Stop Sign in Woods

I took this image this past winter.  I rather like the black and white for the dormant aspens.  But, I could not resist coloring the stop sign.

Stop signinwoods

Celebrating Death of a Dictator

Venezuelan Expatriates See a Reason to Celebrate

By LIZETTE ALVAREZ Published: March 5, 2013

First the car horns blasted the news on street corners here, a town so packed with Venezuelans that it is nicknamed “Doralzuela.” Then came dozens of yellow, blue and red flags, floating in celebration, followed by bursts of singing.

“It’s the Venezuelan national anthem,” Carolina Gamboa, 36, shouted over the ruckus. “This is a triumph for Venezuela. Justice has finally arrived.” In this slice of Miami-Dade County, where more Venezuelan expatriates live than anywhere else in the country and where Hugo Chávez is particularly reviled, news of his death elicited outpourings of raucous celebration and, to many, cautious optimism for the future. At Arepa 2, a popular restaurant where Venezuelans typically gather to share news from home, crowds streamed in shortly after work to trade words about what could be, in time, a different Venezuela. Many came here to Miami to escape Mr. Chávez’s socialist vision, his iron grip on the nation or the explosion in crime that has consumed oil-rich Venezuela in recent years.

Eleimar Lemus, 27, heard the official declaration of Mr. Chávez’s death and did not wait long to hop into her car with friends and drive from Broward County to Doral. “I knew I had to be here,” she said, as she raced toward the restaurant. Ms. Lemus said she moved to Florida three years ago, after nearly being kidnapped at gunpoint from her car in Caracas. She got away with a broken nose. The mugging was just one in a string of crimes she faced, including robberies, burglaries and an attempted carjacking. “They were after my Toyota,” she said. “Having a Toyota is saying, ‘Rob me, kill me.’ And an iPhone. They will really kill you for that.” Ms. Lemus said she knew that change would not come quickly to Venezuela. But she is hopeful that with Mr. Chávez’s death, it is now inevitable.

Inside, Luigi Boria, the Venezuelan mayor of Doral, called it “a historic moment for Venezuela.” “I know big changes will come to Venezuela,” he said as a throng crowded into Arepa 2. “Now we need to have a peaceful transition.” Outside, Venezuelans arrived in yellow, blue and red hats, scarves and T-shirts, celebrating a moment they said might deliver them home at some point or at least make their relatives there safer. A few miles away at Arepa 1, a similar group gathered outside and inside, cheering the news on television while chomping on arepas, Venezuela’s staple corn meal patties, and sipped Frescolita. They spoke of rebuilding Venezuela, maybe not now but soon.

“Death is always lamentable,” said Angel Monterusco, 51, a computer software consultant, as he sat at a table with his family, “but it’s a new era. We had a dictator. There were no laws, no justice.” His new wife, Maria Eugenia Prince, 43, arrived just six months ago from Venezuela. She was a manager at a pharmaceutical company and said, like many others here, that fear of crime forced her to leave. Sending her children to school was nerve-racking. Visiting a bank, driving a car — routine acts in most countries — were cause for panic. “Venezuela has suffered so much in recent years,” she said. “So many people who moved, died and lost jobs in a country that is so oil rich.” “I want to go back home,” she said. “It’s my country.”

Greenpeace Making a Point

 

Greenpeace Erect Natural Gas Drilling Rig in Energy Minister’s Constituency

By Charles Kennedy | Mon, 04 March 2013 22:43 |

Protestors from Greenpeace have staged an innovative new demonstration to oppose fracking plans in the UK. Cheshire, the northern county renowned for its rolling green countryside, Range Rovers, football stars and their WAGS, has seen licenses for natural gas production handed out to several fracking companies.

On Monday, during the morning rush hour, as a demonstration against these licenses, members of Greenpeace set up a hydraulic fracturing drilling rig in the small Cheshire town of Knutsford Heath. The location of this demonstration was no accident, it just happens to be the local constituency of Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne.  The team of protestors, wearing high-viz jackets, attached a sign displaying their fictional company name ‘Frack & Go’ over the sign of Osborne’s Conservative headquarters, and then erected a drilling rig just opposite. They were careful not to disrupt the flow of traffic, yet still put up signs saying: “We apologise for any inconvenience while we frack your town.”

A phone number was also provided for anyone that felt inconvenienced; a phone number which was actually that of Osborne’s office. A local poll commissioned by Greenpeace found that 52% of Osborne’s constituents would prefer to focus on renewable energy such as wind and solar, compared to just 15% who want natural gas. Lawrence Carter the Greenpeace campaigner explained that, “Tatton is just one of hundreds of constituencies up and down the country earmarked for possible fracking as part of George Osborne’s disastrous energy plan.

Oil The chancellor needs to explain to his constituents why he’s happy for their local area to be fracked when everyone from Ofgem to BP to the energy secretary says shale gas won’t reduce our energy bills. And he must explain why increasing UK reliance on expensive, polluting gas is a good idea when we should be moving towards a carbon-free electricity system. He has also used the fantasy of a UK shale gas boom to justify building 40 new gas-fired power stations and increase the UK’s reliance on gas. Consumers will end up paying the price for this.”

By. Charles Kennedy of Oilprice.com

Keeping the Good of the Country Foremost

Would the GOP Deliberately Crash the Economy for Long-Term Political Gain? Hint: Yes.

And Obama and the Democrats are playing right into their hands by Robert Kuttner President Obama and his advisers are wagering that Republicans will take the political blame if the sequester of $85 billion in automatic budget cuts is actually executed March 1. The president’s public remarks keep emphasizing the risk to the recovery, the loss of jobs, the inconvenience to the public and the generally obstructionist posture of Republicans in Congress. Would the Republican leadership be so cynical? You bet they would.

And if Obama and the Democrats keep playing their game, they’ll get exactly what they want. He is certainly right — in the short run. But the potential for damage to Obama and the Democrats is far greater in the years between now and the next mid-term (2014) and presidential (2016) elections. Why are Democrats more at risk? First, though the public tends to hold Congress in lower regard than it holds President Obama, the voters generally blame both parties when Washington seizes up and can’t get the public’s business done. The austerity lobby has been all too effective at disseminating a rhetoric of “Washington is broken,” suggesting symmetrical blame (even though one party is rather centrist and serious about governing while the other has a lunatic strategy of “let it burn.”)

If the sequester is executed, we will be treated to usual media bleats of “Where are the grownups?” and “Why can’t you people just execute a grand compromise?” with the austerity lobby as ventriloquist. And “execute” is just the right word, for the Republican price of compromise is savage cuts in what’s left of social spending, including Social Security and Medicare, and no serious increases in taxes on the wealthy. By 2016, and even by 2014, nobody will much remember who was more at fault in the sequester battle of early 2013. The voters will be looking at their own economic situation, and it won’t be pretty.

The sequester may bite for a few days or even weeks, but the end-game of this round of budget warfare is all too clear. The president and Congress agree to solve the sequester of automatic cuts — by substituting budget cuts of a like sum, with most them on the spending side. But this has exactly the same depressive effect on the recovery as the sequester, itself. According to the CBO and independent economists, cuts of this magnitude will cut this year’s economic growth rate in half — from the 3 percent necessary to signal even the beginning of a recovery to about 1.5 percent according to the Congressional Budget Office.

This doesn’t even count the likely hit to the stock market. This moves the budget even further away from the stated goal of reducing the ratio of debt to GDP a decade hence, because it shrinks GDP faster than it reduces debt. And the sequester is only the beginning of a decade-long process of annual budget cuts of an even greater amount — at least $120 billion a year, which equals 10 years of economic deflation. This brings me back to the political consequences for Democrats. The Republicans are willing to take the political heat now, as obstructions, for three reasons. First, as noted, accountability will be blurred. Both parties will be blamed, and by 2014 the details of the great sequester squabble will be blurry. Second, any short-term pain to Republicans is outweighed by long-term gain: an austere budget slows the recovery and leaves the Democrats with no economic bragging rights going into 2014 and 2016.

Would the Republicans be that cynical — to deliberately retard growth so as to embarrass Obama? Is the Pope Catholic? (Actually that’s become a more complex question, but I digress.) The third benefit to Republicans is that the sequester, and all the sequential sequesters over the next decade, deprive Democrats of the resources that they need to be, well, Democrats. Obama can proclaim big, bold initiatives as he did in the State of the Union Address, but they are all mere gestures — because there is no money to spend on any of them, thanks to the bipartisan obsession with budget cutting. Even worse, Democrats end up colluding in eviscerating very popular and necessary signature programs like Medicare and Social Security, which literally define the core differences between the two parties.

So by 2016, and even by 2014, nobody will much remember who was more at fault in the sequester battle of early 2013. The voters will be looking at their own economic situation, and it won’t be pretty. Is there nothing Obama and the Democrats can do? The president has challenged Republicans to join him in raising taxes on the rich, to spare the 99 percent the sacrifice of valued programs and the economy a needless double dip recession. That’s a start, but he needs to blow up the entire premise that the cure for this economy is more and deeper budget cutting. © 2013

3D Printing

What Is 3D Printing? And Will It Change the World?

The PBS series Off Book considers the impact of this much-hyped technology. 3D printing, futuristic name notwithstanding, is a pretty simple phenomenon: the conversion of a digital file into a physical product. With detailed instructions and the right materials, in theory and — more and more often — in practice, you can manufacture objects from a little machine on your desk. So we can now 3D print parts for machines and home appliances. We can 3D print cement. We can (sort of) 3D print meat.

In the latest episode of PBS’s “OffBook” series, entrepreneurs and journalists discuss the future of the technology, considering not just how 3D printing can change the way humans create, but also how it can change our assumptions — about manufacturing and retailing and economic efficiencies, about food production and even human production. “It’s going to force us to change the way we think about not only buying products, but how they’re made,” says Carine Carmy of Shapeways, a 3D printing community and marketplace. 3D printing is still young, catering to the curious and the restless and the early-adopting. But in a few years, its enthusiasts suggest, the technology could be as ubiquitous and as easy-to-use as a camera phone.

3D printing could, sort of, change everything — one dimension at a time.

Check out Off Book at Public Broadcasting

30th Anniversary of Local Hero

MODEST MASTERPIECE “Local Hero” turns 30 this month.

In this article, from five years ago, Jasper Rees spoke to those who made the film A year ago, Donald Trump’s plan to plant a golfing resort on a strip of Aberdonian coastline hit a glitch. A farmer living in a trailer declined to sell up. A personal visitation from the gambling squillionaire resulted in a salty Anglo-Saxon exchange. Boy, would it be good to see the movie. Except that in a way we already have.

“Local Hero”, in which a Texan oil company’s attempt to buy up a whole Scottish village is thwarted by a lone white-haired beachcomber, is 25 years old. Half the film was shot up the road in the tiny port of Pennan (above)–nowadays billed, on undiscoveredscotland.co.uk, as the home of “Scotland’s most famous phone box”. The anniversary is worth celebrating not just because of the happy recurrence of its plot. Bill Forsyth’s film is a modest masterpiece. That’s how I’ve always thought of it, anyway. I first saw “Local Hero” as a school leaver in 1983, and it has stayed in my head ever since, along with Mark Knopfler’s bittersweet acoustic theme tune. At first, it seemed merely a comic gem. The joke was that the hicks are far cannier than they appear to MacIntyre, the cocksure emissary sent from Houston to negotiate.

But the older you get, the more it looks like the darkest Nordic tragedy: having fallen for this bucolic paradise, the incomer is brutally exiled back to an inferno of skyscrapers and tailbacks. It’s a measure of how subversive a film it was that Forsyth got into trouble at the test screening in Seattle. “There was irritation”, he recalls, “that this little upstart from Europe was having the gall to hint these things about the American way of life. MacIntyre was an everyman losing his personality in the glass tower of work. One guy got me against the wall and said, ‘You don’t have the right to play around with the American hero.'” The film’s success brought Forsyth the chance to make three movies in America. He returned disillusioned and since “Gregory’s Two Girls” (1999), he hasn’t shot a frame. But along with Peter Riegert and Denis Lawson, the film’s two male leads, he accepts this invitation to blow out the candles.

“Local Hero” came about when the producer David Puttnam, who was about to win an Oscar for “Chariots of Fire”, advised Forsyth that there would be studio money for a Scottish script with parts for a couple of American actors. One was the role of the star-gazing petro-mogul Felix Happer. “I wrote it with Burt Lancaster in my head from the very beginning,” Forsyth says. “I’d read in an interview that he’d like to do some real comedy.” He also drew on a recent deal struck with an oil consortium in Orkney. “The chief executive of the council realised he had a strong position and got the community a cut of the revenue and incredible things like care of libraries and community centres.”

Thus was conceived the alluring figure of Gordon Urquhart, the savvy hotelier and accountant (“we tend to double up on jobs around here,” as he explains). He was played, or beautifully underplayed, by Lawson. “Around that time it was quite hard to find a contemporary Scottish character who wasn’t in wellies and a kilt or a Gorbals heavy,” says Lawson. “I had hardly ever used my own voice. It’s the most enjoyable experience I’ve ever had.” The same endorsement comes from Riegert, who had to fight off Michael Douglas and half of Hollywood to land the part of MacIntyre. “If you could storyboard the best possible experience for an actor, this would be it,” he says. “It was effortless. I recognised the material right off the page. My only question was how well could the director direct this movie? And ‘Gregory’s Girl’ pretty much convinced me there wouldn’t be any problem.” It was in “Gregory’s Girl”, his no-budget comedy of teenage angst, that Forsyth, then mainly a documentary-maker, paraded a taste for offbeat whimsy.

In “Local Hero” he quietly folded it into a capacious narrative about sea and sky and the tectonic plates of the cold war. By night the northern lights twinkle benignly in a sky that daily swarms with NATO test jets, while the ancient waters yield lobsters, embargoed South African oranges and a hearty trawlerman from Murmansk, who boats in to sing at the ceilidh and check on his investment portfolio. This colourful character was no fanciful invention. “There were Russian trawlers that anchored off Ullapool,” says Forsyth. “In the thick of the cold war it was quite interesting that half a dozen Russians would come ashore and go into a pub. A very basic motivation was to let people feel that Scotland had a cosmopolitan aspect.” Hence the plot’s other fish out of water, the west African vicar. The film has had a healthy afterlife on VHS and DVD. Its environmental credentials have crystallised into what now looks like a timely sermon about our over-reliance on oil. Happer choppers in like a deus ex machina to close the deal, only to come up against old Ben, the wise man of the beach, who persuades him to switch from oil to astronomy. MacIntyre is expelled back to his snazzy Houston high-rise with only sea shells and snapshots as mementoes. Remarkably, Riegert played the exquisitely melancholy final scene before he’d clapped eyes on Pennan or Arisaig on the west coast, where the beach scenes were filmed. “Since we hadn’t made the movie and I didn’t know what my emotional experience was going to be,” he explains, “I had to disinvest my imagination so the audience could invest theirs onto me. To me, that’s what makes the execution of the movie so interesting. Bill understood that moviegoers are not interested in what the actors are feeling. They’re interested in what they’re feeling.” Forsyth also saw that he had ended on a wrist-slashing note. So did Puttnam, who tried to undermine the bleakness of his director’s vision by arranging screenings of “Whisky Galore” and “It’s a Wonderful Life” for him. Eventually the studio stepped in and asked for a more uplifting ending. “They wanted Mac to change his mind and stay,” says Forsyth. “It was very early days for me in Hollywood, but I thought that’s such a typical studio response. It’s as if the other half of the movie doesn’t mean anything. It seems so banal.” He offered a compromise which they didn’t realise was even blacker. Before “Going Home”–Knopfler’s electronic version of the theme tune–surges in (it was recorded on Puttnam’s instructions to send the audience home in a better mood), there is one final wide shot of the village and its gleaming phone box. It rings, but nobody answers. The American everyman has been forgotten. The phone box still receives visitors to this day. “I’ve been back once,” says Lawson. “I drove in just to have a little look around. There was a couple who had driven in behind us to see the phone box. And they couldn’t quite believe that I was standing there.” While the case of the golf resort rumbles on, maybe Donald Trump should pay a visit. He might learn something. Picture “Local Hero” Jasper Rees is an arts feature writer, co-founder of theartsdesk.com and author of “Bred of Heaven” ARTS JASPER REES AUTUMN 2008 FILM ARTICLE TOOLS Email this page Printer-friendly version Delicious StumbleUpon Facebook COMMENTS Local Hero November 28, 2008 – 11:53 — Visitor (not verified) “Local Hero” is on my Top Ten Films list. It contains one of the best performances Burt Lancaster ever gave. Another element not mentioned in this article is the romance between the geeky “assistant” to Peter Reigert’s character and what might be a mermaid. It’s hard to believe this movie is 25 years old; like all classics, it remains as fresh as when it was filmed. So glad to see it celebrated. “A year ago, Donald Trump’s November 29, 2008 – 14:30 — Visitor (not verified) “A year ago, Donald Trump’s plan to plant a golfing resort on a strip of Aberdonian coastline hit a glitch. A farmer living in a trailer declined to sell up. A personal visitation from the gambling squillionaire resulted in a salty Anglo-Saxon exchange”………… Excuse me, people from Aberdeenshire are not Anglo-Saxon! Local Hero  The above,hits my own feelings about this great movie right on the button! I saw this movie straight after my a-levels in 1983 and I always thought it was a quietly subversive movie.We had just given Thatcherism our mandate to change the UK forever and it was the beginning of large corporations taking over the UK resources.The final scene and also the band playing “Mist on the Mountain” will always stay with me,both scenes create an air of deep loss and longing.Forsyth was clever to cover the silent protests/remorse,and should be directing and using his great talent. This is an extraordnarily April 1, 2010 – 00:15 — mjpp (not verified) This is an extraordnarily insightful overview of one of the great overlooked films of the last 30 years. The comments above prove that, like all classic works of art, this film sustains multiple readings and avenues of interpretation that no brief synopsis/critical review can contain (though this is one of the best). I would disagree only on one point; the ending was, I found, not at all bleak. It would have been a subversive of the film to have Mac refuse to leave or ‘change his mind’ and return to Ferness, but the final shot, wherein that lonely phone box rings, does not, in my view, mean Mac is forgotten, but that he has in fact triumphed over his isolation, overcome the shallow relationships he has tried vainly to perpetuate (Rita, Trudy (both the rabbit and the ex-girlfriend)) and understands the emptiness his life embodies, and which is embodied so wonderfully in the beautiful but sterile penultimate shot of Houston.

He calls; the phone rings; the film ends, but this does not mean no one answers. Instead we, the audience, are invited in, to take up the story in a very Woolfian sense of an ending which tells us that the story from the point of view of the author can only go so far and that we, if we want a truly fulfilling artistic experience, must accept the invitation of the text and participate in the creation of meaning. For myself, I always see the ending as a vindication of Mac’s evolution from a closed-off gnomish grotesque to a fully living man, willing to embrace the rest of humanity by reaching out to those who have made him aware of the possibility of real human relationships beyond telexs, and beyond Moritz’s hilariously lampooned caricature of ‘therapy.’. The irony that he is only able to do this through that iconic phone box does not, for me, reduce the impact of the fact that Mac can now, fianlly, connect with people on a level he has probably never experienced. This is not bleak, nor is it maudlin or Hollywood-dumb. It’s hopeful, and it’s ambiguous, and leaves up to you, the viewer, how to see it. Does someone answer? Or not? I think they do, and for me, that’s both an invitation I will always be grateful to the film for, and an affirmation that was not granted as a compromise, but very well earned.

Benefits of Optimism

The Benefits of Optimism Are Real

A positive outlook is the most important predictor of resilience. It’s not just Hollywood magic.  One of the most memorable scenes of the Oscar-nominated film Silver Linings Playbook revolves around Ernest Hemingway’s A Farewell to Arms, a novel that does not end well, to put it mildly. Patrizio Solitano Jr. (Bradley Cooper) has come home after an eight-month stint being treated for bipolar disorder at a psychiatric hospital, where he was sentenced to go after he nearly beat his wife’s lover to death. Home from the hospital, living under his parents’ charge, Pat has lost his wife, his job, and his house. But he tries to put the pieces of his life back together. He exercises, maintains an upbeat lifestyle, and tries to better his mind by reading through the novels that his estranged wife Nikki, a high school English teacher, assigns her students. Pat takes up a personal motto, excelsior — Latin for “ever upward.”

He tells his state-appointed therapist, “I hate my illness and I want to control it. This is what I believe to be true: You have to do everything you can and if you stay positive you have a shot at a silver lining.” For many years, psychologists, following Freud, thought that people simply needed to express their anger and anxiety — blow off some steam — to be happier. But this is wrong. Which is why the Hemingway novel, which is part of Nikki’s syllabus, is such a buzz kill. When he gets to the last pages, and discovers that it ends grimly with death, he slams the book shut, throws it through a glass window of his parents’ house, and storms into their room in the middle of the night, saying: This whole time you’re rooting for this Hemingway guy to survive the war and to be with the woman that he loves, Catherine Barkley… And he does, he does, he survives the war after getting blown up. He survives it and he escapes to Switzerland with Catherine. You think he ends it there? No! She dies, dad! I mean, the world’s hard enough as it is, guys. Can’t someone say, hey let’s be positive? Let’s have a good ending to the story?

Another best picture nominee, Life of Pi, employs a similar device. Pi finds himself aboard a lifeboat with a ferocious Bengal tiger in the aftermath of a shipwreck that has his entire family. Lost at sea in the Pacific Ocean for 227 days — starved, desperate, and forced into a game of survival with the tiger — Pi pushes forward, even though he, like Pat, has lost everything. Pi says, “You might think I lost all hope at that point. I did. And as a result I perked up and felt much better.” Pi’s resilience is incredible once you realize what happens on board the lifeboat and how Pi copes with the tragedy that he witnesses and endures. There’s more to the story than the boy and the tiger. Though what really happened is terrible, Pi chooses to tell a different story. His parallels what really happened, but is beautiful not bleak, transcendent not nihilistic. “Which story do you prefer?” he asks at the end. *** This questions turns out to matter a great deal if you are trying to figure out who grows after trauma and who gets swallowed up by it, a question that each movie addresses and that psychologists have been grappling with for years.

Think back to the last time you experienced a loss, setback, or hardship. Did you respond by venting, ruminating, and dwelling on the disappointment, or did you look for a faint flash of meaning through all of the darkness — a silver lining of some sort? How quickly did you bounce back — how resilient are you? The New Yorker’s Richard Brody criticized Silver Linings Playbook for its sentimentality and “faith-based view of mental illness and, overall, of emotional redemption.” The New York Times’ A.O. Scott made a similar, if predictable, criticism of Life of Pi: “The novelist and the older Pi are eager…to repress the darker implications of the story, as if the presence of cruelty and senseless death might be too much for anyone to handle…Insisting on the benevolence of the universe in the way that Life of Pi does can feel more like a result of delusion or deceit than of earnest devotion.” But these criticisms miss the point. First, they fail to understand why these two strange and idiosyncratic movies, both based on novels, resonated with so many millions of people. Their themes of resilience speak to each of us — and there is a reason for that.

The key insight of each movie is, whether their creators realized it or not, grounded in a growing body of scientific research, which Brody and Scott overlook. Positive emotions can, the researchers concluded, undo the effects of a stressful negative experience. Far from being delusional or faith-based, having a positive outlook in difficult circumstances is not only an important predictor of resilience — how quickly people recover from adversity — but it is the most important predictor of it. People who are resilient tend to be more positive and optimistic compared to less-resilient folks; they are better able to regulate their emotions; and they are able to maintain their optimism through the most trying circumstances. This is what Dr. Dennis Charney, the dean of Mount Sinai School of Medicine, found when he examined approximately 750 Vietnam war veterans who were held as prisoners of war for six to eight years. Tortured and kept in solitary confinement, these 750 men were remarkably resilient. Unlike many fellow veterans, they did not develop depression or posttraumatic stress disorder after their release, even though they endured extreme stress. What was their secret? After extensive interviews and tests, Charney found ten characteristics that set them apart. The top one was optimism. The second was altruism. Humor and having a meaning in life — or something to live for — were also important. For many years, psychologists, following Freud, thought that people simply needed to express their anger and anxiety — blow off some steam — to be happier. But this is wrong. Researchers, for example, asked people who were mildly-to-moderately depressed to dwell on their depression for eight minutes.

The researchers found that such ruminating caused the depressed people to become significantly more depressed and for a longer period of time than people who simply distracted themselves thinking about something else. Senseless suffering — suffering that lacks a silver lining — viciously leads to more depression. Counter-intuitively, another study found that facing down adversity by venting — hitting a punching bag or being vengeful toward someone who makes you angry — actually leads to people feeling far worse, not better. Actually, doing nothing at all in response to anger was more effective than expressing the anger in these destructive ways. Even more effective than doing nothing is channeling your depression toward a productive, positive goal, as Pat and Pi do. James Pennebaker, a psychological researcher at the University of Texas in Austin, has found that people who find meaning in adversity are ultimately healthier in the long run than those who do not. In a study, he asked people to write about the darkest, most traumatic experience of their lives for four days in a row for a period of 15 minutes each day. Analyzing their writing, Pennebaker noticed that the people who benefited most from the exercise were trying to derive meaning from the trauma. They were probing into the causes and consequences of the adversity and, as a result, eventually grew wiser about it. A year later, their medical records showed that the meaning-makers went to the doctor and hospital fewer times than people in the control condition, who wrote about a non-traumatic event. People who used the exercise to vent, by contrast, received no health benefits. Interestingly, when Pennebaker had other research subjects express their emotions through song or dance, the health benefits did not appear. There was something unique and special about the stories people told themselves. Those stories helped people find a silver lining in their adversity. ***

Barbara Fredrickson, a psychological researcher at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, has looked more closely at the relationship between being positive and resilience. Her research shows how important one is for the other. The Weinstein Company For starters, having a positive mood makes people more resilient physically. In one study, research subjects were outfitted with a device that measured their heart activity. After their baseline heart activity was recorded, they were presented with a stressful task: Each was asked to quickly prepare and deliver a speech on why he or she is a good friend. They were told that the speech would be videotaped and evaluated. Heart rates rapidly increased. Arteries constricted. Blood pressure shot up. Then, participants were shown a short video clip that either evoked negative emotions (like sadness), positive emotions (like happiness), or a neutral condition of no emotions. The participants were also told that if they were shown a video clip “by chance” that they were off the hook: They did not have to give the speech after all. That meant that their anxiety would start to subside as the video clips started. Here was the interesting finding: The heart activity of the participants who viewed the positive clips returned to normal much quicker than their peers who were shown the negative or neutral clips. Positive emotions can, the researchers concluded, undo the effects of a stressful negative experience.

The researchers found that the most resilient people were also more positive in day-to-day life. It turns out that resilient people are good at transforming negative feelings into positive ones. For instance, one of the major findings of Fredrickson’s studies was that resilient people took a different attitude toward the speech task than non-resilient people. They viewed the task as a challenge and opportunity for growth rather than as a threat. In other words, they found the silver lining. With that in mind, the researchers wondered if they could inject some positivity into the non-resilient people to make them more resilient. They primed both types of people to approach the task either positive or negatively. The researchers told some people to see the task as a threat and they told others to see it as a challenge. What they found is good news for resilient and non-resilient people alike. Resilient people who saw the task as a challenge did fine, as predicted. So did, interestingly, resilient people who were told to view the task as a threat. Resilient people, no matter how they approached the task, had the same cardiovascular recovery rate. The people who benefitted from the priming were non-resilient people. Those who were told to approach the task as an opportunity rather than a threat suddenly started looking like high resilient people in their cardiovascular measures. They bounced back quicker than they otherwise would have.

Resilient people are good at bouncing back because they are emotionally complex. In each of Fredrickson’s studies, resilient people experience the same level of frustration and anxiety as the less resilient participants. Their physiological and emotional spikes were equally high. This is important. It reveals that resilient people are not Pollyannas, deluding themselves with positivity. They just let go of the negativity, worry less, and shift their attention to the positive more quickly. Resilient people also respond to adversity by appealing to a wider range of emotions. In another study, for instance, participants were asked to write short essays about the most important problem that they were facing in their lives. While resilient people reported the same amount of anxiety as less resilient people in the essays, they also revealed more happiness, interest, and eagerness toward the problem. For resilient people, high levels of positive emotions exist side-by-side with negative emotions. Think of how Pi responds to his seemingly hopeless situation aboard the boat: “I tell you, if you were in such dire straits as I was, you too would elevate your thoughts. The lower you are, the higher your mind will want to soar.” When your mind starts soaring, you notice more and more positive things. This unleashes an upward spiral of positive emotions that opens people up to new ways of thinking and seeing the world — to new ways forward. This is yet another reason why positive people are resilient. They see opportunities that negative people don’t. Negativity, for adaptive reasons, puts you in defense mode, narrows your field of vision, and shuts you off to new possibilities since they’re seen as risks.

This calls to mind one of the best scenes from Silver Linings Playbook, in which a bad situation nearly consumes Pat. He is at a diner with Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence), when he hears “Ma Cherie Amour” playing in his head — the song that was playing when he found his estranged wife naked in the shower with another man — and has a traumatic flashback. Tiffany helps him work past the episode: “You gonna go your whole life scared of that song? It’s just a song. Don’t make it a monster… There’s no song playing. There’s no song. Breathe, count backwards from ten. That’s it.” He recovers and their interaction sets the stage for the rest of the movie. Like Life of Pi, Silver Linings Playbook is about how we can tame our inner demons with hope and a positive outlook on life. By finding meaning and love in terrible circumstances, as Pi and Pat do, they overcome their suffering and, in the process, reveal how uplifting silver linings can be.

Plenty of Government

March 2, 2013, 1:31 pm2 Comments Land of Plenty (of Government)

By MONICA PRASAD The Great Divide is a series about inequality.

Why do European countries have lower levels of poverty and inequality than the United States? We used to think this was a result of American anti-government sentiment, which produced a government too small to redistribute income or to attend to the needs of the poor. But over the past three decades scholars have discovered that our government wasn’t as small as we thought. Historians, sociologists and political scientists have all uncovered evidence that points to a surprisingly large governmental presence in the United States throughout the 20th century and even earlier, in some cases surpassing what we find in Western Europe.

For example, European banks did not have to contend with regulations separating commercial and investment banking, as American banks did under the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. Until the 1980s taxes on capital income were higher in the United States than in most European countries, where taxes on labor were and still are higher. American bankruptcy law has been harder on creditors and easier on debtors than any of the countries of Europe, even after bankruptcy reform here in 2005. Or consider the famous case of the thalidomide babies in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Thalidomide was a drug given to pregnant women for nausea. It caused devastating birth defects, from stunted limbs to spina bifida, and many babies died. Thalidomide was widely available in Europe and produced thousands of cases of birth defects there. But the Food and Drug Administration kept thalidomide off the American market, successfully using aggressive governmental intervention to protect children from a pharmaceutical company with a dangerous product. They would be in their early 50s now, those babies saved by the F.D.A. I wonder sometimes how many of them are walking around today complaining about big government.

But if Europe has been so favorable to business, how did it end up with lower poverty and inequality rates? To understand this, we have to let go of the idea that governments are the opposite of markets, or that welfare spending kills capitalist production. European countries do have larger public welfare states, and this brings down their poverty and inequality rates. But in return, European corporations received a gift: a political economy biased against consumption and geared toward production. Beginning after World War II, Germany, France and several other countries aimed to restrain private consumption and channel profits toward export industries, in a bid to reconstruct their war-devastated economies. Loose regulation was part of this business-friendly strategy. Some scholars have even called these European policies “supply side,” in that they focused on incentives for producers, at the expense of demand-side measures that would benefit consumers.

They were one ingredient in Europe’s spectacular postwar growth. The United States, on the other hand, developed a consumer economy based on government-subsidized mortgage credit, a kind of “mortgage Keynesianism.” Increasing consumption was a Depression-era response to a problem that puzzled observers at the time. On the one hand, unemployment and hunger were everywhere. On the other, the government was actively engaging in crop destruction to raise prices — like the great pig slaughter of 1933, in which millions of piglets and pregnant sows were destroyed so that hog prices would go up. In the words of Huey P. Long, the populist governor and senator of Louisiana: “Why is it? Why? Too much to eat and more people hungry than during the drought years; too much to wear and more people naked; too many houses and more people homeless than ever before. Why? This is a land of super-abundance and super-plenty. Then why is it also a land of starvation and nakedness and homelessness?” The true answer to Long’s question — at least as far as we understand it today — is that a restricted money supply was constraining the economy.

But observers at the time thought that the problem was that wealth was concentrated in so few hands that consumers did not have purchasing power to buy the goods that lay rotting in the fields. Increasing consumer purchasing power became the paradigm that drove economic policy during the New Deal and for decades after. A central element of this was increasing homeownership by encouraging citizens to take on large debts for the purchase of homes, beginning with the creation of the Federal Housing Administration under Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt thought the F.H.A. could revive the economy; the chairman of the Federal Reserve at the time called it “the wheel within the wheel to move the whole economic engine.” Where Europeans focused on restraining consumption, Americans saw consumption as the machine that drives growth — and we still do.

Understanding this fundamental divergence between the United States and Europe sheds new light on several episodes of recent history. It suggests that in the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan tried to deregulate industry, he was actually pushing the United States in the direction of Europe. He was successful to some degree, although partly because European regulation moved in our direction as much as we moved in theirs. This history also explains the current resistance in Europe, especially Germany, toward Keynesian stimulus. One might imagine that countries with large welfare spending would be happy to raise spending even more on government programs. But the more fundamental goal of the postwar European political economy has been to rebuild industrial production through a focus on investments and exports. Keynesian spending to stimulate consumption is foreign to this goal. A consumption bias, economists argue, is not a bad thing, as it leads to cheaper goods for Americans. And after all, someone has to do the consuming — otherwise, whom would the Germans and Chinese export to? But a consumption bias has distributional consequences that we are only beginning to understand. Some studies suggest that it undermines support for the welfare state, because as consumers come to depend on private assets — especially their homes — for their well-being, they appear to become less interested in providing for the welfare of others.

A consumption bias also focuses the efforts of the left on increasing private consumption. It was activists on the left who pushed for greater credit access for African-Americans and women in the 1960s and 1970s, and rightly so, because if credit is how Americans make ends meet, then those without access to credit are economically sidelined. But credit access does nothing for the truly poor, those who are not deemed creditworthy. Someone has to do the consuming, but if one country ends up as the world’s consumer for a long time, as America has, a political tradition can take root that works against the interests of the poor. Pointing out all the ways in which the American government has actually been more interventionist than European governments seems to alarm partisans on both the left and the right. Activists on the right can no longer pretend that American history is about small government. Those on the left are equally alarmed, because pointing out the ways in which the government has been hostile to business can undermine their calls to be even more hostile to business. But poverty reduction is not about hostility to business. It’s about strategies like promoting saving over borrowing. We don’t need regulations as loose as postwar Europe’s, but if reducing poverty and inequality is the goal, we do need to rethink our love affair with consumption.

Monica Prasad, an associate professor of sociology and faculty fellow in the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University, is the author of “The Land of Too Much: American Abundance and the Paradox of Poverty.”

Sinkholes

Sinkholes: Why Does the Ground Sometimes Just Disappear Right Beneath Us?

By Rebecca J. Rosen in Share 2 Mar 1 2013, 2:15 PM ET 13

And why does it always seem to happen in Florida? A 60-feet-deep. 50-feet-wide sinkhole opened up in Orlando in 2002. The sinkhole swallowed two trees and forced dozens of resident to evacuate. Late last night, in the Tampa suburb of Seffner, the ground gave way beneath a house, and like that, a man was lost and a family bereaved. As biblical as the story sounds, the collapsing Earth was no act of god. Florida’s peninsula is unstable terrain by dint of its particular geology: a bed of limestone is slowly wasting away beneath the soil, taking trees, houses, and lives with it, collapse by collapse.

What feels capricious to those above is the toll of an active planet, one of those improbable collisions of a human timescale and a geological one. On this tailbone of our continent, those collisions become headlines: “Florida Sinkhole Swallows a Home” and “Sinkhole Horror: Family’s Florida House About to Be Swallowed” and “Florida Sinkhole Swallows Toyota Camry.”

Here’s what’s going on underground: The entirety of Florida sits on a bed of limestone, covered in varying degrees by composites of sand, clay, and soil. Limestone is soluble and porous, and over millions of years, acids in water have sculpted out a network of subsurface voids beneath the Floridian ground (think: Swiss cheese). Depending on how strong that top layer of clay and sand is, and how close to the surface any one of those voids is, the land can bear its own weight and that of the infrastructure we build on top of it. But as the holes grow, that surface layer can suddenly give way. According to the USGS, “Many of the numerous lakes and ponds of west-central Florida occupy depressions formed by overburden materials settling into cavities in the underlying limestone.”

Both drought and rain can herald collapses. During long periods of drought, groundwater tables will drop, and caves that were once supported by the pools they had collected become weaker. (Tapping into groundwater for agriculture can have much the same effect.) When rain eventually comes, the additional weight of a soaked-through top layer can become too much for a cave to bear. Florida sees different sinkhole patterns across the state depending on the thickness of that upper strata. In areas where it is thin and sandy, sinkholes are rare and small, as the ground is not strong enough to provide cover for a massive hole below. Where the top layer is thicker and made of clay, the ground can hold its own for millions of years as giant caves form below. Until one day when it can’t. Map of active karst topography in the U.S. (USGS) Geologists call such a landscape karst topography, any place shaped by dissolving bedrock, typically limestone but also other soluble rocks such as dolomite, rock salt, and gypsum.

And it’s not just Florida: According to the U.S. Geological Survey, karst landscapes account for 10 percent of the Earth’s surface. Around the world, some of the most beautiful and strange natural features are the result of this process, the not-so-solid Earth slowly, slowly dissolving away, leaving us with the caves of Slovenia, the hills of Ireland’s western coast, and the pillars of Guilin, China:

Does This Really Surprise Anyone?

The Mafia is Moving into Renewable Energy

By James Burgess | Wed, 27 February 2013 22:40 | 2

Benefit From the Latest Energy Trends and Investment Opportunities before the mainstream media and investing public are aware they even exist. The Free Oilprice.com Energy Intelligence Report gives you this and much more. Click here to find out more.

Traditionally the mafia controls operations in gambling, prostitution, protection, extortion, and loan-sharking, yet recent evidence shows that they might actually be adding renewable energy to that list.

Italian police have recently discovered links between the Sicilian crime families known as the Cosa Nostra, and wind and solar power companies in the area. Law enforcement officers have taken around a dozen crime bosses off to jail, along with corrupt officials and company executives; they have also seized around 30 percent of Sicily’s wind farms, and have frozen more than $2 billion worth of assets.

Back in 2010 a similar police operation saw the seizure of over 40 companies, land, buildings, factories, bank accounts, stocks, cars, and yachts from the Sicilian business man Vito Nicastri, also known as the ‘Lord of the Wind’ due to his investments in wind farms and solar panel factories.

Related article: Can Perception Sell Renewable Energy?

It is likely that the Mafia has been attracted to renewable energy for several reasons; Sicily is a sunny, windy island that offers great alternative energy opportunities; much like Germany and Spain, Italy has been awarding generous subsidies to try and encourage the development of renewable energy projects; and also, the renewable energy industry offers a legitimate business which is likely to be around for many years and can provide a good front for the family.

Other renewable energy projects in Sardinia and Apulia are also being investigated for their connection to known crime families.

By. James Burgess of Oilprice.com