fluid.”  Yes, we’re born with a basic sexual proclivity: essentially straight or essentially gay.  But that doesn’t mean that people don’t experiment, or go through stages, or even, much to their surprise, occasionally (or once) find themselves strongly and genuinely attracted to someone outside their basic sexual comfort zone.

I don’t imagine that this latest study takes into consideration that bisexuality isn’t always a clean, even, 50/50 split – in fact it rarely is.  And since they’re not considering anecdotal evidence, I assume they’re also not taking into account the influence of religion, family expectations, social disapproval, professional consequences, etc.  Apparently, this study was based solely on arousal, and as men (and women, but men more so) themselves know, they can become aroused watching herrings mate if their need for sex is particularly great at that moment.

I guess the rigidity and stupidity bother me so much because they reveal such a lack of imagination and sense of wonder.  It also bothers me because the same rigid scientific approach has always been taken in regard to psychic phenomenon and spooky/occult stuff in general.  Scientists – whom I genuinely respect and value – are the ultimate five-senses crowd; if they can’t see, feel, hear, taste or touch it, they doubt its existence, whatever “it” is.  You would think that the discovery of germs, the atom, and other micro- and nano-scopic…stuff would lead them to be open-minded about everything, but too often the reverse is true.

Another stupidity that raises my blood pressure is people who reject the reality of major climate change – manmade or otherwise.  There were three significant earthquakes yesterday: in Virginia, Colorado and San Francisco, not to mention that Japan has again been hit, repeatedly, since the big one in March.  In addition, a killer storm named Irene is heading our way, we’re winding down one of the hottest summers we’ve ever had nationally, and the famine that is ravaging Somalia is the worst in 60 years.  How is it possible that these erratic and damaging weather and “natural” disasters are unrelated to a global population of nearly seven billion, and a totally unprecedented use of fossil fuels?  How was this morphed into a Left Wing Conspiracy?

Which brings me back to politics.  I’ve decided that in the best interest of my gastric health and emotional sanity, I’m not paying too much attention to the Republican race until the GOP candidate is selected at their convention next summer.  I’m also not going to listen too closely to anything the President has to say, but will instead keep a close eye on what he does.  Anything more will turn my summer blues into an autumnal nervous breakdown.

Crisis in Japan: A Cautionary Tale

It’s impossible to look at the videos and still photos of the destruction and despair in Japan [since that country was assaulted by a 9.0 earthquake and massive tsunami last week] without feeling a deep sense of heartbreak for what people are going through. Thousands have lost everything; some have lost everyone in their families. The entire nation is speechless with grief and overwhelmed by what will be required to repair their country and carry on. And now, of course, there are the dangers of a huge nuclear disaster with the six reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. A “minor” disaster could destroy all or most of Japan; a major one could have a serious impact on other parts of the world, including our Hawaii and California. Any way you look at it, it’s a terrible state of affairs, one that requires considerable contemplation on our part.

Indeed, it is incumbent upon us to acknowledge the inherent lessons of this event. Not all devastating natural (or man made) disasters are equal. People got upset about the conditions in the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina, and after the horrific earthquake in Haiti. But the powers that be (whoever they are) are clearly not that distressed, because very little has been done to help the majority of those most affected in both of these locales. I think it’s fair to say that the reasons are similar: New Orleans is a “chocolate city” as N.O. Mayor Ray Nagin observed (and then apologized for saying, because it’s rude to imply that there’s entrenched racism in America…), and Haiti is a chocolate country. In both cases, there are also native cultures that many people disapprove of – the Voodoo element in Haiti, and the sex and music of New Orleans. In addition, the demise of Haiti would do no damage to the rest of the world, and the demise of New Orleans (while some would view it as a great loss) would not be a huge loss to most of America.

Japan, on the other hand, is the world’s third-largest economy. Even though the Japanese are Asian and were our sworn enemy in the 1940s, we and the rest of the world will overlook that, because we want to continue buying the things they make (the chips for our cell phones and i-whatevers are at stake!) and selling them the things we make. They’re a First World country and as such they must be saved. No matter what it costs the global community, and no matter what else happens in Japan, that country will rise again, because it’s an economic imperative that it does. A quick glimpse at their stock market and those around the world right now attests to this. So, while I feel terrible for the people of Japan, especially those old enough to remember World War II, I’m confident that they’ll be okay when all is said and done.

I’m less confident that they, or we, or anyone else, will come to the conclusion that nuclear power in an over-populated, over-stressed modern world is a bad idea (current protests in Germany n0twithstanding). The Fukushima plant was built in the 70s, as were a number of key plants in the U.S. and around the world. Fellow Boomers: do you recall our passionate protests against the beginnings of nuclear power? Nonetheless, it became commonplace and we stopped protesting, because we wanted the uninterrupted, unlimited comforts of richly-flowing electricity like everyone else.

Why didn’t the U.S. begin investing in solar and wind power back in the 70s? Then-President Jimmy Carter wanted to, but back then as now, Republicans didn’t see the need or value in it. (Carter had solar panels installed on the roof of the White House and Reagan angrily had them removed.) I’ve had grown-up people say to me: “But what happens when the sun stops shining and the wind stops blowing?,” as if these systems aren’t constructed with reserve components in acknowled- gment of the existence of night and periods of soft breezes (!). Is it too late for us to invest in these sensible technologies? Probably. In any case, it won’t happen on any significant scale, because President Obama supports it, and as we’ve seen, anything he supports must be thwarted at all costs by the disloyal opposition.

Personally, I believe that the extraordinary number of natural disasters worldwide over the past several years are just part and parcel of the global catastrophe predicted for the 2012 era – and as some of you roll your eyes at the mere mention of the 2012 phenomenon, let me say this: no one ever said December 21, 2012 will mark the end of the world; rather, it will signal the end of the world as we know it and a new era (low tech, peaceful, less populace) will begin. In addition, 2012 is just a touchstone point in time. We’ve been working up to this for decades, and it may take a few more decades for the end/beginning to go into full swing.

However, whether you believe in this or not (dismissing 2012 as if it were Y2K or a newspaper horoscope), know this: there are more disasters to come – natural and otherwise. Some of them governments will seek to cope with, others they will ignore. But all of them are changing the world around us in ways no one can deny. Will we be brave and innovative and wise, try to rid ourselves of dangers where we can, and acknowledge that the 21^st century is not the 20^th and therefore requires different responses from both individuals and nations? Unfortunately, that remains to be seen.