Farewell to 2018

So another eventful year is coming to an end, but unfortunately one in which I've mostly neglected to update this blog. Like so many other things, once I'm out of the habit of doing it, it's hard to get back into it. Still, I hope to at least occasionally manage to make a few entries next year. And whether I do or not, let's hope there're are at least a few good things to write about, such as cool new astronomical discoveries, or good political developments or election results (i.e., more like this year's US congressional and governor races or the elections in the Maldives, less like Taiwan's local elections or the presidential election in Brazil). So we'll just have to see what the future brings. In any case, happy new year!

2018 US Elections - My Ballot

Unlike many other Americans, I didn't have to be shocked into voting by the disastrous results of the previous election, as I already generally made an effort to vote, even in mid-term elections (though I may have missed one or two in the years I've been overseas). But as is true for many other people I know, this time around, there's an extra edge of urgency. Fortunately I got my ballot fairly early this year, so I was able to mail it back to the US in plenty of time. I don't want to make any predictions this time, as my last somewhat cautiously optimistic predictions didn't exactly pan out well (in my defense, most people and most polls made similar predictions - if only they had been right...). I of course hope that the Democrats do well enough to take back the House and Senate, but given all the gerrymandering, vote suppression, and of course all the lies and distortions funded by right wing money (not to mention the stubborn ignorance of a substantial portion of the voting public), it won't be easy, even if they win the majority of the votes. As for the people I'm voting for, given Texas's conservative tilt, it's unlikely that many of them will win except in the case of a few local races, though there are a few that have a shot in the statewide races.

My ballot this year is simplified considerably by the fact that there are Democrats running in all but one race on it, and there are no Green candidates at all. As I mentioned in my discussion of my votes in the previous election, while in theory I would be happy to see a progressive/liberal alternative to the Democrats, particularly one that advocated stronger action on the environment, this should not be at the cost of throwing the election to the Republicans, which is what would inevitably happen in most races in Texas if a Green candidate drew a significant number of votes. But this time, the only alternatives in most races are a Democrat, a Republican and in some cases a Libertarian. At this point, there is no way I would vote for anyone who identifies themselves as a Republican. The party is so far gone that on the national level, the so-called "moderate" Republicans are people like Susan Collins, whose voting record is in fact mostly very right wing, even to the point of voting to confirm a blatant liar, obvious partisan hack, and likely (former) sexual predator to a seat on the Supreme Court. No one with even a modicum of principles and sense should willingly be identified with the extremist disaster the Republican party has become. As for the Libertarians, while I tend to agree with many of them on a few specific issues, on many other issues they are as bad as the Republicans. Indeed it's only for the sake of thoroughness that I'm bothering to look at their positions. Really, for pretty much every race it just comes down to making sure the Democrat is not obviously terrible.

Indeed, this is an instance where I decided it probably makes sense to just vote a Democratic straight party ticket. What I ended up doing was filling in the ovals for pretty much every Democrat in a contested race and then going back and filling in the straight party oval for the Democrats for good measure. Straight ticket voting won't be an option in near future races, as Texas is getting rid of it (I suppose the Republicans who control the legislature decided that it helps the Democrats more than it does them). Normally, I wouldn't vote a straight party ticket, since as a matter of general principle I think it best to look at each race separately, judging each candidate on their individual merits, but I have become so disgusted with the Republican party that in the absence of a true progressive alternative (and not a spoiler) the Democrats are the only game in town. When the stranglehold that the Republican extremists have on Texas is finally broken there will time enough to start seriously considering alternatives to the Democrats.

Below I have listed the candidates in the main races and my choices, which were as noted above all Democrats. Though there actually is some variation in how terrible the individual Republican (and Libertarian) candidates are and how good (or mediocre or just lacking in information) the Democratic candidates are, I didn't bother going into detail this time around.

US Senator

Beto O'Rourke (D)

Ted Cruz (R)
Neal Dikeman (L)

My Vote –  Beto O'Rourke

US Representative, District 24
Jan McDowell (D)
Kenny Marchant (R)
Mike Kolls (L)

My Vote – Jan McDowell

Governor
Lupe Valdez (D)
Greg Abbott (R)
Mark Tippetts (L)

My Vote – Lupe Valdez

Lieutenant Governor
Mike Collier (D)
Dan Patrick (R)
Kerry McKennon (L)

My Vote – Mike Collier

Attorney General
Justin Nelson (D)
Ken Paxton (R)
Michael Harris (L) 

My Vote – Justin Nelson

Comptroller of Public Accounts
Joi Chevalier (D)
Glenn Hegar (R)
Ben Sanders (L)

My Vote – Joi Chevalier

Commissioner of the General Land Office
Miguel Suazo (D)
George P. Bush (R)
Matt Pina (L)

My Vote – Miguel Suazo

Commissioner of Agriculture
Kim Olson (D)
Sid Miller (R)
Richard Carpenter (L)

My Vote – Kim Olson

Railroad Commissioner
Roman McAllen (D)
Christi Craddick (R)
Mike Wright (L)

My Vote – Roman McAllen

Justice, Supreme Court, Place 2
Steven Kirkland (D)
Jimmy Blacklock (R)

My Vote – Steven Kirkland

Justice, Supreme Court, Place 4
R.K. Sandill (D)
John Devine (R)

My Vote – R.K. Sandill

Justice, Supreme Court, Place 6
Kathy Cheng (D)
Jeff Brown (R)

My Vote – Kathy Cheng

Presiding Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals
Maria T. (Terri) Jackson (D)
Sharon Keller (R)
William Bryan Strange III (L)

My Vote – Maria T. (Terri) Jackson

Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 7
Ramona Franklin (D)
Barbara Parker Hervey (R)

My Vote – Ramona Franklin

Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 8
Mark Ash (R)
Michelle Slaughter (L)

My Vote – None (this was the only race without a Democrat, and the other two choices were awful)

Member, State Board of Education, District 11
Carla Morton (D)
Patricia Hardy (R)
Aaron Gutknecht (L)

My Vote – Carla Morton

State Senator, District 16
Nathan Johnson (D)
Don Huffines (R)

My Vote – Nathan Johnson

State Representative, District 103
Rafael Anchia (D)
Jerry Fortenberry (R)

My Vote – Rafael Anchia

A Brief Update

As is readily apparent, I've recently slacked off somewhat on making regular blog posts. April was the first month in which I failed to post anything at all since I started this blog several years ago, and having let myself skip one month, it was easy to let myself skip another and then another. The problem is not so much that I don't have anything to say; on the contrary, I have a great deal to say about (to cite some examples from April and May) the continuing stupidity and downright cruelty of the current US administration, the ongoing efforts by the Chinese government to create a dystopian police state in East Turkestan (or as they call it, Xinjiang), the urgent need to address environmental issues such as climate change and plastic in our oceans, the death of moonwalker and painter Alan Bean, mob violence in India, political changes in Malaysia, and much more (such as, say, the disgraceful vote to confirm a US Supreme Court nominee who not only has been credibly accused of sexual assault but who blatantly lied to the Senate or the Saudi government's outrageous murder of a journalist). It's just that I am constantly being distracted by other things and can't seem to find the time to sit down and write something that I find satisfactory on these issues. Admittedly, it isn't the highest priority at the moment, not because these things aren't important or even that I don't think I have anything worthwhile to say on them, just that given that my blog at the moment functions largely like a journal or diary of private musings, albeit one that is sitting open for anyone who comes across it to read, it has to take second place to other things. Nevertheless, just for my own sake, I will continue to post here, if somewhat sporadically, if only because I find it useful to organize my thoughts on various topics by writing them out, and it can also be a relief to express them out loud, as it were, even if only a few people are likely to hear (i.e., read) them. It's not much fun being opinionated entirely in your own head, and while I do make use of other outlets for expressing my thoughts, whether friends and acquaintances or even comment pages on the Internet (though most of those are rabbit holes that I avoid like the plague), those have their limitations. And if in the future more people become aware of this blog (even an audience that was a sizable fraction of that of my radio show would be something) both old and new posts will acquire additional meaning. Of course with greater attention would come attendant problems such as people uncovering errors or badly worded, even potentially offensive, statements. I would hope that there aren't too many of either of those, but it's hard to be certain. I should probably go back and read everything I've written just in case, but that's another thing that's not high enough on my list of priorities....

Fashion, Cosmetics, and Other Frivolities

Today, rather than writing about current events, books or even history, I want to write about a more general subject that I also have some opinions on. The truth is, I am fairly opinionated about a wide range of subjects, though I do my best to be as fair and objective as I can in what I say about them. Nevertheless, I still may sometimes get carried away and make my point a little more strongly than I intended. I try to justify this by the fact that in such cases I'm usually attacking the more popular or mainstream position - I'm "punching up", as it were, and I am exaggerating my point in order to give it greater weight. That said, I may accidentally step on a few toes here and there, and if so, I express my apologies to anyone might reasonably take offense.

All this is a rambling preamble to my rant on fashion and cosmetics, the topic I want to tackle today. Both of these industries are enormous ones that bring in billions of dollars each year (okay, I'll admit I haven't bothered to look up the actual numbers, but I'd be very surprised if the annual spending globally on either is less than nine figures). In Taiwan, the first floors of all the major department stores are given over entirely to cosmetics, and clothing and accessories occupy most of the other floors. The shopping mall at the bottom of Taipei 101, the tallest building in Taiwan and one of the tallest in the world, is nearly entirely given over to high end fashion shops selling Louis Vitton, Bvlgari, Chanel, and other such brands. Stores selling slightly less fancy fashion brands are found all over, as are ads for cosmetics . But to be blunt, I find the vast majority of this to be a complete waste of resources and human energy, and I can only wonder what the world would be like if most of the money that is spent on such things went to something useful or at least more forward-looking (say, an international effort to colonize space). Granted, a fair amount of this is my admittedly subjective opinion, but there is some real reasoning behind it, and I'll get into both aspects below.

First, I must acknowledge that naturists notwithstanding, people need clothing, and it's not unreasonable to want those clothes to look nice, though again what looks good is a matter of opinion. I can even understand how some people could get into designing their own original clothing styles, and how those creations might appeal to others. So I'm not saying that there's anything inherently wrong with fashion designers, much less clothing stores. But when people spend huge sums of money on a clothing item or accessory like a hand bag simply because it's a famous brand, I have to say I find that ridiculous. For that matter, if you really care about what clothing you wear, why would you want to just wear exactly what a bunch of other people are wearing rather than coming up with your own original combinations, perhaps put together out of some cheaper or even recycled clothing (see the song "Thrift Shop" by Macklemore and Ryan Lewis for some similar sentiments)? Of course not everyone has the imagination to think of something original, and not everyone cares enough to bother. But in the later case, my own opinion is that you are better off wearing clothes that are relatively plain. After all, the more extreme fashions generally end up dating rather quickly, whereas plainer clothes, while maybe not ever being exactly "in style", at least won't ever look silly. But in any case I think the world would better off if people spent a lot less money and energy pursuing the latest fashion, not only because that money would be better spent elsewhere, but because the tendency of people to discard perfectly wearable clothing because they want something new and "fashionable" wastes resources and exacerbates the exploitation of workers in developing nations, though it should be said that cheap clothing is just as likely - or even more likely - to be made by exploited workers, which is why durable fair trade clothing with clear supply chains should be encouraged or even required. While I haven't figured out where to get such clothing in Taiwan, I do my bit by wearing clothing until holes, serious fading of the colors, or my wife force me to stop, and even then I'll still wear it around the house.

Then there are cosmetics. Again, I have to acknowlege that cosmetics have a very long history, dating back to prehistoric times and maybe even to archaic humans (i.e. close relatives of our species like the Neanderthals). I can also see how some people might enjoy experimenting with different cosmetic combinations. But again, people take it to ridiculous extremes. Objectively speaking, putting lots of cosmetics on your face on a regular basis is not going to be good for your skin in the long run, especially since not all of the chemicals in them have been tested as well as they be, and of course money not spent on cosmetics could be spent elsewhere. In my subjective opinion (one that I know a fair number of other people share), cosmetics don't generally do much for the appearance either. On my long commutes into the center of the city, I have more than once seen women spend their commuting time putting on make-up, and almost invariably they looked better when they started than when they finished. Again, this is my opinion, but I've mentioned this to a number of other people, and most of them said they felt the same. I won't deny that a judicious use of cosmetics can sometimes be effective, but my observation is that the effect is better if they are only used on special occasions, and in moderation. In fact, they generally work best if at a casual glance the person doesn't look like they are using them at all.

One thing I, as a straight male, have always liked about Taiwan is that many women don't use cosmetics or at least don't use them much. Of course there are plenty of women in Taiwan who do use them, sometimes to excess. But it isn't as universal as in many countries. In South Korea, for example, it seems like the vast majority of women use a great deal of cosmetics, and they all use them in the same way. Coupled with their excessive use of cosmetic surgery (another topic I have strong opinions about, particularly the questionable ethics of actually advertising such "services"), they end up all looking rather similar to each other. Once more, this is my opinion, but I know many people who say they get the same impression.

In any event, when I walk down a street filled with shop after shop of clothes, or when I walk into the first floor of a department store filled with endless stalls of cosmetics, or when I walk through the mall at Taipei 101 (which I used to actually like to go to, as it had a good bookstore - since closed down with its former space taken over by some fashion brand's store), filled with shops selling ridiculously overpriced fashion brands, I have to think that our society and the entire system of global capitalism is seriously messed up, with huge amounts of money and energy dedicated to things of little substance. Here I must acknowledge another issue. It happens that both fashion and cosmetics, the latter in particular, are more popular among women than men. Lest it be thought that my disdain for these things is largely rooted in sexism, I should note that I have a similar opinion of the typically male fascination with automobiles and sports (I was a sports fan as a child, but I gradually lost interest in my college years, which is also when I got over the fascination with fast driving that started in my high school years). Again, I don't think that sports are bad, but making them into a multi-billion dollar industry with all the TV deals, merchandising, fantasy leagues and so forth is taking things way too far. Of course I can't say that my gender doesn't play any role in my lack of interest in fashion and cosmetics, but I really don't think that is the main driver for the opinions expressed there. I would be prepared to admit to there perhaps being an element of intellectual elitism involved, however. Of course I don't expect everyone in the world to devote their energy to highbrow intellectual pursuits all the time; indeed fashion and sports are in their way as worthwhile as literature and science. But when your average shopping district or shopping mall has fifty times as many shops selling clothing, accessories or cosmetics as it does bookstores (if it has any bookstores at all) or when a society spends many times as much money on fashion, cosmetics, or sports as it does on scientific research and education, I think things are a little bit out of balance.

Guns, Guns, and More Guns

Guns are currently a hot topic in the US, with the recent mass shooting at a Florida high school leading to renewed calls to finally take some substantial steps to reduce gun violence. My own opinions on such matters are pretty clear cut - more guns lead to more gun violence, no civilian needs to (or should be allowed to) own a semi-automatic weapon or high-capacity magazine, a thorough background check should be completed for every single gun sale, and a national gun registry should be established. But in the interest of, ahem, fairness, I'll let the "guest" author of a prior post on guns present his side of the argument:

A few years ago I made a modest proposal to prevent school shootings: we should arm not only the teachers but the students as well. Unfortunately, not even the most dedicated of the patriotic gun loving politicians had the boldness to formally advocate this. Now look what's happened! People should have listened to me! Still, at least some of them have once more promoted the intermediate step of arming the teachers. Some naysayers argue that this would be expensive, as we'd be talking several hundred thousand teachers at a minimum. But come on now, our country should be willing to spend as much as it takes to put guns in teachers' hands. It would be a much better investment than paying for things like books or school supplies, because education has to take a backseat to getting more guns out there...I mean, making schools safe.

Some argue that having a bunch of armed teachers wouldn't necessarily make schools safer either, since even battle-hardened soldiers can have trouble in an actual shootout, let alone teachers who've had a little training but have never actually had someone shooting at them. But don't those people know that life is like a movie or video game? The good guy will always manage to get his shot off under pressure. And the same argument applies to those who say that going up against a semi-automatic weapon with a handgun is like bringing a knife to a gunfight. Just give the teachers the guns and we can count on them. If they should panic and run, or accidentally hit a student, or otherwise mess up when they're under fire, we'll just put the blame on their personal inadequacies. Guns are always right, it's the people who use them who are sometimes wrong.

As for this crazy idea of banning semi-automatic weapons or instituting universal background checks, it's like Marco Rubio, one of the gun lobby's most loyal paid...er, that is, friends in Congress, said, if some bad guy really wants to shoot up a school or something, he'll find a way to get the gun he needs... so we should make it as easy as possible for him to do so. And if he does, and he goes on a rampage, we'll be certain to blame the authorities for failing to take note of his obvious mental health issues, even if he hadn't actually been known to have any. At least if he's a white guy; if he's black or Muslim or something then it was clearly his ideology that should have alerted authorities. In any case, it will always be authorities' fault for not knowing this person was dangerous. The fact that he could buy a really powerful weapon without having to go through an onerous background check will never be the problem. After all, tougher background checks might inconvenience me and others who want to buy more beautiful, beautiful guns, and a ban on guns like AR-15s would stop us from buying them. We can't have that. Aside from the fact that they're just cool and so we shouldn't be denied them, I can imagine possible situations where I might actually need one. Some may claim the chances are small, but you always have to prepare for any eventuality, however unlikely. A refugee who went through years of vetting might still be a terrorist, so we can't let them in; my cat might decide to murder me in my sleep by lying on my nose and mouth and suffocating me, so I have to lock it out of my bedroom at night; aliens might be controlling my neighbor so I can't let him in my apartment; and I might be attacked by a gang of robbers or a squad of government agents, so I need to be able to buy a semi-automatic weapon.

Finally, all these companies ending their relationships with the NRA are absolutely crossing the line. Like some of the NRA's loyal pets...I mean friends in the Georgia legislature said, not letting NRA members have a special discount for being NRA members is clearly discrimination against conservatives. If you don't give us preferential treatment, you are discriminating against us.

So I hope that clears everything up. Guns are not the problem, they are the solution. And the fact that other countries that don't have nearly as many guns also have a lot less gun violence is purely coincidence.

Hmm, okay then....

A Brief Tribute to Two Giants: John Young and Ursula Le Guin

In this past month the world has lost two larger than life individuals: John Young, one of our greatest space explorers, and Ursula K. Le Guin, one of our greatest science fiction writers - indeed, one of our greatest writers of any genre. Admittedly, neither death could be considered a great shock, as they were both in their late 80s (Young was 87, Le Guin was 88). Nevertheless, it's always sad to know that the world has lost one more great individual, and that there is no chance of any more wisdom or knowledge coming from ones who have provided so much in the past.

Not long after Young's death, I posted a short tribute on Facebook, which I am basically just copying here, with a few modifications: John Young had one of the most impressive careers of any space traveler. He was one of only two dozen people who flew to the Moon, one of the dozen people who actually set foot on it, and the only astronaut to fly on Gemini, Apollo, AND the space shuttle (he flew two missions of each type, including the very first space shuttle flight). He was the only person to have piloted four types of spacecraft, as he flew both the Apollo Command Module and the Apollo Lunar Module in addition to Gemini and the Space Shuttle. His total of six spaceflights is still among the highest ever, with only two astronauts having flown seven times and only six others equaling Young's total - in fact, Young actually launched into space seven times if his taking off from the Moon is included, by which count he would be tied for the record. He was one of only three men to fly to the Moon twice; both he and fellow moonwalker Gene Cernan, who died last January, were on Apollo 10, which flew to the Moon without landing just two months before the historic landing by Apollo 11. The Apollo 10 mission holds special significance for me due to its timing (let's just say my mother tells me she listened to news of the mission in the hospital). Sadly, Tom Stafford is now the only member of the crew who is still alive. Only five of the dozen moonwalkers are still alive, as are eight of the additional dozen who flew to the Moon without landing (the command pilots from the six missions with landings, and the crews of the three missions that went to the Moon without a landing). With Young's death, none of the pairs who walked on the Moon together is still intact; there is one man left from five of the six missions with a moon landing. The entire crew of Apollo 14 has died. The only crew with all three members still alive is, ironically, that of Apollo 8, the first mission to fly to the Moon. One of that crew was Jim Lovell, who also flew to the Moon twice, but never landed because of the accident suffered by his second mission, Apollo 13. Charles Duke, who walked on the Moon with Young, is by several months the youngest of the moonwalkers; he'll be 83 in October. Of those who only flew to the Moon without visiting, the youngest, Ken Mattingly, is 81. In another decade or so, there may be only one or two people left who have visited the Moon (unless SpaceX pulls off its planned Moonshot in the next few years). Even so, the legacy of John Young and his fellow Apollo astronauts will live on as long as we keep their memory alive.

As for Ursula Le Guin, she was widely regarded as one of the best writers working in the genres generally known as science fiction and fantasy. Her writing was never flashy and her worlds were not as elaborate as many other fictional ones, and yet they felt very real. Perhaps in part because of her background - her father was an anthropologist while her mother was a writer - she was able to create very convincing societies, even if they were often quite different from any that exist in the real world, such as those in books like The Left Hand of Darkness. She used the genre of speculative fiction to explore many real world issues, including gender relations, war and violence, environmentalism, the contrast between socialism and capitalism, and much more. Yet her books didn't preach; they simply painted a realistic picture and left the reader to draw their own conclusions. There is still much of her work that I haven't read, and a number of books that I've only read once and have now mostly forgotten, but I have enjoyed pretty much everything I've read of hers, from well known classics like her Earthsea books, The Left Hand of Darkness, and The Dispossessed to more recent works like her Annals of the Western Shore (Gifts, Voices and Powers), and I'm sure I'll be coming back to these and others of her books for years to come. The little I've read of her non-fiction prose has also been clear, concise and well-reasoned. I highly recommend her work to all readers, regardless of age - she has written a number of children's books, and the Earthsea books were aimed at young adults - and genre preference - her characters and themes are universal, and one doesn't have to be a fan of science fiction or fantasy to appreciate her work.