Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Why Quit Drinking; or, A Tale of Two Blondes

(Updated September 30, 1800 hours, minor typo fixes. Stet.)

Dear Diary, the Astute Reader still isn't reading this, or if they're reading it, they're reading it from Google's crawler cache, like all good intelligentsia who don't want the whole community to know who they are and where on the web they've been. Well, at least they might hide from people who don't have access to Google's cache logs, or who are camped on the InterNet somewhere real close to blogger.com's servers analyzing and capturing traffic with a transparent proxy. But I can't expect the Astute Reader to be afraid that there might be spies all over Blogger like bugs on your windshield the day after a car-wash. The Astute Reader knows no fear! Then again, Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread, and I'm no Angel.


Speaking of Angels -- not that I believe that I believe in them, but who knows? -- I saw a rather good if off film on cable last night, Don't Tempt Me (2001, also known as "Bendito infierno" (released as Sin noticias de Dios" in Spain), a trilingual film starring, among others, the lovely and talented Penélope Cruz.

The plot is really quite baffling, as more or less it's one of those "battle of Good and Evil" movies with a twist: Heaven and Hell are basically versions of this world, and perhaps to some degree they overlap in some places, and in other places there is clear distinction between our world and the various parts of Eternity. Two Angels are sent to earth to battle for the soul of a punchy boxer. In Hell, the judges are "perverse", to quote Cruz's character. In her former life, she was a male gangster, and after death she is sentenced to be returned to earth to be a waitress for a hundred years; released as an agent to tempt the boxer to the dark side, or at least away from the light, she strikes up a friendship and later a sort of a romance with the Angel sent to help the boxer save his soul before he dies from one too many visit to the ring.

I studied some French many years ago, and have found it impossible to not pick up some Spanish as I do live in an official barrio now, thank you very much. This film is utterly fascinating for the way that it switches languages, Spanish the majority of the time in the full-color place that could be Hell or Earth or both, with French for those conversations taking place in the black-and-white world of Heaven, which resembles nothing so much as the backdrops of 1940s romantic musical comedies, with English being the language of high-level negotiations. For the serious student, this sort of film is must-see, as the French is Parisian and the Spanish is from all over Spain, including a lovely airline counter clerk speaking with the most preciously royal of Castilian lisps.


Noted in passing, and with both good cheer for me and relief for my neighbors, the Montgomery County Council voted to reprieve Sligo Golf Course for another nine months.

Yay for bowing to widespread public opinion, those who voted for this 9-month extension!


Total change of subject here: I remember from an "Introduction to Political Science" course I once took at Montgomery College.

The instructor was fine and upstanding gentleman given to drawing fairly good editorial-style cartoons to help explain various things, including the differences between various political ideologies.

To be fair all around, I feel it incumbent upon me to mention that he talked for about 15 minutes in one class period, about how the GI Bill -- which sent returning veterans to college -- was the best thing since sliced bread and possibly even better, since after all it had taken him into coursework immediately after he got back from fighting in Korea.

He told us once, with evident relish, of how one of those central-european countries got taken over by Communists. I forget which country exactly, possibly Romania but I seem to recall it as being Hungary.

People voted, and in European style, elected officials from about 20 different parties. However, they didn't see fit to elect someone other than a card-carrying and open member of the Communist party to the position of commissioner of police. This cabinet-level commie promptly required registration of all firearms, and further spent the next year or three retiring all officers who were not fellow Communists, and then beefed up the "sadly understaffed" force with fellow Communists. And then one morning, people who owned firearms woke up with policemen at their door, demanding to see their weapons, all of which were confiscated; anyone who objected was jailed or shot, often both, and in very brief time-frames. Even the few remaining non-Communist police were rounded up and shot. Within the week, Russian tanks rolled into a disarmed and helpless nation, and aside from easily-crushed and smallish uprisings that didn't have a chance, for the next 50 years, the people were propertyless slaves to the ideologically insane.

Now, as they say, "past is prologue". And it looks as if former Chairman of the Board of CASA of Maryland, Tom Perez, may be confirmed as director of the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division.

I expect the tanks to start rolling in from Mexico within a week of that happening. Or maybe from El Salvador. Metaphorically speaking, of course. I hope.


Moving right along: It's getting to be time for sentencing for Reuben F Lopez, said to be the Greater Washington Metropolitan Region's "biggest dope-dealer ever.
[ ... ]
The Drug Enforcement Administration says it has dismanlted the vast network operated by Reuben F. Lopez who packed tractor-trailers with hundreds of pounds of cocaine and thousands of pounds of marijuana and then sent them to Washington, Cleveland, Detroit, Atlanta and Maine. At the height of the 12-year operation, Lopez was responsible for delivering about 110 pounds of high-quality cocaine and 2,000 pounds of marijuana each month to Washington.

While in prison, the DEA says Lopez planned to murder two government witnesses. Federal agents stomped out the murder plot and in the process discovered the letters Lopez smuggled out of a Charles County jail with the help of a clergyman.

"He is the biggest dealer we've ever arrested in the Washington area," said one of two DEA case agents who spoke to The Examiner on the condition of anonymity. Lopez's failing heart has kept him in the hospital and his sentencing date undetermined.
[ ... ] ("Area's top drug kingpin busted after betrayal", Klopott, Freeman, Washington Examiner, September 30, 2009)



And now it's time for Dear Diary to get an earful.

First, the less-beer project is moving right along. Last night, over a 5 hour period, I drank 6 beers. This also marks one week that I've had less than 9 beers a night, and last night's roughly one-an-hour barely constitutes a buzz, much less being drunk. So, "coming soon", I guess I'll draw it down to 4 beers a night, or two, or whatever. Keeping in mind that "it's good to be humble", I probably won't bother telling anyone when I finally quit, or if I relapse.

Interested parties should be able to tell on their own. For one thing, if I'm not drinking and have spare money in my pockets (from not spending it on beer), there's no reason at all for me to not be out and about in my car at night.

There's also no reason at all that I might not be up before dawn.


This morning was something that once I would have classified as "yet another horrid wakening before dawn". When my eyes popped open at 5:36, I just sort of sat there for five minutes and pondered the fact that I had no pressing business, nor any reason to sleep in. I could flip a coin, but I suppose I might as well get up and drink coffee, fetch in the paper and read it, get my act in order, and drive off to get another paper and then go take a walk.

One good thing about being out the door and on the road at 6:30AM, you don't have all that much company unless you get onto one of the arterials headed downtown. Plus, it's dark.

Lots of people have spread lots of rumors about me because I like being out when it's dark. They are cordially invited to, in the immortal words of former Vice-President Dick Cheney, "go fuck yourself".

The truth is, most people go inside when it's dark, and I am not gregarious. This means that when the sun goes down, the "madding crowd" disperses, and I can stop to admire when at other times I would be crushed aside by the crowds rushing hither and yon.

I am, of course, not the only one who has ever felt this way.


I like daylight just fine, too, I should add. Anyone who has driven past the house while I've been cutting the family lawn at high noon in the middle of the August heat waves can tell you, not only do I tan just fine, but I can sweat just fine, too.

Yet I still recall how once, when I was barely 18, I and two friends I'd just met were hanging out in a vacant apartment. One of the gals said something like "damn, I wish I had a candle, I can't see a damned thing!" and the other gal and I just looked at her, and looked at each other, and looked around the room, and then the one gal asked the other gal if maybe she wasn't eating right because some Vitamin A ought to fix her right up with that lack-of-night-vision problem.

Every now and then -- it's rare, thank goodness -- I wind up talking to someone in some dimly lit bar and they mention how they "can't see a thing in here".

The last time someone said it to me, all I could say was "I'm so sorry". And I was. I don't know if they understood that I was actually sorry for them: to me, and to almost everyone else in the bar, it might as well have been outside on a cloudy day.

Of course, I can't see in total darkness and if I get far enough out in the boondocks so that there's not a lot of light-pollution from nearby cities and towns, I need a flashlight like anyone. For me, the main difference between the well-lit suburban night and any old daytime is that at night, the only color I see is the hideous orange of certain streetlights, and the occasionally bizarre spectra emitted by some of the new "high performance" vehicle headlights... or when it's dark and clear enough, the red of planet Mars or star Antares, or the blue of Sirius (which reminds me of the spectra of some of the car headlights. Hmmm...).

But that in the modern day and age, when they have not just vitamins, but fresh carrots and spinach in every grocery store, and there are still people who can't see the sidewalk under a sodium street lamp? Like I said to the man: I'm so sorry. But don't go telling crazy stories because I'm not undernourished, or genetically defective, like you.


Let me tell you a story, and this is not funny. Not at all.

I was at work in an office downtown, and it was getting on to 6PM and most people had gone home. I was on the late-leaving shift segment, the guy who "closes up shop".

One of the higher-ups was walking around in the hall, and lo and behold, he meets someone from college, who he clearly hasn't seen in years and as clearly they were best buds back in the day.

You know how guys are when they're doing a decade or two of catch-up, and these two are both happy as clams, so to speak. They're standing right where the hallway makes a right-angle turn.

And behind the one man comes the steady tap-tap-tap of someone feeling their way down the hallway with a white cane.

So the two former college buddies are finishing up their discussion of how it's been going for the last decade or so, and they exchange card, promise to meet at a bar or somesuch, and both of them turn to go their different ways down different halls.

And the one man, clearly lost in reminiscence, turns around and strides off purposefully for exactly one step and bangs headfirst into the guy with the cane.

Both fall on their ass.

And the one guy yells at the other guy, "why the hell don't you watch where you're going?!"

And the other guy says, "I'm blind."


I said it isn't funny. Stop laughing, dammit.

I had to help the one guy up; the other guy, blushing really quite well for a black man, just sort of jumped up and ran off like the lawyer that he was.

The one guy wasn't really totally blind, but he had some sort of degenerative eye condition and he wore specs with what looked like a telescope sticking out of one lens. He could read with that, if he got the end of it right on the page. Even though he was late, I helped him find the file he needed and even made a copy for him. Once pointed in the right direction, he found his way out on his own quite well. People adapt.

Well, some people adapt... and some people tell ridiculous stories about people who can see pretty well in the dark, and like to come out at night when the crowds aren't cluttering up the street, and watch the really grand glories of Creation. Because, you see, in the daytime, I can see no farther than the six miles to the horizon, and maybe 7 miles to the top of a thunderhead or to a jet, but when darkness falls and the stars come out, I am looking across a large part of the Universe, and a true and immense vastness of Creation.

And it is beautiful, indeed.


Drinking less, I think I'll be seeing the stars and planets more, and television less. Look, one of the main reasons I was drinking so much was to try to get through the insipid banality and thoughtlessness of "reality shows".

Waking early, I might see Venus or Mercury; there's less pollution in the AM so Mercury would be more visible. Not much blots out Venus, the brightest nighttime object next to Luna.

Also, waking early, I may get to see a blonde.


Hey, I told you there would be blondes!

Once there were lots of blondes, and blonds, and redheads as well, here in Aspen Hill.

Of course, this was 40 and more years ago, long before the Invasion, and even before Senator Ted Kennedy decided to make it really easy for Irish-Americans to import their remaining relatives from Northern Ireland and for escapees from the Iron Curtain countries to legally immigrate with "no questions asked" so long as they had relatives here.

As for redheads, we had Irish, Scots, German, and even yummy Napolitan redheads with cat-green eyes made to melt hearts. We had blond Poles, Irish, Scots, German, Slovak, Russian, you name it. Blonds everywhere. We didn't know about UV dangers and the Ozone Layer wasn't yet destroyed so everyone went out all day every day and limitless in number were the freckles. There were brunets here and there but they tended to have sandy brown hair and green eyes, except for the occasional Italian or other Mediterranean origin people. The (arguably) prettiest girl in my junior-high school had a last name very well known in Spain, and eyes the color of Liz Taylor's.

Now, everywhere you look, it's brunets with dark eyes. Outside of places like Denmark or Iceland, Blondes are an Endangered Species.

There used to be a joke about parts of New England and the total lack of defenses or controls at the Canadian border. The roads were the same on either side of the border, as were the forests, and the border wasn't much marked. So the only way you could tell in which country you were was to drive into the nearest town "and if there aren't any blondes in sight, you're in Quebec".

Well, it's not just me that notices that at least in this part of Aspen Hill -- and definitely to judge by who's riding the "48" bus -- "it's like being in a foreign country".

Can it actually be true that in all of this side of Aspen Hill, there are only two blondes?

Monday, September 28, 2009

Technical News and Notes

(Updated, added web-cam info at top section. Generally "stet" at 1600 hours.)

The Astute Reader still can't deign to post a comment here, and thus I feel safe in presuming that either they don't exist -- as SiteMeter would have me believe -- or perhaps they are sufficiently astute as to not reveal their reading to all and sundry, including SiteMeter. Thus, in the absence of any kind of feedback, I must presume there's no readership, and this is less for the attentions of the Astute Reader, and more for the memory of Dear Diary.

First, a technical note.

Those who remember that since 2001 or so I have involved myself deeply in trying to increase security, reduce crime, and stop violence.

Part of increasing security involved mounting webcams to the world-wide web. You can see what they saw within the last minute, during daylight hours. One of the cameras sees best in low-light conditions, so the image is a bit washed-out during the bright sunshine.

Part of this also involves archiving the images taken, and thanks to immense storage media, I've been known to pile up images for a year or more at a time. However, since there's four images taken per minute, it has been a little difficult for people to search through the image repository.

So now, for the crime researcher's pleasure and ease of doing their work -- not to mention reducing server load, it's a big hit on performance when the server has to list 100,000 files in between each selection and then hit the 'back' button -- the new archive now generates per-day archiving in per-day/per-camera subdirectories, and each hour automatically gets its own index generated, on a per-camera individual basis.

See the archive. Be advised that only days previous to the current day have been indexed, don't want too much Real Time Spying going on.

Also be advised that it took less than 24 hours after activation of the bus-stop security-cam before all of the foreigners riding the bus were aware that the cam was working, and now they all wait at the stop for the bus going the other way, and then cross and board when their actual intended bus approaches. Also, they tend to board or debark now at bus-stops out of camera range.

Talk about furtive! But hell, I really don't like them standing around at the bus-stop in my front yard, anyways.

And now, moving right along:


Some time ago I was donated a couch which is rather more comfortable, despite its age, than the couch which had been sitting in the basement since roughly 1967.

The old couch was a sort of pre-Ikea masterpiece of Nordic furniture crafting, a bit art-deco or somesuch, all elegant swooping lines, naugahide upholstery, and snap-together-and-glue construction. It was also the most heinous pain machine ever devised for anyone with a bad back, and furthermore the naugahide tended to stick to all exposed skin. I think I may have sat in it perhaps a few dozen times in my life. While it looked like a fine piece of art -- and I have tended to keep it polished as such -- in terms of utility, it was trash.

Well, it's not just Yours Truly who thinks so.


For some years after I returned here in late 1995, having been out-and-about in the nation at large, I used to suffer from, well, call them nightmares or dreams or whatever, but by whatever name, it was an unpleasant experience.

It's not too different from what is reported by the folks who claim to have been abducted by space creatures, with the exception that I make no claims to space creatures, or Anal Probes.

No, for me, the experience was that I would hear voices making remarks.

Imagine that you've left a camera in your house and burglars come, and you catch all of the dialogue. For most people, they'd be aghast when the tape was played, especially when the burglars discover the stash of cash or jewelry and declare "jackpot" to each other.

That's bad enough.

But can you imagine if the tape caught burglars who weren't interested in your cash or jewelry, but simply wandered around your house, remarking on your kitschy taste in furniture, your abominable interior decoration, your execrable taste in wall-hung portraiture, and declared your carpet to have been evidently bought at a fire-sale for twelve cents a square foot. Then they examine your footwear and declare that "this was so last year, a decade ago, and five years before they bought it". They then move on to your ties and declare you not merely a fashion menace, but a clear and present danger to the status of public mental health should you dare to appear in public wearing that, people would think they were hallucinating and throw themselves under buses. Then they hold the offending items all together as if modeling an outfit, and one takes pictures, everyone laughs, they put everything back where it was, and depart, leaving not even footprints and taking with them only photographs and a good laugh.


People have actually done this, more often than you might think. However, this example is both historical and Infamous:

Charles Manson Creepy Crawl @ Yahoo! Video
Recognize it? It's the Charles Manson Family.


The Mansonites used to do this quite frequently.

From the Testimony of Linda Kasabian in the Tate/LaBianca murder trial:

A: I thought we were going on a creepy-crawl mission.

Q: A creepy-crawling mission?

A: Yes.

Q: What is a creepy-crawling mission?

A: A creepy-crawling mission is where you creepy-crawl into people's houses and you take things which actually belong to you in the beginning, because it actually belongs to everybody. I remember one specific instance where the girls made Charlie a long, black cape, and one of the girls was fitting it to him, and he sort of said, "Now when I go creepy-crawling, people won't see me because they will think I am a bush or a tree."

Of course, this testimony regards the night of the actual horrific murder of Sharon Tate, et al.

All of that other creepy-crawling was just practice.


A few nights ago, sleeping a very light sleep as I have managed to cut down my beer consumption from an average of about 12 a night to about 6 a night -- trust me, for me that's an improvement -- I froze the instant of wakening and listened. I couldn't make out the second voice, though I think it said "that's enough, let's go". What I made out pretty clear, though, was what I recall as "well, we can always get him for Hoarding".

Compulsive Hoarding Syndrome (or "Hoarding") is a pathological psychological disorder in which people, well, collect crap.

Useless things pile up, saved by the afflicted person according to some internal valuation that is quite skewed from "normal", whatever "normal" might be thought to be.

Here's a checklist, from the Obsessive Compulsive Foundation website (cited with link immediately above):
[ ... ]
To differentiate "normal" collecting from compulsive hoarding, Dr. Randy Frost and his colleagues define the compulsive hoarding syndrome according to three criteria:

1. The acquisition of, and failure to discard, possessions that appear to be useless or of limited value. Compulsive hoarders have an obsessive need to acquire and save many objects, and tremendous anxiety about discarding them, because of a perceived need for the objects for their apparent value. Sometimes an excessive emotional attachment to them develops. A compulsive hoarder will think, "This is too good to throw away," "This is important information," "I will need this later on," "This should not be wasted." These thoughts are generally normal, but their frequency and the importance attached to them are clearly excessive in compulsive hoarders. If they have any doubt at all as to the value of an object -- no matter how trivial, compulsive hoarders will keep it -- just in case.

2. Living spaces sufficiently cluttered so as to preclude activities for which those spaces were originally designed. Obviously, with many items coming into the home and very few going out, the clutter will accumulate. It does not take long for the clutter to spread onto the floors, counter tops, hallways, stairwells, garage, and cars. Beds become so cluttered that there is no room to sleep. Chairs become buried under clutter, so there is nowhere to sit. Kitchen counters become so cluttered that food cannot be prepared. For many hoarders, it gets to a point where there might be only a narrow pathway that connects each room, and the rest of the house is piled several feet high with clutter. It becomes impossible to use many areas of the house for their original purpose.

3. Significant distress or impairment in functioning is caused by the hoarding. Because of their desire for perfection, compulsive hoarders frequently take a long time to do even small chores. An inordinate amount of time may be spent "churning" -- moving items from one pile to another but never actually discarding any item nor establishing any consistent organizational system. Many compulsive hoarders have limited social interactions. The nature of their problem makes them socially isolated. They are frequently too embarrassed by their clutter to have people come to their home, sometimes for many years. Some compulsive hoarders are able to work, but they will often comment that they are not working in a job that fully utilizes their skills or potential. They always come in early and leave late because they take much longer than other people to finish tasks. A survey of elderly hoarders found that hoarding constituted a physical health threat in 81% of identified cases. These included threat of fire hazard, falling, unsanitary conditions, and inability to prepare food.
[ ... ] ("Compulsive Hoarding Syndrome - An Introduction", Maidment, Karron RN M.A., Obsessive Compulsion Foundation website, downloaded 2009 September 28.)

As for me, I figure that now that I have passed on to another that decorative but useless couch, I can now use the much nicer couch that I have. I don't know, though, do all of the little throw pillows on the couch count as "clutter"? Well, they don't perfectly match the upholstry, so some folks might say "of course it's clutter. How declasse, non-matching throw pillows. Lock him up for electroshock!"

And now, with the old couch gone and the new one moved into position, I have a place for that really nice old rosewood antique coffee table, so it's not going to be collecting clutter. Etc etc etc.

Look, I know from clutter, and I've had to clean out the detrietus from people who were pathologic hoarders. After the last one, I decided that I should always be on guard against "being possessed by the Crapification demon".

About three or four times a year, I give my living space a good going-over and generally take a truckload of crap to the dump.

I have a bookshelf that is chock full of science fiction paperbacks. They are even in alphabetic order, sorted by last name of author as is standard practice. Sadly, I need to go buy another bookcase to take up the rougly 50 book overflow. I could also get another filing cabinet to orderly file the five years of bank records that Federal law requires me to keep on-premises, rather than just stacking them in "office stacker" racks.

Still, all in all, since I dump the trash and recycle the recyclables once a week, though I may not order my life and living space as is de-rigeur for Gays and Obsessives Interior Decorating Magazine subscribers, I don't think it rises to the level of "hoarding". Though I imagine that some people might be fooled by the ever growing pile of stuff that is scheduled for a trip to the dump, when it gets big enough or when I am headed to the dump already, whichever comes first. It's piled perfectly out of the way, right next to the door, because it's less distance to carry.

Of course, all of these protestations do not for a moment resolve the other glaring issue.

The other glaring issue, of course, is whether or not I might be suffering from Sleep Paralysis, an episode of Lucid Dreaming, something in between the two.

Then again, given the provisions of the USA Patriot Act and the fuzziness of Constitutional protections when warrantless search-and-seizure including wiretaps, computer hacking, black-bag jobs, and stalking are allowed -- not to mention the shameful case of the Maryland State Police infiltrating anti-death-penalty activism groups as well as others -- I need to figure out, if I am really hearing unauthorized voices in my house waking me from sleep, who exactly is responsible:

Out of control police, or social agency workers or allies operating far outside of reasonable bounds? What is this, fucking El Salvador? (looks around neighborhood, shudders...)

Or is it a modern Manson Family?

One thing's for sure: now that the ugly useless couch is gone, they're not going to "get him for Hoarding".


Sunday, September 27, 2009

Who Scares Me More...

Dear Diary,

As I have long since abandoned all hope that there is an Astute Reader of this blog -- unless of course they're reading it from crawler cache which would fit right in with known local psychology -- I guess it's time for more pointless meandering.


Fareed Zakaria is on the TV, having just interviewed Moammar Gadhafi.

For some reason, Mr Zakaria scares me more.

It has nothing to do with his politics, nor his erudition, thoughtful and spot-on analyses, his incisive question and his direct yet polite interview style.

Moammar Gadhafi should scare me more. Although long demonized by US media and a lot of politicians, Gadhafi seems less the monster than he's been represented to be. Certainly his history is far from spotless, and there is much about his history that lends some credence to speculations that he might have been a very high-function schizophrenic, or suffering from a related disorder.

Such disorders, in high-function cases, often present with an adult onset easily interpreted as religious or political dedication, often to the level of fanaticism, and following on the heels of that, sometimes people can do terrible things with little expression of remorse. In their minds, with the certainty they give to their creed or ideology, there is no place for remorse for the Enemy or the Unbeliever. These people, it should be noted, are not the same thing as sociopaths, because their motivations differ and are classically human and social, with long dedication and often with little concern for personal gain, and they may care deeply for their allies and fellows, however admirable or despicable the aims and actions of their faith or faction.

Yet many people with such disorders may spend their lives on medication that will do little to alter the disorder, and in most cases, such people would not see it as a disorder. How, they might ask, can Faith be thought to be a disorder? How can Party loyalty be seen to be a disorder? Yet as time goes on, as midlife comes and goes, often we see spontaneous remission of disorders along the schizophrenic axis... and we see it not only in the severe cases, but also in the mild cases.

About 2003 or so, suddenly the appearance, the politics, and the former emotional convictions and ideological proclamations fell by the wayside, and rather than representing himself as a warrior, Gadhafi started doing things that showed a lot more concern for the well-being of his subjects, even those who might be thought to be political or ideological "faithless" or even in non-violent opposition. And for the last few years, it's as if he has come to realize the error of his former ways, but cannot bring himself to publicly admit any fault or directly express guilt.

Moammar Gadhafi doesn't scare me any more, at least not to look at him. He no longer has that tense and coiled look, nor that glitter in his eye, nor that posture of absolute conviction and woe betide whomever might obstruct him. No, now Muammar Gadhafi looks like the sort of old man you might meet downtown in a park, playing chess with all of the other old men.

Fareed Zakaria, on the other hand, would scare me half to death if I ran into him in a dark alley. Hell, he scares me half to death just watching him on television.

Does this make me a racist? I don't know; I don't think it's race, because I don't think him better or worse, nor do I think myself or my kind better or worse. I have neighbors who have their origins in Palestine, and they don't scare me just because they're Arabic, even though we have not always seen eye to eye and at some times now and then, we just did not get along. Yet it doesn't bother me to look at them.

Totally due to no fault of his own, however, Fareed Zakaria scares me.

And in total counterpoint, a lot of people who probably should really scare me, do not. Much.


Like Moammar Gadhafi, I'm mostly past the age where I can be fanatical about ideology or faith. Yet habits of thinking remain, as well as some convictions. Do I remain strong in my convictions that I should love and defend my nation and its Constitution and our varying ways of life? Absolutely I do. Do I remain strong in my conviction that such Faith as I have is, and should be, something that should be Humanist, Rationalist, and as close as possible to what can be verified by the tests of Philosophy and Science? You bet.

Among the habits of thinking I retain from my days as a sort of mild fanatic, I retain a fascination with the concepts of Good and Evil.

For me a lot of questions about Good and Evil can be answered by a so-called "test by results". The ends, of course, do not necessarily justify the means, and I find it easy to resolve that question by thinking "if it causes no harm, do then as you will".

Yet one can't be constrained by that in a simplistic way: if a doctor were to think "if it causes harm it can't be done" then they could not set knife to flesh to carve out a tumor. It's necessary sometimes to balance harm against harm, and benefit against benefit, and each against the other. A doctor could amputate an arm to save a life, because failure to engage in a certain level of harm will result on far greater harm.

A doctor, it must be said, is a doctor. In the solid science side of medical practice, cause and effect, precedent and consequent, and above all documentation of case histories, that's what they know and that is what guides them. Perhaps the greatest skill that comes from all of their training is "prognosis", literally "of the future to know" or "having knowledge of outcome". Most people think that it means "prediction". The real meaning in the medical context -- seen through the lens of my limited education -- is "I know what I will see as this has been often seen before".

A doctor, then, may say within the realm of his training and practice, "I see this, and this, and know that there will be the following sequence of events"; this is prognosis. You've seen one case of smallpox, and you've seen them all. The only question remaining is whether or not the patient will survive the course of the illness; there is no question at all about the course of the illness itself.

Yet most people, obviously, don't have the training of the doctor, and even the doctor sensibly limits their prognostication to the realm of their training and experience in medicine.

A doctor might say "I know the course of this illness, and I may with certain knowledge act to intervene here, here, or here, and in specific ways that are known to work, or reasonably must be expected to have useful effects".

A lot of people out there, sadly enough, think that they can do the same. Yet they may try to do this far outside the realm of their education and/or training.

It's one thing to say "if I do not spray insecticides on your termite infestation, within five years your house will collapse".

And to use a horrid example, it's quite another thing to say "if we don't lynch that black man now, in the future he'll be molesting white women".


Only a few things could make someone say something like that.

It's easy enough to spot the ones who would say that because they're full of hate and are offering rationalizations to their hate-driven need to murder.

It's probably nearly as easy to spot the ones who would say that because they're simpletons and easily led, and actually believed some hateful assholes because even the lies of an asshole might be thought -- by simple minds -- to be preferable to utter ignorance and having no opinion at all.

It's quite another thing to spot those who actually believe that Prior Restraint has any logical validity.


Prior Restraint is generally considered unconstitutional as well as logically fallacious.

How is this fallacious? Look at this case:

If you lynch someone, it's possible to say "because they are dead, they cannot molest". That is true enough.

It is also possible that they had no intention, no opportunity, no motive. It is as possible that they would have had intention, opportunity, motive. Neither case can be demonstrated by proof of results, of evidence of action, because the person in question is beyond action. Thus it is not legitimately possible to say "because we killed them, we prevented a certainty of criminal action". All that was prevented was a possibility of criminal action.

This is why we have a policy of Punishment rather than Prevention in almost all cases and causes. We may set Prohibitions which specify Penalty, yet absent very clear and present dangers, we cannot intervene to the individual. If you see someone with a knife chasing another person, you may reasonably intervene. If you see someone with a knife spreading butter on toast, you can't reasonably intervene in a murder, there's no victim and no clear intent nor action demonstrating any intent other than to butter some toast. Nor can one reasonably prevent a person from picking up a knife... unless, perhaps, they have a known and demonstrated history of trying (with or without success) to murder people with knives they picked up to butter some toast.


Who scares me more?

Despite my prior protestations against Prior Restraint, I have no compunctions against Prior Suspicion.

The sort of person who spreads a statement such as "we need to lynch that black man before he molests white women" because they need to spread a rationalization to their hate-fueled need to murder, I have no objection to people watching them with unyielding suspicion.

The sort of person who will believe that sort of idiocy, well, they too need to be the object of watchful eyes.

But we probably need to remember to be watchful for the sort of person who believes that it is even possible that "because the dead can do no harm, therefor kill or harm will be done" can be true. Though a subtle madness, that is a deep madness.


Hopefully everyone can follow this explanation, though it is clear that some cannot. To "err on the side of safety" is still to err.

Some folks have internalized this deep and subtle madness, but at a level where they would never force themselves to examine it. Most people would examine the madness inherent in the very emotion-charged statement "we need to lynch that black man now, or he will molest white women later". Most people would be shocked enough to rack their brains to show the fault in the logic.

Most people would not be so shocked by the statement "he's from a poor and disadvantaged socio-economic class, so of course he'll turn out to be a shiftless gangsta who will spend his life in and out of jail". Yet it's the exact same failure of logic.

To fail to provide for alternatives to that outcome would be failing to recognize the illogic of Prior Restraint.

Yet also, to fail to provide mechanisms to deal with probabilities towards that outcome would be failing to learn from history and statistics.

Thus, as soon as funding can be found towards both ends, we need to provide more and better outreach for those persons from "disadvantaged socio-economic strata" to encourage and enable those who would and can rise above; and, we also need to provide more and better law enforcement and remediative programs that will deal with those who would not -- or cannot -- rise above the stereotype and fallacious certainty of expectations.


A quick note: this posting did not segue from the beginning to the end in the way I had intended, yet I happen to like the (very non-rigorously arrived at) conclusion and furthermore am too lazy to re-write the whole thing.

Saturday, September 26, 2009

And I Thought I Had Problems...

And I thought that I had problems...

Could be worse:

Grid Pattern Commentary...

Due to a very short limit on size of comments at Just Up the Pike, I am forced to respond here, below, to an excellent, if misguidedly-titled article, indian spring redevelopment ties surrounding neighborhoods together.

Leaving aside, for the moment, that the surrounding neighborhoods desperately and vociferously don't want to be tied together, here's my commentary:
Excellent posting, Dan.

I had understood that due to the economic climate, the Indian Spring Country CLub project was stalled. I guess I was in error, but I must also mention that the local media such as the Gazette haven't let out a peep, one way or another.

I attended one of the pubilc meetings some 4 years ago, held at the old Saddlebrook Elementary school which is now the HQ of the Park Police. The plans as laid out showed that Poplar Run Drive would effectively be a first-approximation to a "Northwest Branch Parkway", at least in the minds of the folks from Tivoli.

Now, first, there are some ambiguities in the dilemma between cul-de-sacs and grid-pattern.

In my humble opinion, if you laid out a grid-pattern development, as seen in the District from the moment L'Enfant touched pen to parchment, all will go the way the theorists like to say: no matter where you are, all streets being equal, you can get from any place to any other place however you want, and people will tend to spread out their routes according the amorphous average of their random trip origins and random trip destinations. If you make every 5th or 10th street a double-wide arterial and every 20th street freeway, you will get useful traffic flows, and even if the freeway is jammed you can take the side streets.

Yet even the best laid plans of grid-pattern designers can come up against the harsh realities of terrain.

You'd think that Houston TX -- almost entirely grid pattern, everything built since 1970 or so, for sure -- would be the textbook example of how packed freeways can spill over onto side streets in a diffusion.

But it didn't work that way, not even when I lived there back in the 1970s and the freeways were pretty new.

The terrain got in the way.

Houston -- at least in the non-downtown/non-port areas -- is dead level and all of the drainiage is by sunken ditches referred to as "bayous". On only about one street of 10 would that street actually bridge the bayou.

See a map at Sharpstown Village ("near west" Houston) and look towards the top portion, the area bounded by Bissonet, Beechnut, Fondren, Bellaire, and Hillcroft. Note that between Sandpiper and Bintliff runs a drainage ditch. And even with one in three of the (more or less) grid pattern streets bridged over the bayou, that neighborhood is effectively cut in half. There are only two routes that go directly through the entire neighborhood, one north-south and one east-west.

Effectively this is a prime example of "connected cul-de-sacs". Yet even with a far higher rate than we see here of bridging of what MNCPPC might call "very minor streams", even back in the late 1970s trying to get through that neighborhood as an alternative to rush-hour traffic on the arterial streets was something of a traffic nightmare. I know, I used to drive it a lot.

My point is this: connecting cul-de-sacs is in no way a panacea. It only approaches that when you have nearly 100-percent grid connectivity across the entire region, or you get chokepoints. Whether or not the cul-de-sacs are small, or are large portions of otherwise connected cities separated by terrain and chokepoints, the whole "distributed traffic flow" ideal falls apart. It's only a "perfect case" that fits that bill.

That being said, more and better minor-arterials become necessary. In our area, due to the terrain and all sorts of streams large-and-small that have aggressive preservation advocates, these are hard to arrange. You have to locate them running parallel to the stream flows in most cases, and Poplar Run Drive will be a prime example of that.

Just keep in mind that it's going to get a lot of cut-through traffic, which is what neighborhood people call "diffusion". They don't like it.

In my opinion, you can better approach the grid-pattern ideal by having a lot more bridging of small streams serving a lot more small streets.

Friday, September 25, 2009

Stuff and More Stuff: Stuff.

(Updated, fixed link to "Rojas Mortgage Fraud Case" at WaPo. Stet September 26 1800 hours.)

(Updated, typo and grammar fixes, mom relents even before publication, etc. Stet at September 25 1307 hours.)

As always, it's necessary to blather on a bit about uninteresting personal details, Dear Diary, before getting to anything that the imaginary Astute Reader might find useful or entertaining. The Astute Reader -- doubtless a mere figment of my imagination -- can find anything that isn't excessive self-referential meandering and woolgathering towards the end of this entry.

First, my mother has evidently reached the age (let's just say she'll never see 88 again) where she has nothing better to do than to see if she can figure out where I draw the line, the line between cheerfully doing necessary tasks I should have noticed on my own, and catering to senseless whims of a crazy old woman.

Madness, unfortunately, seems to run in the family. But as best I can tell, it's sex-linked to the females.

We're getting a new shed, one of the cutesy faux-Amish things from Sheds USA, and a few days ago, I and my sister had a thankfully rare opportunity to work as a team clearing a base area for the shed.

When the Home Depot sales guy and site inspector came out, there was this somewhat acrimonious debate between my mother and the man over a rhododendron which mom planted at a certain spot. This "rhodo" has bloomed maybe one time, since it is in the most shaded part of the yard, and it has barely grown in the last 15 years or so, and has had several near-death experiences. Personally, I don't get attached to small imported shrubs, but some people are just sentimental; the rhododendron was nearly a deal-breaker. Eventually mom and I settled on a particular layout for the shed, I left, and she tried to dicker and eventually placed the order.

Thus, one day, my sister and I checked with my mother, and heard the sad and overlong tale of rhododendron near-tragedy, and decided to place the cleared shed site "footprint" where the doors wouldn't open onto the treasured (if scraggly and unflowering) bush. This involved much measuring to find and lay out the lot lines, measure five feet from them, drive stakes, hang string, dig and transplant pachysandra -- the only thing that will grow in that very shaded corner of the yard -- and then carve out the exposed dirt until there's a slightly-sloped flat spot where the shed can be installed without water pooling under it. Hours later -- hours marked by significant bitching about this and that on my part, and claims on my sister's part that there's nothing wrong with me that couldn't be fixed by medication, including the fact that despite no dates for 16 years I still have a sex-drive, I could take hormones and get a vasectomy while I am at it dontcha know -- the job is done and we are peppered with mosquito bite welts.

Yay! more or less painless, outside of the psychic damage I suffer from being told that any man who doesn't prefer post-menopausal women is a neandertal sexist and age-ist creep who should volunteer to be injected with Depo-Provera like a thrice-convicted sexually violent predator. Look, there are reasons I call her "Prozac Nation" and whole-heartedly -- if in a downplayed and subdued way -- agree with her rhapsodic claims that she really does need to be on medication. Take all you need, sweetie.

Well, of course, now that this is all done and I'm just waiting for delivery, my mother gets to talking with one of her old-gal friends, who used to live right next door to where the shed will go, and then decides that she's got to have the shed exactly five feet from the corner of lot lines.

I explain to mom that the reason the shed is where it is, is because if we put it where she now claims she always wanted it, then the door at that corner of the shed will open across her beloved rhododendron over which she put up such a fight in previous discussions. She doesn't believe me. So I get her to come out, and with much use of tape-measures and planting of marker stakes and general gesticulation and hand-waving, point out to her that despite her faulty visualization and imagination, reality is what it is and measurements are measurements and the shed will be the size that it is, not what she imagines, wishes, or fantasizes it to be.

I point out all of this, and then say, look, almost certainly the door opens outward, the swing of it will lop off the rhodo. Even if they designed it so that the door opens inward -- wasting a lot of internal storage space -- traffic in and out of that door will crush the rhodo; that's why we cleared the site where we did, to save the precious shrub that has barely survived, hardly grown, and flowered only once in a decade.

Then she tells me that she didn't order the shed the way we had discussed, she ordered a different (lame) configuration, just so that we could put it where she now has decided she wants it. So where is the door on that side now, mom, I ask, and she tells me that it's on the other end, next to the double-doors on the adjoining wall. Well, how will we get to stuff stacked in the rear? We just have to stack things more carefully. Yet still, walking in or out of that door in the new location, you might not crush the rhodo, but you'll still bang into a rather large beech tree.

So when did you change the configuration? Oh, she says, before you dug the site.

And considering that we planned that site based on the configuration and concerns for your rhododendron? Oh, she says, I didn't want to upset you with the details. Um, the whole plan and all basis for site-planning is based on the details, and you don't want to upset us before we do the work? But afterwards is okay?

Finally she accepts that her rhododendron is going away if the shed goes where she now insists that it be. She waves her hand imperiously, dismissively, "so it's gone". What did her friend say to her to make that rhododendron -- over which she had practically sobbed for salvation when we discussed the site in the first place -- far less important than putting the shed in a place far less aesthetically balanced than the site we measured and carved out? WTF, are there bodies buried there that need to have the shed right on top of them? I was out of town for a few years and have no idea. Where the shed goes does not much matter to me, other than that I only have to clear the footprint site for it exactly one time. Well now, because one of her biddy old friends paid a visit, I have to dig up a former treasure about which mom now does not care, and dig up and transplant even more pachysandera, and once again deal with stakes and lines and line-levels and calculations for drainage.

By temperament and the paternal-line traditions and culture, I am a person who builds from plans and makes damned good plans. As someone who has spent his adult life dealing with computer hardware, software, and the emergent conditions of networking, I have had to learn to think very rationally on top of the temperament of a mechanic and builder.

Craziness pisses me off, I mean to say, and I can think of nothing crazier -- at the moment -- than me being stuck in the position of having to accede to the momentary whims of a crazy old woman who changes her mind about already-sited semi-permanent (not easily relocated) structures because one of her friends dropped by said something to her.

So I am considering this to be just another test of how far I can be pushed, because if I think of it as a sign of elder insanity (there are lots of others), I will start researching the concept of a court-appointed conservator.


Now, despite all of these terrible and very personal bad-examples which have led me for most of my life to associate "female" with personalities that are irrational, prone to flights of whimsy especially when instigated by friends/peers/rivals and thankfully will gratefully indulge in their lifelong addiction to antidepressants, this does not mean I don't like females.


In many many years of internet, in various discussion groups such as UseNet as well as in e-mail, I have come to appreciate the female mind more than most men would ever suspect was possible.

In person, in social situations, I frequently find women to be nearly unfathomable and right at the edge of commonly being downright Weird. No doubt, this is because they are women and I am a man. That is the world in which most people live, in which the species and the sexes and their gender-roles and gender-specific subcultures developed. Even with those with whom I have had lengthy correspondence at far distances become totally different creatures when trapped within the physical social melieu. Maybe it's just me.

They keep telling me, "you know, you're totally different from how I imagined you".

This is why:



Woof woof! I am funny looking, at least nowadays. I have a big head, a bad hairline, what hair remains is fluffy and unmanageable without putting icky grease in my hair which will only make the bad hairline worse, and as happens with a lot of former jock-types, I have gone a bit to flab. Yet it wasn't always so.

Furthermore, if I rapidly change focus and direction of vision -- and especially if I'm looking at a human face to see if it's anyone I recognize (or to remember when I first meet) my eyes bug out.


Well, not quite that bad.

But I somehow suspect that all of those erudite and thoughtful l'il Goth and Alternative gals with whom I have corresponded for years never expected that In Real Life the guy they'd been debating for years was in surprisingly athletic condition -- quite frankly, for both boys and girls, most Goths are pretty fat -- and had a big fat head, and eyes that bug out at people like he was either terrified or maybe about to bite, or possibly both.

The eye-bugging thing is one of many strategies, it seems -- and this one is nothing I learned, it just sort of happened -- for coping with Presbyopia, or the decrease in eye lens flexibility that naturally occurs with most people as they pass through middle-age. People who already wear glasses usually just get bifocals. For those of us with better-than-normal vision, long before we succumb to an increasing need to go out and buy reading-glasses (or driving glasses), we just work harder at getting focus. For me, since the usual muscles aren't strong enough to flex the lens and get focus, I had the somewhat-rare genetic ability to flex muscles to distort the shape of the eye itself. And that makes the eye bulge out.

I first noticed this at a bank drive-through window, where every time my eyes drifted back to the display of the video camera pointed into my car, I could see my eyes bug as I acquired focus lock. Wow, I thought, that is just not very attractive.

You know, someone could have told me.

That might explain the expression on the face of the genuinely lovely and truly buff Cute Jogger Girl on the exercise trail this morning. When she got close enough for me to be able to focus on her face, I did, wondering if she might be someone I knew in real life, but had never before seen in skimpy jogging shorts. Nope, nobody I knew. And in the time it took me to focus on her face, her "I'm running right past you, but hi, anyway" smile turned into a grimace I suppose I need to understand as horror. I guess she'll be jogging elsewhere and elsewhen from now on. Maybe I should just wear sunglasses, which I loathe, but I guess it's better to loathe than to be loathed.


Leaving aside the many weirdnesses of Your Truly, and how people who thought I was just another dog on the internet seem to generally be a bit weirded out to find that I'm no dog, I want to reiterate that I really have found correspondences and even debates -- even rather vituperative and rancorous ones -- with females online to be generally more interesting and rewarding than such correspondences online with other males.

The women generally were far better debaters, even if I thought they picked their positions out of their ass like lint from cheap toilet-paper. They generally had a better idea of where to begin the debate, where they wanted to go by the end of it, and through what routes and detours the debate was likely to wander.

Men tended to take a position and just hammer away at it, and if you countered their argument, they generally would just call you an asshole and take their fight elsewhere. On those rare instances where people proved me flat out wrong, I would and will state "I Stand Corrected" but as all wise persons know, that has almost never had to happen. Sometimes it has, but it is damned rare. Among other things, I "argue like a girl", meaning that until people understand that I am more right than they are, the last word hasn't been said. For me, I generally am more right than they are. I'm not an authority and in any case "argument to authority" is a classic rhetorical fallacy, the valuable truth isn't that someone is an authority, but that what they say is true and correct and detailed.

The women understand this: it's not about who is right and who is wrong (or just not right), it's about what wrong and right are. Well, that's an oversimplification and generalization, and I should know better than that, but really, it's not about the person taking the position, it's about the veracity of the position taken. A lot of the guys are doing what we call "dick waving" or "having a pissing contest". They claim to be right because they are right, regardless of the validity of their claims or arguments. There is of course no worse case of this than pompous fucks who are maybe two years out of college, unless maybe it's pompous fucks who are maybe 10 years out of college and are grossly overpaid mostly for being pompous.

Of course, sometimes the ladies aren't doing anything but looking for a fight. The ladies of Usenet's alt.gothic newsgroup were occasionally notorious for that, some of them, at least.


Some folks just like to pick fights, and I'm generally up to dispute almost anything for any or no reason. I've read quite a lot -- look at how much I've typed; I've read many volumes more than I type -- and have Teh Intarwebs at my disposal to tell me what I don't already know, and I can take the opposite side of almost anything. However, one Heather (redacted) in alt.gothic loved to troll me into a debate.

H: klaatu, do you know that rape is really really bad!

K (me): why you're right. I can't agree more.

H: No, I mean, it's genuinely terrible.

K: I agree. Demeans all involved and aside from that, it's violence and just shouldn't be done.

H: I am about to dress up like the most gothic tart in the UK and head down to the sailor's bar at the wharf and turn a lot of heads with my fishnets and corset.

K: Heather, I've seen photos of you, and that itself constitutes demeaning and violent. Really you shouldn't do that.

H: What then, now you're suggesting that it's okay for a sailor long at sea to rape a girl when he think's he's being provoked?

At this point, I'm struggling manfully to not tell her that the real problem here is that if she's planning to tart it up down at the wharf, first she ought to drop three stone of body fat, and secondly, that the sailors might get a bit upset over her stealing their fishnets to make into stockings and furthermore doing an incompetent job of the darning.

K: No, Heather, I'm suggesting that it's just wrong for you to poke a salty dog in the eye with a stick and expect it not to bite.

H: What's this then? Either it's wrong and never right, no matter what, or you're a terrible terrible man.

K: That isn't at all what I meant and you know it, wrong is wrong and two wrongs don't make a right.

About five days later, she finally gets it through her head that rather than making excuses for the inexcusable (in this case, rape), I'm trying to point out to her that saying she should go tart it up down at the wharf is itself inexcusable, only slightly less so because it's intentional provocation, and only slightly moreso because the only thing sadder than going through life "fat, drunk, and stupid" is going through life fat, drunk, stupid, and dressed like an idiot considering her age and figure.

From here on, the debate degenerated even further, especially after she held forth that I was saying that she ought not to be raped for tarting it up at the wharf in her present condition, but if she'd been 20 years younger and 40 pounds lighter it might be thought to be a different story. I do believe I went a bit too far when I said that there's no accounting for taste, and she hadn't been "all that" before she learned to cook far too many sweets for herself, but while it would remain unforgivable, at least it might be understandable. For some values of understandable, again there being no accounting for taste.

Considering that all of this was coming from someone who identified herself as a "part time professional Dominatrix" (did I mention that I had seen photos), I figured she just wanted a spat, so I gave her one.

Fortunately, she wasn't typical; she just wanted to go on and on and never drop a fight she'd started, had total victory from my first response of "I agree, terrible thing, ought not to happen". Yet on and on she went.

Online, she was more typical of the male approach to debate.

In Real Life, she's more typical of my female relatives and my last several "real" girlfriends. Sadly, the response she provoked from me is about what said relatives and GFs eventually drive me to; and having been raised by and for women, once they get my goat, so to speak, it comes natural to me to be one snippy little bitch.

And noted in passing, mom seems to have become less crazy and has decided that the new shed might turn out to be best placed at the footprint already cleared. This leaves me wondering what might have come over her.

But enough of talking to Dear Diary, let's try to scrape up something for the Astute Reader.


The Astute Reader is doubtless a figment of my imagination. A hundred or so search-engine webcrawlers read this blog, and doubtless one of them has it in cache. That, most likely, would be where the Astute Reader would be reading this, in the company no doubt of assorted spies, stalkers, nosy neighbors, radio "shock jocks" looking for people to mock, and what ever poor cops have bene detailed to lurk the internet in general and the local geographic blogspace in particular. For that last crew, thanks for doing this desperately needed work, but I feel so damn sorry for you.

Just not sorry enough to not leave the preceding big stinking pile of crap for all of the rest of the above-named parties to wade through.


Astute Reader!

Mortgage Fraud is something everyone's heard of, but when the Rojas family engaged in massive mortgage fraud -- not to mention massive violations of federal law about aiding and abetting illegal aliens -- they definitely didn't think small.
[ ... ]
Investigators have identified 34 houses bought using unqualified buyers and turned into illegal boardinghouses. The total value of those properties is about $20 million, police said. Investigators expect that the scheme might ultimately involve more than 200 houses in Fairfax.

If the Rojases and their alleged co-conspirators had merely used the straw buyers and siphoned their profits from the sales commissions and reselling of the properties, the scheme might have lasted much longer, investigators said. But they inevitably converted each property into a packed boardinghouse, attracting the attention of neighbors who complained to elected officials.

"The real heroes in this story are the citizens of Fairfax County," said U.S. Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D-Va.), who helped launch the code strike force in 2007 when he was chairman of the Fairfax Board of Supervisors. Connolly cited "neighborhood leaders like Tawny Hammond, president of the Springfield Civic Association, who brought the problem of overcrowded homes to our attention."
[ ... ]
A lot of these multiple dwellings are like what you'd see in a Third World dwelling," McClellan said. "I've seen Styrofoam ceilings. Portable walls. Stairways bolted shut. Windows with no egress." She said she once visited a 1,100-square-foot house that had 17 people living inside.
[ ... ] ("Va. Family Targeted in 'McMansion' Mortgage Fraud Scam: Huge Homes Allegedly Became Boardinghouses", Jackman, Tom, Washington Post, September 25, 2009, downloaded 2009, September 25)


Of course, this sort of thing is rampant all over the area, including -- most likely -- Aspen Hill, Maryland and nearby "outer Silver Spring".

Just a week or so ago, we covered the case of Alma Preciado, who fled to the Border with $300,000 bilked from a retired couple in a shade real-estate transaction. Prior to that, she was in the same business as the Rojas family: mostly arranging sketchy sub-prime loans for illegal aliens through straw-buyers.

Moving right along, we hear from the Gazette that the Montgomery County graduation rate is rapidly decreasing, especially for certain ethnic groups:
[ ... ]
For the fourth straight year, the graduation rate for Hispanics was the lowest among all subgroups — at 77 percent.

That's down considerably from 2003, when 88 percent of Hispanics graduated. That's the most recent year that Hispanics didn't have the lowest graduation rate of any subgroup. The graduation rate of black students in 2003 came in lower, at 87 percent.

Diego Uriburu, deputy executive director of Identity Inc. in Gaithersburg, said county officials need to do more to fix the low graduation rate for Hispanics.

"We really need to look at the core issues that are at play here," he said. "We as a community have not looked at the root causes of these statistics."

The county recently convened a Latino Collaborative, with school and government leaders, to address the crisis of Hispanic youth. The first meeting was Aug. 26, and the group is supposed to finalize eight to 12 recommendations by next year, Uriburu said.

Some Hispanic students drop out of school to help their families pay bills, or they don't feel comfortable in school, he said.

"The real question is, Why hasn't there been a concerted effort to change the statistics? What has been done, or what is being done, to change that?"
[ ... ] ("Graduation rate falls: Hispanics still lag behind other groups", Moore, Marcus, Montgomery Gazette, September 23, 2009, downloaded 2009 September 25)


Moving right along once more, the Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee of the Montgomery County Council voted 2-1 (Nancy Floreen and Valerie Ervin) for a $150,000 appropriation to keep operating Sligo Creek Golf Course. An appropriation for the Park and Planning Commission would be paid to the Montgomery County Revenue Authority, which operates the course.

According to the story in the Gazette, this coming Tuesday a full vote on the matter will be held in the Council, with six votes needed to pass. Work the phones people! Even if this passes, this will operate the course only until end of June 2010 ("Committee recommends funding to keep course open one year: Full Montgomery County Council will vote on $150,000 appropriation Tuesday", Tomassini, Jason, Montgomery Gazette, September 24, 2009, downloaded 2009 September 25).

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Silliness and Security Here and There

(Updated. Added photo of Officer In Yard. Added note about "exigent circumstances" and "windfall" exceptions to warrant requirements; so noted in body of text. Stet at September 23 2009 1825 hours.)

Greetings once again to the Astute Reader, which sitemeter assures me doesn't actually exist, unless I care to presume that somehow the world's approximately 250 search-engine crawlers have both acquire consciousness and furthermore are shrewd as well as well-informed. Thus, hello again Dear Diary.


Monday late was Equinox, of course. And so of course I was out there around midnight doing my seasonal Pagan Rite, which to the uninformed observer rather resembles some drunk guy wandering around in circles in the backyard throwing bread, sloshing beer, and smoking a cigarette while muttering. I'll spare you my guess as to how the uninformed observer would view the formal religious practices of the Big Three religions, to-wit Judaeism, Christianity, and Islam. It's funny, but we all give our worship to that which created the stars themselves, all of the space to contain them, the time through which they move, and the laws by which all are governed. Yet we all have different names, but generally speaking, we're all thanking what created us, by whichever formal ritual we see fit. I suppose that if there are 10 billion minds, there might be 10 billion ways to approach this task. Yet in the end, when it comes to the First Cause in the universe we inhabit, isn't there only One?


As part of my ongoing project to document Aspen Hill, I am doing a little bit of very amateur archeology, mostly with photodocumentation of the remaining landmarks which still exist from elder days. Due to the pace of development, both historic and proposed, I figure this is a task that really can't wait.

Anyone interested may see the most-recent photos, with reasonable sized thumbnails linking to very large (~5Mbytes) high-resolution images, in the Landmarks -- September 21, 2009 directory.

Included are two closely-sited candidates for marker stones for the 1st Line of Bradford's Rest. Whichever turns out to be the right one -- personally I think it's this one -- it's also the end of the "West line of Hermitage and also the Beginning stone for Milly's Dislike, another large land grant from the Colonial period.

I should mention that walking the lot lines south from that Marker Stone, there are lots of mosquitos. North of that stone, there's a huge and generally unused swath of hilltops in the Rock Creek Park, probably unused mostly from the mosquitos. One of the images above shows where a WSSC right of way sends unfiltered and unimpounded stormwaters from much of the Rock Creek Manor subdivision into the park, where the waters are semi-impounded into a semi-permanent swamp which may be the mosquito capital of Aspen Hill.


Tuesday afternoon, I was sitting on the porch around 5PM or so, and police cars suddenly swarmed the neighborhood, some clearly doing a fast patrol looking for something, and then lots of them went zooming past, down the hill, towards Oakvale Street and Heathfield Road. By "lots" I mean that eventually about 12 marked and several unmarked cars were on the short block of Oakvale Street between Heathfield Road and Southend Road. Once the mad rush appeared to have passed, I decided to saunter on down.

The first officer that noticed me was a short dark man in the all-black "ninja suit" uniform of the County police, and he gave me a look of something between hatred or disgust or suspicion or something like that -- remember, I can't read faces very well -- and I asked him as politely as I knew how, "Hi, I live up the street, saw all of the cars coming down here, thought I'd come and ask what happened". The officer sort of scowls and gives me the "you are a criminal and I will hunt you down" look (that is one I can recognize) and he says "someone tried to run from us".

There was one black guy in handcuffs sitting on the hood of one car. I said, "thank you" to the officers and left.

About 15 minutes later, three officers and an Alsatian (German Shepard) dog came wandering up the street. Evidently the suspect had led the officers on a merry chase through all of the back yards in the surrounding blocks, and the officers and the dog were checking out everyone's back yards looking for possible dropped contraband.


Officer in the Yard. It's okay, I invited them onto the Grounds. You must click to see the full width of the image and the nice policeman.


At one time, this might have been thought to be possibly illegal, unConstitutional, unless they were in very immediate hot-pursuit. However, since the rapid enactment of the USA Patriot Act after the tragedies of September 11 2001, what is or isn't Constitutional is all pretty fuzzy until and unless court cases settle the fuzziness into solid boundaries. Since 9/11, for example, no warrants are needed for wiretaps, computer hacking, trespassing, and even black-bag jobs where people without warrants can "legally" burglarize homes, offices, and real-estate.

Personally, yesterday, I felt like cooperating with the officers and their dog, so I waved them on into the yard and talked with them.

Updated: I should mention that the Courts have generally found that anything discovered as a "windfall", new grounds for reasonable suspicion pursuant to a pre-existing set of grounds, is admissible. Thus, when having the dogs sniff out a possible contraband drop after a hot-pursuit chase, have the dogs sniff out everything as well, and use the "legitimate" presence in areas ordinarily out of bounds, to gather as much evidence as possible for potential future criminal cases. end Updated.

I'm fairly certain that whether or not it's on the official police databases -- the "red flags" database that dispatches "special situation" warnings to dispatched officers with information about who owns handguns, is a "known police fighter", or "should be on medications but frequently is not" -- at least some elements or factions of the Fourth Police District probably have seen a picture of me with annotations ranging from "cop wannabee" through "neighborhood upper class twit".

Doubtless there is a lot of truth to the rumor circulating that since Aspen Hill, in my part of it, is officially a "Latino"barrio since 2003 when more than twice as many "latino" students than any others were enrolled at most of the local Elementary Schools, therefor all police officers should regard all non-geriatric whites as "never anything other than criminal poor white trash who need to be convinced to move away, ideally after being locked up a few times".

And considering that for some years, I have been doing my best to fight rampant Home Overcrowding and County Code Violation in this part of Aspen Hill, my picture is probably on the top of the pile. This might tend to go hand-in-hand with the outrageous racism that has been seen in a lot of the local stores, many of which seem to be pretty blatantly sending the message "if you're not an elder or a yuppie, get the fuck out, White Boy".

In my humble opinion, I got that exact look from an officer not a block from the house where I have lived (on and off) since 1963. Whether he gave me that look because I'm white, because I'm not an elder, and/or because I'm not a yuppie, I don't care. Racism from uniformed police officers is odious and intolerable.

I hope I'm reading this wrong. But if someone has the attitude "I hate that man because he has been fighting against my people", it's essential for them to understand that I have been fighting against rampant lawbreaking. It's illegal for some people to be here in this country, and we can't excuse their lawbreaking because they are of certain or specific ethnic origins. That's clear and definitive Racism. It's illegal, regardless of people's "traditions" or ethnicity, to overcrowd houses or convert them into worker barracks and flophouses.

To ignore lawbreaking on the basis of ethnicity or national/cultural origins, how is that not Racism?

To have the legal system, or a significant proportion of the elements of it, ignore mass lawbreaking on the basis of ethnicity or national/cultural origins, how is that not Institutionalized Racism?

To have men with guns and badges -- and an immense and potentially violent hair-trigger system of friends and associates -- assuming positions of potentially eliminating (on plausible pretext) honest and law-abiding political opposition for reasons of ethnic hatred and Racism, how is that not unAmerican As Fuck?


As for today? Not much to report, other than wondering why my house -- which has never had a dog in it -- smells of dog.


Hopefully No More to Come

Monday, September 21, 2009

Aspen Hill Commercial Space: BAE Systems Moving

(Updated to include Gazette commercial-real-estate article. Stet at Sept 21, 1310 hours)

BAE Systems will be leaving their facility in Aspen Hill, at 4115 Aspen Hill Road, in April, 2010.

A mere remnant of the once-sprawling campus of the former Vitro Labs, the "BAE Building" in Aspen Hill will revert into the hands of the Lee Development Group, which also owns nearby Northgate Plaza Shopping Center. The Lee Development Group has been the owner and developer of the huge parcel of land which were once the Gill Tract, a large farm inherited by Anna Maria (Rannie) Gill, as a division of the formerly immense Rannie Tracts which at one time comprised some 700 acres of land along what is now Georgia Avenue, from modern-day Parkland Drive east to Connecticut Avenue, from modern-day Bel Pre Road to Aspen Hill Road.

BAE will be consolidating the positions at this location to 520 Gaither Road in Rockkville, at the Redland Corporate Center, according to this Gazette article ("Commercial Real Estate: BAE Systems downscales relocation plans: Military contractor to consolidate in Rockville", Goldreich, Sonny, Montgomery Gazette, August 28, 2009, downloaded 2009 September 21).

The current building was built in the late 1960s, approximately the same time that Lee Development constructed and leased "phase II" of the Northgate Plaza Shopping Center, which included space for the W T Grant department store, now occupied by SuperFresh Grocery store.

This building, once known as "Building 4" ("Building 1" is now the Home Depot), will be one of the largest completely unoccupied Commercial Real Estate entities in Montgomery County after the April 2010 move-out by BAE. The building, at present, is some 263,000-square-feet.

As I recently wrote, Commercial Real Estate is a glut and ready to collapse not merely nationwide, but here as well.

So, what is Lee Development Group going to do with 263,000 square feet of commercial real estate in a grossly overglutted market where every last financier knows that a market collapse is imminent?


The original Gill Tract, now owned by Lee Development Group, comprised some 78 acres of land, some 33 acres of which was sold to Vitro and which is now property of the owner of Aspen Hill's Home Depot. Thus, some 45 acres of real estate -- subtracting for the right-of-way of Connecticut Avenue which runs through the middle of it -- are partially covered with buildings dating back 40 years, which one might generally consider to be the useful life of commercial real estate.

Despite several face-lifts of the Northgate Plaza Shopping Center, the fact remains that most of the buildings are 40 to 50 years old.

Newer construction is in place in the form of the Sun Trust Bank Building dating back to the late 1970s, and the new construction after a tear down at 13920 Georgia Avenue, which will be a Wachovia Bank.

The BAE offices to be vacated are on a lot of probably about 20 to 25 acres, and the Northgate Plaza is about the same size.

Put Connecticut Avenue between Georgia Avenue and Aspen Hill Road into a tunnel, and you've got about 45 acres of available footprint for massive high-rise Mixed Use development only 2 miles north of the Red Line Metro Glenmont Station, and right adjacent to proposed median-lane Bus Rapid Transit.

I am not suggesting that this is what should be done.

In any case, who would want to finance it? According to the Gazette, there is such a glut of commercial space that landlords are offering one year free just to get them in the door.
[ ... ]
That's the bleak story told by the latest quarterly PricewaterhouseCoopers' Korpacz Real Estate Investor Survey, which shows that buyers are still stuck sitting on their hands waiting for further devaluations of distressed commercial property across the nation.

The survey forecasts more difficult times as property owners and banks await the shakeout of the ongoing decline in commercial space value, a surge of defaults on loans already under way and the approach of $153 billion of mortgage-backed securities coming due in 2012 across the nation.

In the meantime, landlords everywhere are growing more desperate to find tenants and to hang onto those already in their buildings.
[ ... ]

Further, and to confirm what I've been predicting all along:
[ ... ]
Companies are returning space to the market and operating in smaller spaces," said an investor quoted anonymously in the survey.

The report said that "since tenants gained control of this market, asking rental rates have declined and concessions have increased. According to our Survey participants, free rent ranges up to 12 months per lease term and averages just over six months. Tenant improvement allowances are also available to tenants. For shell space, [allowances] range from $25 to $85 per square foot and average $46.07 per square foot."

And it's going to get worse for landlords before it gets better.

As tenants shrank their space, the overall vacancy rate surged 340 basis points over the past year to reach 16.5 percent at midyear 2009, the report said. It forecast a higher vacancy rate in near term due as an additional 1.1 million square feet of new space comes on the market with "very little pre-leasing activity."

Nationwide, property sales activity will pick up only when commercial lenders and property owners finally are forced to write off bad debts and report devaluations based on rising vacancies and falling rents.
[ ... ] ("Commerical Real Estate: Landlords dangle a free year's rent to lure tenants", Goldreich, Sonny, Montgomery Gazette, September 18, 2009, downloaded 2009 September 21)


When the commercial banks are looking to unload "distressed" properties, that will probably come right about April 2010... exactly when Lee Development Group will find themselves with almost another quarter-million square feet in a market already at nearly one-in-five square feet of commercial space Vacant.

And as for Aspen Hill's nearby restaurants? What will they do when there are no longer a captive audience of 400 BAE Systems employees with a short lunch hour that doesn't allow them to drive anywhere?


More to come?

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Maryland Politics Watch Now on Washington Post

The popular blog, Maryland Politics Watch is going to have solid competition from the new Maryland Politics Blog at the Washington Post.

Recently Maryland Politics Watch gloated and crowed over the departure of a Post editor who criticizes the unions. This criticism caused MPW operator Adam Pagnucco -- who is a notable union shill and "Astroturf" generator -- to declare Jihad against the Post, the editor, and pretty much everyone who wasn't a pro-union activist.

Well, the Post will now bring fairness and balance to reporting on Maryland politics.

Who's crowing now, Adam?

They really liked the idea when I mailed them. ;)

Sunday Suckiness, and Thesis v Antithesis

Once again, greetings to Dear Diary and the Astute Reader, which latter evidently doesn't actually exist. Sitemeter reports that aside from myself, search-engines are the only readers.

The beerage reduction program is going pretty well, or well-enough. However, the yardstick by which I am measuring success is possibly not the best, or perhaps I could be decreasing my consumption even more quickly. Remember, if I'm able to sleep well or late, it probably means I am drinking too much.

Could be worse, and maybe it is. My doctor has insisted that I start on a new regime and finally I caved. Good points? Even less beer is permitted. Doesn't go well with new medications. Bad points? First, the stuff is pretty much horrible.

One of the reason I don't do drugs is that perhaps I'm just overly sensitive to changes in state of consciousness. It's one of the ways that I manage to stay generally healthy; if I feel an infection coming on, I tend to rest, stay warm and dry if possible. The way I usually can tell I'm getting sick is because I get altered consciousness, usually due to slight fever.

This new medication is supposed to keep me healthy, to deal with expected changes common to people moving through middle age. Yet it produces changes of state-of-consciousness that feels exactly like I'm about to come down with a doozy of a respiratory infection. And here I was just getting over a comparable feeling from having gotten my seasonal flu immunization. Yuck. Hopefully I'll get used to this.

And no, this isn't it:



Antithesis: Sprawl



I need only mention suburban Los Angeles, and enough has been said. Nobody walks in L.A., because there's no where to walk to, and no way to walk there.

Thesis: Beehives


Urban Planning now has a new Holy Grail, so to speak, of creating immense beehives of humanity, with vertical stacking as an alternative to increasing Sprawl.

Along with Sprawl, of course, comes lots of traffic, clearly leaving people with far too much time on their hands:

Could be worse, I suppose.

The Washington Post book reviewer Jonathan Yardley has brought the readers' attention to many fine works, and I suspect that this one would be worth reading, if only to discover and expose the fallacious reasoning and concealed alternatives presented within such screeds of the "beehive people" school of Urban Planning thought. The title is great: Green Metropolis: What the City Can Teach the Country About True Sustainability, by David Owen.

Two paragraphs of Yardley's review point the finger directly at the problem, but nowhere is the problem sufficiently well articulated to show the seeds of the problem's glaringly obvious solution.
[ ... ] "cars" and "sprawl." You can't have one without the other, and the rest of the country has both in amounts so vast as to make a "noncatastrophic resolution" of the nation's (and thus the world's) environmental challenges almost entirely unlikely. "The real problem with cars is not that they don't get enough miles to the gallon," Owen writes. "It's that they make it too easy for people to spread out, encouraging forms of development that are inherently wasteful and damaging. Most so-called environmental initiatives concerning automobiles are actually counterproductive, because their effect is to make driving less expensive (by reducing the need for fuel) and to make car travel more agreeable (by eliminating congestion). What we really need, from the point of view of both energy conservation and environmental protection, is to make driving costlier and less pleasant."

And if you can find an American political or business leader who's willing not merely to say that but to act on it, your eyes are a lot keener than mine. Americans love their cars and the independence they permit, though anyone who thinks it's truly independent to be stuck in a Washington commuter jam has a very strange definition of the term. Speaking of which, Washington does not fare well in Owen's analysis. It is indeed "a city of restrained proportions and stirring metropolitan vistas." But "ecologically . . . it's a mess," because Pierre-Charles L'Enfant's design turned out, once the automobile arrived, to encourage sprawl rather than urban density. Though Owen should have acknowledged that it is indeed possible to live a Manhattanite existence in the heart of the city -- from my apartment on Logan Circle I can, and do, walk to almost everything I need or want, and my car can stay in the driveway for weeks at a time -- the essential truth of his criticism is beyond debate. This is a city in which driving is encouraged and walking discouraged.
[ ... ]


Not quite hitting the nail on the head, but there it is: DC was laid out to be as large a city as could be humanly maintained and inhabited before the advent of even rail.


Rome, back in its heyday, the thriving center of the known world and the hub of empire, Rome, legended and heralded Rome, was powered by slaves.

Yet even they were merely human and even with the aid of powerful horses, the horse-collar (nor stirrups, for that matter) had yet to be invented and there was a definite limit to the numbers of humans to whom food could be transported and from whom waste could be removed. That number was about one million.

Rome was blessed by having a river running through it, much like the District has the Potomac. Rome also was within a manageable distance of a major port. While there was a limit to the weight of grain that could be imported from Egypt, that limit was very high. Grain could be brought by ships almost into the heart of the city... but with Roman technologies, even if the grain could have been dumped in piles at city center, there was a limit to how far it could have been transported out towards the suburbs.

Though the designers of the District had the horse-collar (and later, steam power and then fossil-fuel internal-combustion and electrical motive power) they still designed a city at the limits of the size that could exist and run well with almost no technology greater than that needed to place one stone atop another.

So, where was any excess population to find a place to live?

They were expected to head out to the frontiers, and to build towns and cities of their own.


Here we have an interesting dialog between one Paul Kingsnorth and one George Monbiot.

Kingsnorth has this to say, after mentioning his graphs and charts of "[... ] population levels, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, exploitation of fisheries, destruction of tropical forests, paper consumption, number of motor vehicles, water use, the rate of species extinction and the totality of the human economy's gross domestic product":
What grips me about these graphs (and graphs don't usually grip me) is that though they all show very different things, they have an almost identical shape. A line begins on the left of the page, rising gradually as it moves to the right. Then, in the last inch or so – around 1950 – it veers steeply upwards, like a pilot banking after a cliff has suddenly appeared from what he thought was an empty bank of cloud.

The root cause of all these trends is the same: a rapacious human economy bringing the world swiftly to the brink of chaos. We know this; some of us even attempt to stop it happening. Yet all of these trends continue to get rapidly worse, and there is no sign of that changing soon. What these graphs make clear better than anything else is the cold reality: there is a serious crash on the way.

Yet very few of us are prepared to look honestly at the message this reality is screaming at us: that the civilisation we are a part of is hitting the buffers at full speed, and it is too late to stop it. Instead, most of us – and I include in this generalisation much of the mainstream environmental movement – are still wedded to a vision of the future as an upgraded version of the present. We still believe in "progress", as lazily defined by western liberalism. We still believe that we will be able to continue living more or less the same comfortable lives (albeit with more windfarms and better lightbulbs) if we can only embrace "sustainable development" rapidly enough; and that we can then extend it to the extra 3 billion people who will shortly join us on this already gasping planet.

I think this is simply denial. The writing is on the wall for industrial society, and no amount of ethical shopping or determined protesting is going to change that now. Take a civilisation built on the myth of human exceptionalism and a deeply embedded cultural attitude to "nature"; add a blind belief in technological and material progress; then fuel the whole thing with a power source that is discovered to be disastrously destructive only after we have used it to inflate our numbers and appetites beyond the point of no return. What do you get? We are starting to find out.

I don't at all disagree. See, if you would, a paper I wrote during my ill-advised sojourn at Rockville's University of Phoenix. Please see Why Futurism?. If has lots of footnotes to sources such as the UN Water research papers, various peer-reviewed articles which a lot of Global Change and Environmentalism folks refer.

Further:
We need to get real. Climate change is teetering on the point of no return while our leaders bang the drum for more growth. The economic system we rely upon cannot be tamed without collapsing, for it relies upon that growth to function. And who wants it tamed anyway? Most people in the rich world won't be giving up their cars or holidays without a fight.


No, they won't. Yet it's absolutely clear that if the entire world were to (magically) overnight adopt the standard of living now enjoyed by the "rich world", food and water resources would be consumed as quickly, and energy source depletion would very rapidly follow.

There's only one way that absolutely everyone on this planet can enjoy the standard of living taken for granted in developed nations.

We must have only about 1/6th of the current global population... at most.

And as the man concludes:
[...] As for saving the planet – what we are really trying to save, as we scrabble around planting turbines on mountains and shouting at ministers, is not the planet but our attachment to the western material culture, which we cannot imagine living without.

The challenge is not how to shore up a crumbling empire with wave machines and global summits, but to start thinking about how we are going to live through its fall [...].




Monbiot has a worthy rejoinder (italics mine):
[... ] For the past few years I have been almost professionally optimistic, exhorting people to keep fighting, knowing that to say there is no hope is to make it so. I still have some faith in our ability to make rational decisions based on evidence. But it is waning.

If it has taken governments this long even to start discussing reform of the common fisheries policy – if they refuse even to make contingency plans for peak oil – what hope is there of working towards a steady-state economy, let alone the voluntary economic contraction ultimately required to avoid either the climate crash or the depletion of crucial resources?

The interesting question, and the one that probably divides us, is this: to what extent should we welcome the likely collapse of industrial civilisation? [...]


Monbiot further observes (talics mine):
Here are three observations: 1 Our species (unlike most of its members) is tough and resilient; 2 When civilisations collapse, psychopaths take over; 3 We seldom learn from others' mistakes.

From the first observation, this follows: even if you are hardened to the fate of humans, you can surely see that our species will not become extinct without causing the extinction of almost all others. However hard we fall, we will recover sufficiently to land another hammer blow on the biosphere. We will continue to do so until there is so little left that even Homo sapiens can no longer survive. This is the ecological destiny of a species possessed of outstanding intelligence, opposable thumbs and an ability to interpret and exploit almost every possible resource – in the absence of political restraint.

From the second and third observations, this follows: instead of gathering as free collectives of happy householders, survivors of this collapse will be subject to the will of people seeking to monopolise remaining resources. This will is likely to be imposed through violence. Political accountability will be a distant memory. The chances of conserving any resource in these circumstances are approximately zero. The human and ecological consequences of the first global collapse are likely to persist for many generations, perhaps for our species' remaining time on earth. To imagine that good could come of the involuntary failure of industrial civilisation is also to succumb to denial. The answer to your question – what will we learn from this collapse? – is nothing.


Monbiot goes on to conclude in what Kingsnorth later labels a "Hobbesian" vision, one not far from the destiny of "the Moties" in Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle's SF masterpiece the Mote in God's Eye.

Kingsnorth continues (italics mine):
We face what John Michael Greer, in his book of the same name, calls a "long descent": a series of ongoing crises brought about by the factors I talked of in my first letter that will bring an end to the all-consuming culture we have imposed upon the Earth. I'm sure "some good will come" from this, for that culture is a weapon of planetary mass destruction.

Our civilisation will not survive in anything like its present form, but we can at least aim for a managed retreat to a saner world. Your alternative – to hold on to nurse for fear of finding something worse – is in any case a century too late. When empires begin to fall, they build their own momentum. But what comes next doesn't have to be McCarthyworld. Fear is a poor guide to the future.



Here in the United States, shortly after the introduction of both the birth control pill and safe-and-legal abortion, on aggregate the US-born citizens reduced their rate of reproduction to slightly less than that needed to replace their own numbers.

We were already on a path -- here in the States and in Europe, at least -- to avert this Collapse.

What happened?

What happened to cause the population in the States to grow to the point where Sprawl became unsufferable and the cities became so overpopulated that there was no other solution than to densify even more and then build upwards, ever upwards, turning even formerly bucolic suburbs such as Wheaton MD into nothing more than the basement levels of the Planners' dream of giant beehives of humanity?

Who did this to us?


More to come...