Perspective

No genuine scientist would ever ridicule skepticism. It is one of the defining features of an inquisitive mind. No genuine scientist would use the word “denier” to describe another scientist. No genuine scientist would claim a computer model is able to predict future climates.--Moore 

Mom felt well all weekend.
This could be a long winter. The Steelers looked Pirate-like in their lack of high-level talent at the elite positions. Smith did not look like a first receiver--or perhaps their lack of a second receiver allowed the Patriots to take liberties. This did not look like a team that would be competitive on the upper level of the league.
The Patriot defense did look elite. And their left tackle, in his first pro game, stood up well against the feared Dupree.
And how is it that Brown ends up with exactly what he wanted, shafting both the Steelers and the Raiders?
Got a bit discombobulated today with the stuff here.

In 2017, according to statistics from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, more than eleven thousand Americans died from overdose deaths involving benzodiazepines, a class of anti-anxiety drugs that includes Xanax and Valium. Those deaths — most of which also involved opioids — constituted a sixth of all U.S. overdose deaths that year, and a ten-fold increase since 1999.

 According to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, there has been no systematic increase in the frequency of extreme weather events, and the ongoing rise in sea level that began with the end of the ice age continues with no great increase in magnitude. The constancy of land-based records is obvious in data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

 

The quote above raises the major--and unspoken--objection to the climate debate. Scientists do not ridicule or hound those who disagree. That is a particularly political and/or religious quality. Anyone with a scientific mind would recognize such intolerance as specifically unscientific.

In 2017, according to statistics from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, more than eleven thousand Americans died from overdose deaths involving benzodiazepines, a class of anti-anxiety drugs that includes Xanax and Valium. Those deaths — most of which also involved opioids — constituted a sixth of all U.S. overdose deaths that year, and a ten-fold increase since 1999.

 According to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, there has been no systematic increase in the frequency of extreme weather events, and the ongoing rise in sea level that began with the end of the ice age continues with no great increase in magnitude. The constancy of land-based records is obvious in data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Theodore Roosevelt, who popularized the phrase “race suicide,” wrote to a eugenicist that “the inescapable duty of the good citizen of the right type is to leave his or her blood behind him in the world, and that we have no business to permit the perpetuation of citizens of the wrong type.” Woodrow Wilson warned against the “corruption of foreign blood” and “ever-deteriorating” genetic material.

The government has hit and raised the debt limit 78 times since 1960, some 49 under Republican administrations and 29 under Democrats. And this time will be the same. Anger and threats will fill the airways. Righteous indignation will reign. Why is that? Because it gives these people a stage and an opportunity to pontificate.

On this day in 1942, a Japanese floatplane dropped incendiary bombs on an Oregon state forest—the first and only air attack on the U.S. mainland in the war.

                                    Perspective

Andrew Sullivan has a lot of good to say:

"The left is correct that Americans are racist and sexist; but so are all humans. The question is whether, at this point in time, America has adequately managed to contain, ameliorate, and discourage these deeply human traits. I’d say that by any reasonable standards in history or the contemporary world, America is a miracle of multiracial and multicultural harmony. There’s more to do and accomplish, but the standard should be what’s doable within the framework of human nature, not perfection."

Realization

The number pi, a constant in math and, like the Pythagorean theorem, an example of the universality of forms, was not arrived at by insight.

The ancient Babylonians calculated the area of a circle by taking 3 times the square of its radius, which gave a value of pi = 3. One Babylonian tablet (ca. 1900–1680 BC) indicates a value of 3.125 for pi, which is a closer approximation.

In the Rhind Papyrus (ca.1650 BC) the Egyptians calculated the area of a circle by a formula that gave the approximate value of 3.1605 for pi.

And from the Old Testament: "Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." (II Chronicles 4:2) Some authors claim this passage as evidence that the ancient Hebrews used a value of 3 for pi. This passage occurs as part of a description of the building of Solomon's temple, and all the measurements in it are very round numbers, so perhaps this was not meant to be more than a rough estimate.

Archimedes of Syracuse (287–212 BC), one of the greatest mathematicians of the ancient world, approximated the area of a circle by using multiple polygons of known areas and circumference. Archimedes knew that he had not found the value of pi but only an approximation within those limits. In this way, Archimedes showed that pi is between 3 1/7 and 3 10/71.

A universal truth was found step by step, approximation after approximation, over millennia. Yet, even at the beginning, its existence was known.

Education and Values

This is from a recent lecture by Rodger Ream on the values of America and their relationship with education:

Talking about American ideals he says,

"What are some of those fundamental ideas? The dignity of the individual, personal responsibility and self-reliance, and, perhaps the most fundamental of all: that we are endowed with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

These are the “cohesive ideas” upon which a free society is built. On these bedrock principles rest such concepts as a free press, free speech, and religious liberty. They are the source of legal concepts such as due process and innocent until proven guilty. And they form the bedrock of our free enterprise system.

How do we reclaim these ideas that hold our society together? That role falls to each of us in our families, our churches, and in our communities. But an equally large burden rests with our schools, both K-12 and our colleges and universities."

Referencing a recent study by Professor Samuel J. Abrams:

"These collegiate administrators — those who work in areas such as student affairs, diversity and inclusion, and residential life — far outnumber faculty and are gaining significant power on campus in terms of setting the overall tone of the school and in terms of how material is taught. The scary part is this group has amassed more power and influence than professors, the ones who are actually trained to teach. Further, college administrators are overwhelmingly politically progressive — to the tune of 13:1.

The data also show how far administrators are willing to go when spreading their ideology. A whopping 71 percent of student administrators are far more concerned with teaching current events, multiculturalism, and highlighting social justice questions instead of math, science, and technical knowledge."

This argument where the basics of the culture should be taught brought severe criticism from people who insisted that policies and social aspirations are more important. That is to say they are willing to rewrite the foundations to change the results rather than changing the results within the foundation.

That is a dangerous step.

In the Pink

Dan Pink is a guy who makes his living assessing and encouraging motivation. He has TED talks and is a speaker and writer.

According to Mr. Pink, monetary incentives work best for repetitive, rules-based jobs. Yet those  motivators where  monetary rewards are linked to performance often reduce productivity in cognitive and creative jobs. People under such incentives take longer and achieve inferior results.

Researchers all over the world reproduce this finding consistently in different cultures and industries. They’ve put people in all kinds of test situations, and the same happens every time.

The reason, Pink says, is that bonuses, commissions, and the like make you narrow your focus. You concentrate on delivering the results that will give you the reward.

That’s fine in jobs like manual labor, certain kinds of accounting, some computer programming, and financial analysis. Maybe not so fine elsewhere.

In a recent TED talk, Pink said: "And if we really want to get out of this economic mess, if we really want high performance on those definitional tasks of the 21st century, the solution is not to do more of the wrong things, to entice people with a sweeter carrot, or threaten them with a sharper stick. We need a whole new approach."

If sweeter carrots aren’t the right motivator in today’s jobs, what is? Pink says we all want three things:

• Autonomy—the urge to direct our own lives

• Mastery—the desire to get better and better at something that matters

• Purpose—the yearning to do what we do in the service of something larger than ourselves

If you wonder where money fits into that, it’s part of autonomy. People want to be comfortable and independent. Pink says wise employers get the money question off the table immediately. Pay people a fair wage, then start motivating them in other ways.

Paul Schaffer, Sammy Davis Jr. and Time

Paul Shaffer has an interesting story about Sammy Davis Jr. and artists. Davis was scheduled to perform on the Letterman Show and Shaffer could not get hold of him to discuss his song and rehearse. Finally he caught Davis by phone and Davis said," 'Once in My Life' will be fine, Paul. Key of E going into F." Shaffer wanted to rehearse it but Davis did not. He arrived clearly unwell and again declined to practice. Shaffer had made a tape with his band and asked if, at least, Davis would listen to it. Davis reluctantly agreed.

Davis listened and said, "It's swinging man, but think of how much more fun we could have had if I hadn't heard this tape.'

Shaffer wrote, "His words still resonate in my ears; the notion still haunts me. Sammy swung that night but as he was performing I couldn't help thinking that his carefree feeling about time -- as opposed to my lifelong notion of the pressure of the time -- was coming from a higher spiritual plane. As a musician, I've always thought I rushed. I still think I rush. The great players never rush. It reminds me of that moment when I watched Ray Charles turn to his guitarist, just as the young guy was about to solo, and say 'Take your time son. Take your time.' "

Do Complex Questions Have Simple Answers?

Is it men, by that I mean males? Is it guns? Is it the lack of guns? If it is madness how does one explain McVeigh?

We are an inquiring species and not humble. We believe in our own ability to theorize and make sense out of the unknown. We even try to make sense of the senseless.

I doubt if we will have any insight here, how one decides to plot against strangers, attack children. But we are complex beings with a complex history. Are we a technological people with some outliers in Africa and the Middle East? Are we a primitive people with some outliers in North America and Europe? Are we thinking beings with an emotional overlay, an emotional beast with a thinking overlay? Are we an urban people? Hunter gatherers? Agrarians?

Are we trapped in our freedom now that we have gone beyond God and morality, as Niechiez thought? If that is so, how do we explain the religious bomber?

The ancient Greeks believed the relationship between the Polis and the citizen was not a natural, inherent relationship. They thought it had to be taught. Are we allowing shards to develop in the culture where individuals grow untaught about their responsibility to the polis, the whole? Does our obsession with freedom force us to refuse such teaching?

Or have we slipped the civilizing leash. Have we outrun our moral and civilizing supply lines.

Fairness Czar

The Washington Post searched the White House website for mention of the Buffett Rule and the AMT; the Buffett Rule is mentioned 17,400 times, the AMT fewer than 600. The Buffet Rule tax will take about 47 billion dollars from 22,000 wealthy households over ten years, the AMT will bring in 1 trillion dollars from millions of taxpayers most of whom earn less than 200,000 dollars a year over the same period.

Obama has said repeatedly that he favored the Buffett Rule even if it brought in less money; there is some poorly articulated reason that sounds a lot like reprisal but it is often stated as "fairness." But what is "fair" about the AMT which has accidentally become a middle class curse and why is the self-appointed "fairness czar" not fixing it?

"I'm always true to you darlin' in my fashion."

The problem with embracing fairness is the same as embracing chastity: You can not be spotty. You can not do it on even or odd days, during certain hours or under certain circumstances, or only with Billy.

Disrespecting Human Rights

The essence of rights is that they are intrinsic to human beings. They are how we see ourselves, our essence, our nature. Importantly they are independent of circumstance; they are not products or services and they have no motive. Tall or short, rich or poor. executive or farmer, rights apply equally. They cannot be granted and material factors, especially technology, are not a component. They are not temporal; one right does not emerge over time or become more appropriate in one epoch than another. Nor are they geographic; the rights of a man in Somalia are those of a man in New York. Rights are misunderstood. They are qualities, not aspirations. The disguising of social aims as human rights undermines the rights.

This said, only a politician completely ignorant of the nature of human rights could pen the Fourteenth Article of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which states that everyone has the right "to receive free compulsory education." Free" and "compulsory". Or The United Nation Declaration 16 that everyone has "the right to marry and to found a family." Are Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar abusing these rights? Does a childless couple have a claim? Does an unhappy bachelor have a claim against a much-married starlet?

And all of this nonsense fills the ancient proverb: With trivialization comes disrespect. But the real question is, does disrespect lead to trivialization?

Sunday Sermon: Virtues and Values

Virtues and values are different. Virtues are qualities, values are opinions. Virtues always precede the creation of values. If virtues decline, the principles that create values decline. One of the great problems in the West is that we have made values a virtue; that is, any opinion if firmly held is to be honored as if it were a virtue.

Regrettably this is a direct result of diversity. Diversity at one time was a spice in life, an enjoyable holiday, even if momentary, from the everyday. One put one's judgment on hold and immersed oneself to some degree in something different and foreign. You ate uncooked fish, listened to music played on a different scale, tried to watch soccer, exercised in a sitting and distorted position. But this was always diversion; the proponents of diversity now demand you not just know and perhaps try it, they demand you approve of it. After all, who is to judge? The only difference between the Eskimos and the ancient Greeks is the Greeks died out. Perhaps their survival proves the Eskimos superior to the Greeks. But we want no judgments; we'll settle for the equality between the two.

This demand of reverence for diversity rather than a simple appreciation of it will never be a successful social attribute because it denies personal aspiration. It denies ideals. And everyone has them; they are not always interchangeable and they sometimes are in conflict. It is the basic element of tragedy and the energy behind history. It is the nature of what we are. We always hope to negotiate these differences but denying them is futile, blind and dangerous.

A culture cannot be universally accepting. Open mindedness is, by definition, not a principle; it is the absence of principle and dangerously close to indifference. Without unifying principles the culture shrinks into smaller units, then becomes tribal, then familial, then individual. Shards of a former whole, nihilistic and alone.