I wondered why the Republicans have been so adamant in their support of the Keystone pipeline. Yes, they have an ideological commitment to ignore climate change in search of profits, but that's vague. It's not a gigantic motive. What is a motivator is the fact that the biggest leaseholders of Canadian tar sands are the Koch brothers. They fund the campaigns of Republican incumbents. We have to build that pipeline, folks.
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Monday, January 26, 2015
A Strange Faith
Maybe 95% of the world's scientists believe our climate is changing. Where do the 5% come from, those who deny climate change? Some of them are sociopaths. Statistics tell us that 1% of the population is sociopathic, which means that if we have 10 million scientists in the world, roughly 100,000 may be sociopaths. Another percentage of scientists is this or that and so forth.
Obviously 95% of scientists can be wrong about the climate. But I'm in no position to challenge them on climate change. I'm not expert. I don't believe that I know more about climate change than climate scientists do. I'm not qualified to read the 95% and then the 5% and then to decide which side is right. For me to attempt that would be absurd. It would be based on a strange faith that I know more than the experts.
There are people who have this strange faith in themselves. The polls show that nearly all of them are middle class and college educated.
Fortunately there are major organizations qualified to judge medical and scientific claims, including the World Health Organization and the National Cancer Institute. In minutes on the Internet you can find out what most scientists think about vaccinations, fluoridated water, etc. You can do this on your own. Then you can support the scientists or you can join the 5% who tell us that the climate isn't changing, that vaccinations cause autism or that drinking fluoridated water lowers your IQ.
Saturday, January 24, 2015
Vaccinations !?!
Below is some commentary on vaccinations that one of my daughters found on the Internet.
As
a mother, I put my parenting decisions above all else. Nobody knows my
son better than me, and the choices I make about how to care for him are
no one’s business but my own. So, when other people tell me how they
think I should be raising my child, I simply can’t tolerate it.
Regardless of what anyone else thinks, I fully stand behind my choices
as a mom, including my choice not to vaccinate my son, because it is my
fundamental right as a parent to decide which eradicated diseases come
roaring back.
The decision to cause a full-blown, multi-state pandemic of a virus that was effectively eliminated from the national population generations ago is my choice alone, and regardless of your personal convictions, that right should never be taken away from a child’s parent. Never.
Say what you will about me, but I’ve read the information out there and weighed every option, so I am confident in my choice to revive a debilitating illness that was long ago declared dead and let it spread like wildfire from school to school, town to town, and state to state, until it reaches every corner of the country. Leaving such a momentous decision to someone you haven’t even met and who doesn’t care about your child personally—now that’s absurd! Maybe I choose to bring back the mumps. Or maybe it’s diphtheria. Or maybe it’s some other potentially fatal disease that can easily pass among those too young or too medically unfit to be vaccinated themselves. But whichever highly communicable and formerly wiped-out disease that I opt to resurrect with a vengeance, it is a highly personal decision that only I and my family have the liberty to make.
The bottom line is that I’m this child’s mother, and I know what’s best. End of story. Politicians, pharmaceutical companies—they don’t know the specific circumstances that made me decide to breathe new life into a viral infection that scientists and the nation at large celebrated stamping out roughly a century ago. It seems like all they care about is following unexamined old rules, injecting chemicals into our kids, preventing ghastly illnesses that used to ravage millions and have since been erased from storming back and wreaking mass havoc on a national scale, and making a buck. Should we really be listening to them and not our own hearts?
I am by no means telling mothers and fathers out there what to do; I’m simply standing up for every parent’s right to make his or her own decision. You may choose to follow the government-recommended immunization schedule for your child, and that’s your decision as a parent. And I might choose to unleash rubella on thousands upon thousands of helpless people, and that’s my decision as a parent.
It’s simple: You don’t tell me how to raise my kids to avoid reviving a horrific illness that hasn’t been seen on our shores since our grandparents were children, and I won’t tell you how to raise yours.
Look, I’ve done the research on these issues, I’ve read the statistics, and I’ve carefully considered the costs and benefits, and there’s simply no question in my mind that inciting a nationwide health emergency by unleashing a disease that can kill 20 percent or more of its victims is the right one for my child.
People need to respect that and move on.
The decision to cause a full-blown, multi-state pandemic of a virus that was effectively eliminated from the national population generations ago is my choice alone, and regardless of your personal convictions, that right should never be taken away from a child’s parent. Never.
Say what you will about me, but I’ve read the information out there and weighed every option, so I am confident in my choice to revive a debilitating illness that was long ago declared dead and let it spread like wildfire from school to school, town to town, and state to state, until it reaches every corner of the country. Leaving such a momentous decision to someone you haven’t even met and who doesn’t care about your child personally—now that’s absurd! Maybe I choose to bring back the mumps. Or maybe it’s diphtheria. Or maybe it’s some other potentially fatal disease that can easily pass among those too young or too medically unfit to be vaccinated themselves. But whichever highly communicable and formerly wiped-out disease that I opt to resurrect with a vengeance, it is a highly personal decision that only I and my family have the liberty to make.
The bottom line is that I’m this child’s mother, and I know what’s best. End of story. Politicians, pharmaceutical companies—they don’t know the specific circumstances that made me decide to breathe new life into a viral infection that scientists and the nation at large celebrated stamping out roughly a century ago. It seems like all they care about is following unexamined old rules, injecting chemicals into our kids, preventing ghastly illnesses that used to ravage millions and have since been erased from storming back and wreaking mass havoc on a national scale, and making a buck. Should we really be listening to them and not our own hearts?
I am by no means telling mothers and fathers out there what to do; I’m simply standing up for every parent’s right to make his or her own decision. You may choose to follow the government-recommended immunization schedule for your child, and that’s your decision as a parent. And I might choose to unleash rubella on thousands upon thousands of helpless people, and that’s my decision as a parent.
It’s simple: You don’t tell me how to raise my kids to avoid reviving a horrific illness that hasn’t been seen on our shores since our grandparents were children, and I won’t tell you how to raise yours.
Look, I’ve done the research on these issues, I’ve read the statistics, and I’ve carefully considered the costs and benefits, and there’s simply no question in my mind that inciting a nationwide health emergency by unleashing a disease that can kill 20 percent or more of its victims is the right one for my child.
People need to respect that and move on.
Friday, January 23, 2015
The Death of Smith
Thursday morning I went to hear Chris O'Sullivan, who is giving a well-attended series of talks on California history. These talks in Healdsburg are better than going to a movie. Chris has everything organized short of a light show, and his commentary is for mature audiences only. For example, when I was young we were taught a sanitized version of California history, which left me feeling sorry for John Sutter, who was so nice to the newly arrived Americans and then lost everything when gold was discovered. Now I find out that Sutter had enslaved local Indians and had deserted his family in Europe and was a crummy dude in most ways.
I've learned that when the Americans arrived in California, they sneaked into a foreign country without passports, visas or permission, and they weren't welcome. The Latinos took pity on them and let them stay, although the Americans were in fact illegal aliens.
We talked a bit about the early explorer Jedediah Smith.
Thursday evening I attended a meeting of the Democratic club in what used to be, Chris claims, the town of Poor Man's Flats (now rather feebly called Windsor). At the meeting a representative of State Senator Mike McGuire told us that Mike had introduced a bill on the fate of the Smith (Jedediah Smith) River, the last truly pristine river in California. The Smith begins in Oregon and crosses into California, and it seems that Oregon might be on the verge of authorizing a strip mining operation on the edge of the river. It will be sad if it turns out that Oregon kills the Smith.
I've learned that when the Americans arrived in California, they sneaked into a foreign country without passports, visas or permission, and they weren't welcome. The Latinos took pity on them and let them stay, although the Americans were in fact illegal aliens.
We talked a bit about the early explorer Jedediah Smith.
Thursday evening I attended a meeting of the Democratic club in what used to be, Chris claims, the town of Poor Man's Flats (now rather feebly called Windsor). At the meeting a representative of State Senator Mike McGuire told us that Mike had introduced a bill on the fate of the Smith (Jedediah Smith) River, the last truly pristine river in California. The Smith begins in Oregon and crosses into California, and it seems that Oregon might be on the verge of authorizing a strip mining operation on the edge of the river. It will be sad if it turns out that Oregon kills the Smith.
Monday, January 19, 2015
MLK jr
Walking from one place to another on the UCLA campus, I came across a nifty looking black man in a dark suit who was talking to about 50 students on a little rise. I recognized him. He wasn't super famous yet. I stopped to listen. His soaring oratorical style seemed foreign to a resident of beaches, but it worked. I stopped to listen, and he became the American I most admired.
Sunday, January 18, 2015
Muhammed's Long Nose
We know what Jesus looked like. We've seen countless paintings of Him, a tall handsome Swede with brilliant blue eyes, but what did Muhammad look like?
That's hard to say. In Muhammad's time there were no photographers, and there are no portrait paintings of him as far as I know. Fortiunately we do have the cover of Charlie Hebdo from last week. It carries a cartoon of a man in what I guess is an Arab turban. He has a long banana nose and a beard, and he's wearing a white thobe. Everyone says that he's Muhammad. I don't know why they say that. He might be any desert Arab in traditional dress. In fact, he might be T. E. Lawrence. There's no way to tell.
That's hard to say. In Muhammad's time there were no photographers, and there are no portrait paintings of him as far as I know. Fortiunately we do have the cover of Charlie Hebdo from last week. It carries a cartoon of a man in what I guess is an Arab turban. He has a long banana nose and a beard, and he's wearing a white thobe. Everyone says that he's Muhammad. I don't know why they say that. He might be any desert Arab in traditional dress. In fact, he might be T. E. Lawrence. There's no way to tell.
Wednesday, January 14, 2015
Huckabee's Children
Someone wrote that Mike Huckabee has a son who hanged a stray dog from a tree for the fun of it. That is serial killer stuff. I have no idea if the story is true. I thought of it, though, when Huckabee made news yesterday, selling his new book in which he is scornfully critical of the Obamas' parenting because they allow their daughters to listen to Beyonce.
In case you don't know, Beyonce is a gigantic pop star, respectable as far as I know, maybe a billionaire, and a major force in youth and young adult culture these days. Huckabee's suggestion that good parents should ban her music reminds me of earlier singers old white dudes attempted to ban. When I was about ten, they were banning Frank Sinatra from their homes. I'm trying to recall why. Sinatra was kind of skinny and ugly but the girls liked him. That was one reason. He did not serve in World War II--I think he failed the physical. Rebellious teenagers who cut their hair too short out of disrespect and called adults "Daddio" were Sinatra fans. Sinatra was known as a womanizing rebel. Christian parents banned his records. Later they banned the Beatles and Stones and Madonna and heavy metal and whatever. There's always someone to point to.
Huckabee is running for President. He's nailing down the fundamentalists who vote in the Iowa caucuses. In the end I doubt if the Republicans are suicidal enough to make a Beyonce-banner their candidate.
In case you don't know, Beyonce is a gigantic pop star, respectable as far as I know, maybe a billionaire, and a major force in youth and young adult culture these days. Huckabee's suggestion that good parents should ban her music reminds me of earlier singers old white dudes attempted to ban. When I was about ten, they were banning Frank Sinatra from their homes. I'm trying to recall why. Sinatra was kind of skinny and ugly but the girls liked him. That was one reason. He did not serve in World War II--I think he failed the physical. Rebellious teenagers who cut their hair too short out of disrespect and called adults "Daddio" were Sinatra fans. Sinatra was known as a womanizing rebel. Christian parents banned his records. Later they banned the Beatles and Stones and Madonna and heavy metal and whatever. There's always someone to point to.
Huckabee is running for President. He's nailing down the fundamentalists who vote in the Iowa caucuses. In the end I doubt if the Republicans are suicidal enough to make a Beyonce-banner their candidate.
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
Marching Through Paris
Here's a sobering thought: no one in the world cares that we were not represented in the big march in Paris except the American GOP. Not an issue. Yet the entire American media system from Amy Goodman to Rush Limburgher is giving the non-incident 48 hours of blanket coverage. Why didn't our President attend and walk down streets where several million strangers are milling about? (Because the Secret Service prefers him alive?)
Reality doesn't matter. Anything to fill the empty air time.
Reality doesn't matter. Anything to fill the empty air time.
Monday, January 12, 2015
How to Conquer the World
I don't believe that what drove the Paris terrorists was
religion. There doesn't seem to be much evidence of interest in religion
among them. Often when religion is cited as the reason for vicious behavior, the real cause is something else, something as crass as who owns what property. Religion becomes the excuse. So why did the terrorists murder nearly 20 French people?
I've come up with two ideas. One is that 1% of the people on earth are sociopaths (I read that somewhere). That would mean there are roughly 60 million sociopaths on the planet. Most are not killers. They become corporate leaders, generals, football coaches, executioners, etc. They have places, sometimes useful places, in our system. But others seek an outlet in a murderous cause that makes a virtue of their Sadism. The second idea is concerned with the nature of the cause the Paris terrorists supported, which is to conquer the world in the name of Islam. This is a hopeless task, as those who set out to conquer the world eventually discover, but people keep attempting the impossible.
Nazi Germany was never going to conquer the world because there weren't enough Nazis to go around. Terrorists are not going to conquer the world because there aren't enough terrorists to get the job done. You can't conquer the world. It's a pipe dream.
I've come up with two ideas. One is that 1% of the people on earth are sociopaths (I read that somewhere). That would mean there are roughly 60 million sociopaths on the planet. Most are not killers. They become corporate leaders, generals, football coaches, executioners, etc. They have places, sometimes useful places, in our system. But others seek an outlet in a murderous cause that makes a virtue of their Sadism. The second idea is concerned with the nature of the cause the Paris terrorists supported, which is to conquer the world in the name of Islam. This is a hopeless task, as those who set out to conquer the world eventually discover, but people keep attempting the impossible.
Nazi Germany was never going to conquer the world because there weren't enough Nazis to go around. Terrorists are not going to conquer the world because there aren't enough terrorists to get the job done. You can't conquer the world. It's a pipe dream.
Friday, January 9, 2015
When We Are Isis
Once or twice a year the Chaucer Boys, a bicycle club, pedals the northern end of Clear Lake. Our route takes us by the site of the Bloody Island Massacre in 1850. This is the site of a battle between dragoons of the American Army and 400 unarmed Pomos, old men, women and children, many of whom ended up dead. At least one girl, Lucy Moore, as we call her, survived by hiding under water.
This genocidal engagement was an attempt to punish the wrong Indians for the murder of a sadistic hero named Kelsey, for whom Kelseyville is still named. Kelsey kept Pomos as slaves, starved them to death to save money, and regularly forced Pomo parents to supply him with daughters to be sexually abused (or whipped to death). Finally some parent put an arrow in him.
The massacre at Bloody Island was not an isolated incident in Northern California, where a bounty was set on Indians, a bounty collected by any hunter who turned in severed body parts to verify his kill.
Next we might look at Carson City, named for Kit Carson, but that would be redundant.
We are, quite rightly, shocked by the barbarities of ISIS, but how would you prefer to be executed? Would you like to have your head cut off in 30 seconds in Iraq or to writhe in agony for an hour as drugs ate you to death in a Texas prison? Which approach is more humane?
This genocidal engagement was an attempt to punish the wrong Indians for the murder of a sadistic hero named Kelsey, for whom Kelseyville is still named. Kelsey kept Pomos as slaves, starved them to death to save money, and regularly forced Pomo parents to supply him with daughters to be sexually abused (or whipped to death). Finally some parent put an arrow in him.
The massacre at Bloody Island was not an isolated incident in Northern California, where a bounty was set on Indians, a bounty collected by any hunter who turned in severed body parts to verify his kill.
Next we might look at Carson City, named for Kit Carson, but that would be redundant.
We are, quite rightly, shocked by the barbarities of ISIS, but how would you prefer to be executed? Would you like to have your head cut off in 30 seconds in Iraq or to writhe in agony for an hour as drugs ate you to death in a Texas prison? Which approach is more humane?
Sunday, January 4, 2015
Flagrant Errors
THE IMITATION GAME is a movie about Alan Turing, who invented the computer near the start of World War Two in a successful effort to break German military codes. Film reviewer Anthony Lane found the story of Turing remiss in that "no word is breathed . . . of the Polish cryptographers who did much of the heavy lifting on the project before Turing came on the scene."
This reminds me of flagrant historical error in the film TOMBSTONE, a Hollywood biography of Wyatt Earp. which includes the famous shootout near the O.K. Corral. No mention is made in this movie of the Polish carpenter who, months before Earp reached Arizona, actually built the corral. Similarly, in THE LONGEST DAY, a film about the Allied invasion of France, we find no mention of the Polish barber who cut General Omar Bradley's hair on the morning of June 3, 1944. Why not? Was Omar Bradley a Muslim? I don't think so.
Finally, if we celebrate Bradley and Turing, why have we seen no film on the life of film director Roman Polanski? His biography is packed with drama. His second wife was murdered. And on February 20, 1977, Polanski drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl in California, pleaded guilty, then fled to France to escape sentencing. We have solid testimony that Polanski is actually a good guy from such trusted figures as Bill Cosby, Woody Allen and Michael Jackson. How long can we condemn a man because he's Polish? Let's be fair.
This reminds me of flagrant historical error in the film TOMBSTONE, a Hollywood biography of Wyatt Earp. which includes the famous shootout near the O.K. Corral. No mention is made in this movie of the Polish carpenter who, months before Earp reached Arizona, actually built the corral. Similarly, in THE LONGEST DAY, a film about the Allied invasion of France, we find no mention of the Polish barber who cut General Omar Bradley's hair on the morning of June 3, 1944. Why not? Was Omar Bradley a Muslim? I don't think so.
Finally, if we celebrate Bradley and Turing, why have we seen no film on the life of film director Roman Polanski? His biography is packed with drama. His second wife was murdered. And on February 20, 1977, Polanski drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl in California, pleaded guilty, then fled to France to escape sentencing. We have solid testimony that Polanski is actually a good guy from such trusted figures as Bill Cosby, Woody Allen and Michael Jackson. How long can we condemn a man because he's Polish? Let's be fair.
Saturday, January 3, 2015
Nobody said it better
In a NEW YORKER of some time back, John Kenny set out to mock the pomposity of Thomas Friedman. In the NY TIMES Friedman had written: "No one ever said it better than Osama bin Laden: 'When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.'"
Kenny then went on to provide some additional examples of things no one has ever said better. Below are a few samples.
1. Let's say you see a kitten . Fine, make it two kittens. One's nimble and fast and cute. The other one is dead. My experience is that people--and by people I mean children--by nature go for the live kitten. They see strength in the live kitten. Also, who wants a dead kitten?
2. Try this one the next time you're in a meeting or a conference and there's a lull in the conversation. "A giraffe walks into a bar and says, 'The highballs are on me.' By nature, people will laugh. But not because it's funny. . . .
3. When people see a pony, they often think, Is that a baby horse? But it's not. A pony is a full-grown horse that's just small. I can't tell you how many times I've had this argument with friends. And, while kids love ponies and pony rides, my sense is that, if you were going to buy a horse, you'd want something larger. Because who besides a child can ride a pony? Imagine it's a Saturday and your friends come over for a cookout and to see your new horse, and they pull up and they see you on your pony, your feet almost touching the ground. You look like an asshole, right? Get a real horse.
Kenny then went on to provide some additional examples of things no one has ever said better. Below are a few samples.
1. Let's say you see a kitten . Fine, make it two kittens. One's nimble and fast and cute. The other one is dead. My experience is that people--and by people I mean children--by nature go for the live kitten. They see strength in the live kitten. Also, who wants a dead kitten?
2. Try this one the next time you're in a meeting or a conference and there's a lull in the conversation. "A giraffe walks into a bar and says, 'The highballs are on me.' By nature, people will laugh. But not because it's funny. . . .
3. When people see a pony, they often think, Is that a baby horse? But it's not. A pony is a full-grown horse that's just small. I can't tell you how many times I've had this argument with friends. And, while kids love ponies and pony rides, my sense is that, if you were going to buy a horse, you'd want something larger. Because who besides a child can ride a pony? Imagine it's a Saturday and your friends come over for a cookout and to see your new horse, and they pull up and they see you on your pony, your feet almost touching the ground. You look like an asshole, right? Get a real horse.
Thursday, January 1, 2015
Bill's Place
Four or five times my son-in-law Mark has led the family to Bill's Place, an ancient hamburger joint at 2315 Clement in San Francisco. I like hamburger joints, and I liked Bill's, not giving the matter much thought. Then I saw the joint reviewed on CHECK PLEASE, BAY AREA, a TV show. It seems that Bill's is a San Francisco institution. I immediately wanted to go back, and we returned yesterday.
Bill's in a plain old place, nothing fancy, except that it has impressive chandeliers (!) and a coy pond in the back. And you can watch the food being prepared.
I sat down and ordered, careful not to make the mistake one doofus made on CHECK PLEASE. He wasted a seat in Bill's by ordering a salad and clam chowder, and then complained that the food was mediocre. I ordered a cheeseburger, as God intended. It was named for a rock musician, had a lot of onions on it and some thousand island dressing. It was delicious. I also ordered a chocolate shake, which came in one of those 1950s metal shake-holders, and it contained enough shake for two large glasses, so I shared.
Bill's in a plain old place, nothing fancy, except that it has impressive chandeliers (!) and a coy pond in the back. And you can watch the food being prepared.
I sat down and ordered, careful not to make the mistake one doofus made on CHECK PLEASE. He wasted a seat in Bill's by ordering a salad and clam chowder, and then complained that the food was mediocre. I ordered a cheeseburger, as God intended. It was named for a rock musician, had a lot of onions on it and some thousand island dressing. It was delicious. I also ordered a chocolate shake, which came in one of those 1950s metal shake-holders, and it contained enough shake for two large glasses, so I shared.
The Imitation Game
Can computers think? The answer will depend on whether you believe that submarines can swim or that airplanes can fly. Submarines do not wriggle through the water like fish and airplanes do not flap their wings and adjust feathers to soar in thermal updrafts. We don't say that submarines or tug boats swim, perhaps because we can ourselves swim. We don't extend the meaning of "swim" to include boats being driven by engines. We do extend the meaning of "fly" to include planes driven through the air, perhaps because we cannot fly ourselves and don't mind ignoring fine distinctions in such a case. Computers don't think in the sense that people think (or swim) but computers and airplanes do solve problems in a different way. We can say that computers think (by extending the meaning of "think"), or we can decide not to say computers think for the same reason that we don't say that submarines swim. It's a grammatical decision that Alan Turing addresses in THE IMITATION GAME, the best movie I saw in 2014.
I've been reading about Turing for many decades, in part because of my interest in World War Two, which Turing, more than anyone else, helped win, in part because he was a student of Ludwig Wittgenstein, the deepest thinker of the 20th century, in part because Turing invented the computer and in part because Turing, not your typical guy, was eventually savaged by the nation he had saved. You can see how this might make a movie.
Wittgenstein, inventor of the term "language game," once wrote, in a thought experiment, that if you could manufacture a robot that looked and acted exactly like a human being, and there was no detectable difference between the robot and a person, the robot would be a person. The Turing test is a genuine experiment. Let's say that you are exchanging messages with someone in another room, someone who is a person or a computer. You can ask any questions you choose. If the answers you receive make human sense in every case, then you are communicating with a human or with a computer that imitates human responses perfectly. The computer thinks. That is the imitation game.
I've been reading about Turing for many decades, in part because of my interest in World War Two, which Turing, more than anyone else, helped win, in part because he was a student of Ludwig Wittgenstein, the deepest thinker of the 20th century, in part because Turing invented the computer and in part because Turing, not your typical guy, was eventually savaged by the nation he had saved. You can see how this might make a movie.
Wittgenstein, inventor of the term "language game," once wrote, in a thought experiment, that if you could manufacture a robot that looked and acted exactly like a human being, and there was no detectable difference between the robot and a person, the robot would be a person. The Turing test is a genuine experiment. Let's say that you are exchanging messages with someone in another room, someone who is a person or a computer. You can ask any questions you choose. If the answers you receive make human sense in every case, then you are communicating with a human or with a computer that imitates human responses perfectly. The computer thinks. That is the imitation game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)