One “Man,” One Vote

It's been a while since the presidential elections. There have been many news cycles and the issue is quiet now, so it's a good time to address it. Donald Trump was elected president. But Hillary Clinton got more votes than he did. Neither got a majority. Neither had the trust of the American people. Yet the election and its results were the source of more passion than we have experienced in recent years. There have been protests and riots by Clinton supporters who refuse to accept Trump as their president. Assorted “hate-crimes” have been attributed to those who voted for Trump, and they're viewed as racists.

The media have echoed many of these accusations, and press coverage has often paralleled that during the campaign, with those who oppose the new administration continuing to find fault with the new president and his transition team. Despite the fact that it is moving faster than some of the previous administrations, they have accused it of failure to act and of poor performance and disunity in general. They made no such accusations when those they supported had been elected, and they didn't use the post-election period then as a time to sow discord among the electorate. That's not really much of a surprise in view of the idea that the first thing that a party (and its partisans) must do following an election I to begin preparations for the next election.

There's an important additional issue that the election has raised. Though the situation is not unique, there is much angst about a minority president. On four previous occasions (and this makes five although the vote discrepancy is the greatest now) we have elected a minority president (in this instance a “minority president” is defined as a candidate who has fewer votes than another candidate – there have been others in which the winner had a minority of the votes but had a plurality – Abraham Lincoln, for example, received only 39 percent of the popular vote in 1860 but nearly 60% of the electoral votes), although this happens for no other office. It results from the existence of the Electoral College, which occupies a disproportional part of the Constitution, and which was altered by the Twelfth Amendment. And while it interposes “electors” between the voters and the candidates, within each state the slate of electors is chosen by majority vote. The electors are free to vote for candidates other than those they claimed to support, but that has not happened. The system certainly puts the voter closer to the choice for leader than what exists in many other democracies – a selection by members of the winning party.

It's important to remember how we arrived at this system, and the history of our country tells us. We have a federal government (courtesy of the Federalists naturally) that represented the union of several pre-existing states that feared the loss of their significance when the new country was formed. Their advocates wanted assurance that the states would remain the representatives of their people and their territory. They believed that many decisions were best made locally. They didn't agree that “one size fits all.” James Madison's Electoral College was one of the mechanisms by which they retained authority locally – perhaps for the better. Were we to declare now that popular vote should be the decisor of presidential elections, the strength of the states would be significantly weakened, and large parts of the country would have little chance to meet with the candidates (and, indeed, the candidates would have little interest in most of the country) since their primary involvement would be in the large cities. The majority would be of much greater concern then the minority.

And that raises another question: What is our responsibility to minorities? We certainly emphasize the view that the majority should not be able to impose its will on those minorities in which we find ourselves, or with which we identify. We're sensitive to cultural and economic differences – even if we deny any differences among our “majority” citizens. We've even ascribed “minority” status to women, who are in the majority. The term, and the concept of protection of minorities, have come to be more issues of politics than anything else. And in the process we have chosen to take our stand for majority “rights” on a political issue – a constitutional one – as we reject it otherwise. We favor minority rights as long as they are beneficial to us or to our philosophy.

As I noted, in all likelihood by the time this essay is published the Electoral College will not be among the most important matters we're considering. There won't be many Google^® searches for it. However if the concept is wrong, it is wrong even between election cycles, and it is worthy of debate before it becomes an point of contention once again. But if we decide to eliminate it, with the consequent strengthening of the federal system and the weakening or elimination of any significance of individual states, we should consider the results of such an act. A nation in which a dirt farmer and a banker, a Hollywood movie star and a Detroit mechanic, a retiree in Florida and an entrepreneur in Alaska, are all treated identically and with indistinguishable expectations and obligations, may not be the answer to our problems.

One man one vote is sacrosanct, but in many ways it's insufficient.




November 17, 2016

Auto Auto

Have you noticed? There are two major engineering projects going on in the automobile industry – at least two that have gotten a lot of publicity and that I'm aware of. They're hybrids and self-driving cars. The first has already hit the market and most manufacturers have at least some form that's available, so I'll mostly ignore it. (I'll mention it only once for purposes of comparison and once in the conclusion.) Self-driving cars, however, are worth discussing more fully.

If the road does not have too many potholes, the car is a wonderful means of transportation. (And the driver's license is a wonderful means of identification.) But it is accompanied by problems. The most important of these is the fact that it may be involved in accidents with associated injury or death. The National Safety Council estimates that as many as 40,200 people died in our country in 2016 as a result of automobile accidents and that property damage in 2016 was $432 billion. Both represented increases. Self-driving cars are likely to lower the human and economic tolls markedly. The concern of those developing them are (apart from making money) relates to the good of the individual.

Another problem is that automobile emissions contribute to pollution and global warming. This is the problem addressed by hybrid vehicles, and reflects concern for the good of society as a whole. But, based on my own priorities when driving along, the first concern is for my own safety.

What are the advantages of self-driving cars? Ultimately driving skills will not be necessary, though for the time being it is recommended that a knowledgeable driver should have his hands on the steering wheel and be able to take over in a dangerous situation. Eventually manned taxis and cars-for-hire will not be necessary because for those who don't have their own such vehicles, but driverless car services of various kinds will be available.

There are numerous other anticipated advantages to be obtained by such a system: those who drink will be able to do so without fear of violating the law (in retrospect I'm not sure that's so desirable), those who are ill or disabled can get to the doctor's office even if they can no longer drive, the tension of driving can be eliminated, people can carry on undistracted conversations and telephone calls, etc.

Of course, not everyone agrees.

Writing from Detroit (coincidentally, the capital of the traditional gas-guzzling, emission-spewing automobile), two New York Times reporter that “the race by automakers and technology firms to develop self-driving cars has been fuelled by the belief that computers can operate a vehicle more safely than human drivers. But that view is now in question after the revelation on Thursday that the driver of a Tesla Model S electric sedan was killed in an accident when the car was in self-driving mode.” (Op-ed in The Guardian by John Naughton)

It is of note that the driver's hands were on the wheel (as he is instructed by the manufacturer, a condition that won't be required in the long run) and that, in the United States, eighty-nine other drivers were killed in automobile accidents – all of whom were driving without electronic aid. “Human drivers” don't guarantee safety nearly as well as computers.

And there are other reasons that self-driving cars are viewed with alarm.

In June, Christopher A. Hart, the chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, said, “Driverless cars could save many if not most of the 32,000 lives (a different number from that above but that doesn't change the thrust of the reporter's argument) that are lost every year on our streets and highways.” Even if self-driving cars only realize a fraction of their projected safety benefits, a decline in the number of available organs could begin as soon as the first wave of autonomous and semiautonomous vehicles hits the road—threatening to compound our nation’s already serious shortages. (Slate “Magazine”)

How do you argue with that grave concern? And why waste your time doing so?

Combine the two technologies, self-driving hybrid cars, and we would certainly begin to address the woes of both individuals and society. There will always be critics and cranks, but they don't merit our attention. Progress is our most important product.

July 26, 2017

Mixed Grill XXXIV

Latest edition. Guaranteed to be as bad as those that preceded it. Hold your nose and read what follows. Or don't.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Good to the last drip – No one else will drink the stuff

I double-dog dare you – To do something so stupid I'd never do it myself

The dark continent – The power grid is out again

Keep your kool – aid. Teaching to his followers by Jim Jones

What goes down must come up – You did it and you have to talk about it – after you puke

This is the way we tie our tongues – Typing and texting have obviated the need to talk

Beard the lion in his den – Tell the cat what you think of his stubble in his hovel

Red sun in the sunset – Fall of the Soviet empire

And a partridge in a pear tree – Danny

Turn, Turn, Turin – Ancient dance of the Piedmont

George Washington Bride – Martha

Daughters of the American Revulsion – Non-sponsors of Marian Anderson

Fire distinguisher – Flame test

Graduated income tax – College alumni pay lots. High school dropouts get paid

Hot toddy – Theodora's the sexiest waitress at my favoriet pub

Flag raised at Iwo Jima – White, for the Japanese

Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus – And a tooth fairy, and and Easter bunny, and Jack the Ripper

Weak bullpen? – Add a cow. They'll wake up

National pastime – I assure you it's not baseball

Devaluation – Making the least of it

White knight – More likely in chess than in business

I never met a man I didn't lick – Rocky Marciano

A Trump in the hand – Is a problem. The Bushes were only a distraction

Hook, line, and sinker – Gulp. That fish story was true, believe it or not

Why not? – Why not?

Six of one, half a dozen of the other – And thirteen of what I like

Mighty Casey has struck out – He would have been better off striking gold. That's what modern baeball is all about

Distracted driving – Idiot's guide to dribbling

Glutton free – No charge for those who overeat

Instant H₂O – Just add water

George Washington slept here – Alone?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

You can take your fingers off now.

May 14, 2017

Middle Men

And women. Especially in Catholicism. That's a little vague and requires some explanation. However you've probably figured out that the subject for today's disquisition originates in religion.

The primary point of concern relates to those to whom men (and women) refer their prayers. By this we usually have in mind G-d, and the Saints to whom many pray, seeking their help in particular circumstances. And while such appeals are usually addressed to G-d, in this particular instance the petitions are to humans. Admittedly the individuals in question have been carefully vetted for their positions of responsibility, and are believed to have helped others through their demonstrated ability to perform miracles. They have shown that even before they were granted sainthood, an appeal to them was efficacious.

Judaism, however, forbids the short-circuiting of the system. It prohibits substitutes. There are no intermediaries. Prayers are only for G-d, and there are no humans – nor others – to whom we pray. There is one G-d, and no other power exists for the purpose of attaining His mercy. Hence such prayers are prohibited. There are some that have made their way into the Jewish liturgy (eg Machnisei Rachamim in Selichos) but most authorities either explain them away or have substitutions for them, lest people have the impression that there are others besides G-d capable of granting our entreaties.

It's certainly not an ability within the realm of human competence. An appeal to “pray for me” suggests that there are individuals whose influence is great enough that even if they cannot grant our wishes, they are reliable conduits. The same is true in the common expression “from your mouth to G-d's ear.” Its anthropomorphic character is, itself, problematic, but the overall nature of the request suggests a power greater than any human possesses. (Indeed, it is noted that one of the principles of faith, as codified by the Rambam, explicitly opposes the practice. As the Rambam writes: “It is only fitting to pray to God and it is not fitting to pray to any other.” – Rabbi Ari Enkin in Torah Musings [on line].)

The prayers of another, either human or angelic, on your behalf, then, would seem to be not only useless, but heretical. Yet we do it all the time. Reward and punishment would logically be induced by the actions of the individual in question – if not by his results of those actions, at least by the intent. But in Judaism we address to the Machnisei Rachamim (those who deliver the prayers) an appeal to the angels that they assist us by personally presenting our prayers and supplications before G-d – Rabbi Ari Enkin.

We ask them to pray for us – or at least deliver our prayers – as we pray for others. We say prayers for the sick, seeking their recovery from illness; we say prayers on the anniversary of the deaths of dear ones; and we recite similar prayers several times a year at services of remembrance (Yizkor). To a degree we're offering a bribe to G-d, promising a charitable donation along with our appeal. And we ask others, often on line, to join in our entreaty. Those others may not even know the individual for whom they are praying, but we hope that their numbers will add weight to our plea.

I'm sure that such behavior is not limited to Judaism, and that others share the view that the prayers of humans can affect the actions of the Deity. It's something we want to believe, but we have no assurance of its effectiveness. It's more to please ourselves – to affirm that we care about the other party, and we're taking whatever steps we can to improve his lot, whether he is living or dead. If it helps him, great. If not, at least we tried.

And while we maintain that there are no intermediaries in our religion – certainly none like Catholic priests who “channel” forgiveness of sins – a blessing of the congregation by Kohanim is part of many services, and we sought their offering of sacrifices on our behalf in the days of the Temple. But harking back to our early history, Moses shouldn't be overlooked. He was the first to act as a middle man between G-d and the Jewish People, carrying tablets with G-d's words to those people. There was no interpretation – and none necessary – of those words. In addition, over the millennia our sages have “interpreted” G-d's words to us. They have spoken “for” Him, acting as a kind of intermediary from Him to us. 

How do we rationalize these acts? Many don't, and they claim that the inconsistencies of our religion are based on the fact that it was created by humans, and is not transcendent. At the other end of the spectrum are those who maintain that G-d gave some wise men the understanding of His ways, and we are to follow them, irrespective of our own level of knowledge. And there are many views in between.

My approach is that of ignorance; I believe that it is my responsibility to make my appeals directly to G-d (and lacking any other explanation for existence than the non-rational, I believe in some Power beyond human discernment) even though I don't always understand what is required of me. And for that I rely on our traditions. I may be right or I may be wrong, but I believe that no one can act or speak on my behalf and, in the end, I am responsible for my own actions and, for the rewards or punishments which befall me.

But I'm sufficiently inconsistent to continue to offer my own prayers on behalf of those I know who are in need. I'd like to believe they help. I guess that makes me a middle man.

Or maybe a muddled man.

Various Thoughts XI

I've been reminded (most gently) that I sometimes get things wrong. It's something hard for me to admit since I've always seen myself as perfect. (But see “The Law Is An Ass,” June 18, 2017, Comments.) Oh well, the best I can be is close to perfect. In any event, I won't hesitate to inform you of what I consider (close to) the truth – my thoughts. Let's begin.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I heard an interesting term today. Self abuse. It referred to damage which people may do to themselves, knowingly or not. No malice is buried in the term, despite the fact that we usually understand "abuse" to imply intentional harm inflicted by one person on another. Words morph. Language changes over time. Does it matter? If children stop understanding what "clockwise" means because all they see are digital listings of the time, there will certainly be another term to convey the same idea. Or will there be?

There have been many proposals over time that we establish some kind of panel to keep track, or even pass judgment, over new words and expressions in (American) English. Is that warranted? Will it work? Words (and the ones I choose are random) don't mean what they did when I was young. "Marriage," "cool," "gay," "liberal," and, in this instance, "abuse" had different connotations if not denotations. And both are at risk of being doomed? Words are losing their value. Is there anything we can do about it? And should we? I'm not suggesting that we stop the development of new words. Only that we don't forget what words used to mean.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I'm an old-fashioned creep. When I was young, family entertainment included Father Knows Best and Leave It To Beaver. There was no cursing on TV, and sexual identities were certain. And we got to see June Cleaver, the ideal modern woman.

Times have changed. I'm a fan of Madam Secretary which, when I started watching, was fairly staid. In the past season we have seen an affair, an unplanned pregnancy, a man "coming out" as bisexual, as well as children who often "diss" their parents – at least the son does.

Now, on television and in the movies, cursing is routine and homosexual and LGBTQ themes are rife – disproportionate to the numbers in the live population. At least I hope so. Ditto what we used to call pornography. (Society seems not only to describe and illustrate what used to be viewed as "perversions," but to lionize them – to make them appear mainstream and desirable.) The Supreme Court (notwithstanding Justice Stewart) may view virtually all expression as free, but I'm not sure I agree. (They view all non-dangerous speech as allowable though we disagree about what is dangerous.) It seems to me that there should be limitations as to what we and our children should be exposed to. Not just warnings.

I don't consider myself an enemy of free speech, but parents should not have to read children's books before deciding their appropriateness for their offspring. Or is that unjustified censorship? Should there be some restrictions on freedom of expression or do we live in a world where, as Cole Porter put it, Anything Goes?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Lemon flavoured custards, puddings and pies have been enjoyed since Mediaeval times, but meringue was perfected in the 17th century. Lemon meringue pie, as it is known today, is a 19th-century product. The earliest recorded recipe [for lemon meringue pie] was attributed to Alexander Frehse, a Swiss baker from Romandie. (Wikipedia)

I love lemon meringue pie, but I can't imagine how Alexander Frehse came up with the idea. More and more bizarre (in my not-so-humble opinion) combinations of flavors are being promoted – lemon and meringue are, however, not bizarre. What prompts chefs to come up with these recipes other than a desire to “wow” the public, impress the critics, and make money?

It's not just an American phenomenon. The idea of merging chocolate, hot peppers, and chicken is totally foreign to me and I've never tried chicken mole pablano. Neither have I any desire to do so. Talk about illegal immigrants. Perhaps I'm narrow minded but a charred steak is much more appealing. If you start with a tasty product you don't have to add or cover it with strange ingredients. Except, of course, to attract attention and money. I guess those are good reasons.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Time to turn off my brain.

Mixed Grill XXXVI

Good luck with this trash.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

When intercourse of human events – Nine months before the Declaration of Independence (of the fetus)

Cremation – Cheap substitute for the real sauce. I just dreamed it up

A waist is a terrible thing to mind – Try Weight Watchers

Dog day afternoon – Don't forget the pooper scooper

Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory – The story , too often, of the New York Mets

Hemidemisemiquiver – Holds only minute arrows

Cow tipping – She's worth a little more for the nourishment she brought

Promotion – Support for the Second Amendment, as opposed to the Pacific Ocean, which favors its elimination

Bottom feeder – None of the above

Distracted driving – Idiot's guide to basketball

Where there's smoke there's fire – Or at least a barbecue pit

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself – The people who make horror films are counting on that

Necrophilia – Love's a must around the coroner

Don't reach out and don't touch somebody – Just talk and leave the rest to Echo

Turan Joe – Ancient coffee from Central Asia

Daddy's little girl – Incest or outcest, mommy doesn't like it

Deep in the heat of Texas – Sometimes it's more than 98.6^o

Why can't a broad be more like a man? (Mike Royko) – Is that what you really want?

Hot Spots – Global warming and global warring. Current opinion is that if one doesn't get you the other will. I'm not so sure

There's no such thing as a free lunch – Unless you count school lunches. (Don't eat them, just count them. They're worth what they cost)

Sacred cow – Intimidation for a holy purpose

Scared cow – Tied up and anticipating a visit from the butcher

Bitter butter makes better batters – Apart from beer, is there anything for relief pitchers?

The end justifies the mean – I suspected as much

Acupuncture and voodoo dolls – Both require needling but is either effective?

Nun of your business – At our firm we don't discriminate based on sex or religion

Winter at Valley Forge – Not even a nice place to visit, except to sleep there

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

That'll hold you until next time.

Decibel, It Was You

I found a fascinating Wikipedia article recently. It reads, in part,

The National Radio Quiet Zone (NRQZ) is a large area of land in the United States in which radio transmissions are strictly restricted by law to facilitate scientific research and military intelligence. It is located in the states of West Virginia, Virginia, and a tiny part of Maryland. ...

Most broadcast transmitters in the Quiet Zone are forced to operate at reduced power and use highly directional antennas. This makes cable and satellite all but essential for acceptable television in much of the region. Restrictions on transmissions are tightest within ten miles of the NRAO and Sugar Grove facilities, where most omnidirectional and high-power transmissions are prohibited.

There was more, of course, but this was enough to convince me that it must be a great place to live. I value peace and quiet and it sounded like the place for me. And I'm old-fashioned. A quiet area with a minimum of noise and electronic devices sounded great. So I sent a link to my children, and got back the following from my older son who noted that his Rabbi had mentioned it in a sermon. It's from an article in The Smithsonian Magazine.

Earth’s Quietest Place Will Drive You Crazy in 45 Minutes

… Inside the room it's silent. So silent that the background noise measured is actually negative decibels, -9.4 dBA. Steven Orfield, the lab's founder, told Hearing Aid Know [an on-line site]: “We challenge people to sit in the chamber in the dark – one person stayed in there for 45 minutes. When it’s quiet, ears will adapt. The quieter the room, the more things you hear. You’ll hear your heart beating, sometimes you can hear your lungs, hear your stomach gurgling loudly. In the anechoic chamber, you become the sound. ...

I admit to being an amateur when it comes to physics, so I was amazed. At least until I thought about it. (I never read the article, however, hence I'm not corrupted by facts.) The whole idea of negative sound is one that I find confusing. If, for example, there is a -9.4 dBA reading, there must be a -4.7 and a -14.3 dBA. The possibility that there are degrees of soundlessness – and, therefore, that one “non-sound” is greater than another – is totally beyond me. (Are there degrees of perfection, uniqueness, and infinity?) And how would you measure it anyway?

I tried to use negative pressure and the vacuum cleaner as analogies, but that didn't really work. The “negative pressure” involved is simply a pressure relative to those around it, rather than an absolute.

Indeed, we know of no temperature below absolute zero, nor a humidity below 0%. At least not yet (unless it just hasn't made it to the media yet). And what tools would provide us with the information? Being a scientist is a great profession. You don't have to explain anything to anyone – only to amaze them. They wouldn't understand the explanation anyway. I know I wouldn't.

I'm a hermit. And I like it quiet. But there are limits. At least I thought there were.

November 13, 2016

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Subsequent to writing this I was informed (by the same son who gave me the initial information) that 0 dBA reflects not soundlessness, but the lowest level of sound that the human ear can hear and that “it seems that the dB scale is more like Celsius or Fahrenheit, not Kelvin.” Facts are nasty things. That's why I try to avoid them and not let myself be corrupted.



November 14, 2016

Transparency, Tweets, Trump

The monokini, designed by Rudi Gernreich in 1964, consisting of only a brief, close-fitting bottom and two thin straps, was the first women's topless swim suit. His revolutionary and controversial design included a bottom that "extended from the midriff to the upper thigh" and was "held up by shoestring laces that make a halter around the neck." Some credit Gernreich's design with initiating, or describe it as a symbol of, the sexual revolution. (Wikipedia)

In 1968 Yves Saint Laurent presented the “see-through” look. Diaphanous fabrics had been used before, but the modern age of “transparency” had now arrived. And, though gossip publications had appeared earlier, People Magazine, which first appeared in 1974, was a success in satisfying the public's wish to hear about everything. Social media, including Twitter, more recently increased the availability of “facts,” whether true or not. (Recently it has become the method of choice for the quick transmission of political messages.) We all wanted to share everyone else's secrets – physical and intellectual.

And political – perhaps like the others not for the better.

We demand to know everything that our government is doing, disregarding the implications of sensitive actions being revealed to the world. And in response to the demands of voters, our representatives made “Freedom of Information” of most political and governmental processes, entitlements. And in the few instances when statutes tried to protect governmental secrecy in the name of security, we encouraged, and published, whatever “leaks” we could find. That the leaks were violations of the law, and potentially harmful to our country, was irrelevant. (The media, of course, defend them usually on First Amendment grounds and contend that we deserve to know. And in addition, leaks sell newspapers.)

Transparency has developed over time. And with extensive opposition. “Spin artists” have been around for a long time, and are utilized by both major parties (and advertisers of all types), to present a story told in their words and perspectives, rather than those of their opponents. Truth is not the issue – particular “information” is. We want transparency that supports our opinions – it doesn't create them, it just provides ammunition for us. If it doesn't say what we already believe, it is fake.

In the past, privacy and secrecy were respected by the media in general, and there was reporting only of generally relevant, and non-sensitive information, with “private matters” and those related to security – health, family issues, sexual proclivities and the like, in addition to secrets of state – considered to be off limits. But those days are over. We're eager to protest loudly against anything with which we disagree even if we have no information to back up our protests; however if we have anything to support our claims – and it doesn't matter if it is true or “spun” – all the better. Protests were far more limited in the past, but nowadays, with a mindset that tells us that we're entitled to have everything the way we want it, and with the promotion of group identity, they're very much in style. We refuse to countenance any disagreement with our views.

It is intolerable, then, if the information questions or contradicts our perspective. Transparency is only valid if it supports our point of view. It can only be believed if we can use it to support our preconceived notions. Otherwise it is not true transparency but spin and lies – the propaganda of the opposition – and should be akin to see-through clothing which is rejected by many as corrupting and pornographic (you “know it when you see it” – or see through it).

But voyeurs want a reason to gape. And ideologues want whatever will help them rant. And they feel entitled to it. That's what transparency is all about and that's what we deserve. It makes no difference that it was denied us in the past (probably justifiably) – even as recently as the last administration – we want it now.

If it helps us.

Happy Bastille Day.

Harebrained Schemes 5

Here are some more ideas. I know that all my schemes are not practicable, but dreaming up impossible scenarios and solving their problems is fun. Try it yourself.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hearings, independent investigators, and similar power plays seem to be the current vogue for defaming those you oppose (along with protest marches and social media campaigns). Even if nothing is discovered by one of those games, the fact that someone was investigated raises doubts about that person – doubts that will be exploited in the next canvass. That, I suspect, is often the goal. And the taxpayer funds it. We pay for a political exercise. It's one of many areas in which politicians use public funds – our money – to further their personal or party priorities.

We live in an age when newspapers have ombudsmen, hospital patients have advocates, and prisoners have legal advisors so their rights will be protected. Much as we might wish otherwise, our representatives cannot be trusted to look out after our interests. They have their own agendas. An individual taxpayers' advocate, or a panel of ombudsmen – principled ones of course – might be employed to protect us from our government. Is it possible?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

There's an app for it. Sometimes, but not always. Most of them deal with the needs of large numbers of people, not with individuals. What the world needs is an app that makes apps. An "app app." Someone who has a specific need or want could input the needs and create an app to deal with a particular need that has not been addressed. Perhaps you want an app that deals with all the problems of retirement. You might want one that searches for jobs for senior citizens, explains Medicare, helps with planning of activities (including the choice of those suited to seniors – especially, for example, those with disabilities), identifies discounts to which you are entitled, gives you easy dinner recipes, or reads you a book. You might want an app that hypnotizes you or, with the aid of virtual reality, puts flesh on your imaginary friend. Perhaps you're interested in a job and want to know, in addition to what's available, what are the requirements for a particular position. You might even want to know the long term outlook for that industry or advice on how to apply or interview for a particular position. And you'd want the information presented to you in a way that obviates individual searches regarding these topics.

Mass marketers are rolling out all sorts of apps that promote their products or their facilities. They're interested in individuals only as targets. But only the "target" knows what (s)he really wants. After he lists the particulars of his need a dedicated app would search the web for the information, programs, resources, and advice that he needs. It would extract the data and put it in a form that is usable to the one requesting it. And it would create a reusable and up-dateable app that would be available whenever needed. The app would aslo be changeable as the needs of the individual, and available data, change, and its designer could also add more features if they might be helpful. And you wouldn't have to go to an "app store" to deal with your unique need. Your app app could even find existing programs that might suit your needs.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

We now have self-driving cars. As they are perfected and the technology extended we'll have self-driving taxis, car services, and busses. With the proper sensors and computers they'll make driving safer. They don't get drunk and they wouldn't drive while distracted.

But what about ships and planes? Why do we need the crews that make travel so expensive? Certainly we need them to feed us and provide other services as well, and, of course, to entertain us, but even these functions can be, to a degree, made the responsibilities of computers and robots. Some people would lose their jobs – that always happens as society advances – but it has the possibility of improving safety and services while cutting costs. Sounds like a worthwhile trade-off.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I've tried to raise real problems and a start at finding solutions. I'll try again, but I don't know when. Stay tuned.

July 7, 2017

What I Think/Know/Believe

[Note: I'll use footnotes today because some of what I have to say will be better if it doesn't interrupt the rest of the text, which may be somewhat longer than usual.]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I don't know everything. It hurts me to say so, but it's the truth.ⁱ No one does. It used to be easier – when there was less to knowⁱⁱ

Despite their exalted role in role in democratic theory, reporters were scarcely better than average citizens at mastering the torrent of information in the modern world.ⁱⁱⁱ

So what you “know” is what other people think – or at least what they tell you – what they want you to think. That is their “truth.”^iv And that's why I'm suspicious of “knowledge.” My view is the equal of theirs. And it's hard to know from the media what is fact and what is “alternative fact.”

According to Winston Churchill,^v

History is written by the victors.

So we can't even trust what the experts tell us is the past. And from time to time anthropologists and archaeologists also change their opinions. Ideally the new views are more accurate than the old, but who “knows?”

One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary.

Stephen Hawking speaks for science when he tells us^vi that the universe could have arisen spontaneously based on the laws of physics. And he has the formulas and the data to prove it. But it is less clear what the origin of those laws of physics is. So it is uncertain if all his formulas prove what he says. Copernicus considered the sun the center of the universe. Einstein exposed Newton's error in gravitational theory. Science makes mistakes. Today's established science is what scientists tell us it is, although later it may be disproven or changed.

And that brings me to the actual subject of this note – “knowledge” and belief. When I was brought up there wasn't much talk in my family about religion. My religious training consisted of a few hours a week, divided into too many sections to make a real understanding of any of them likely. I'll get to that. However it's the basis of ideas of belief and knowledge.

All I Really Need To Know I Learned in Kindergarten.^vii It's a bit of an oversimplification, however it was a bestseller. Most of what I really need to know I learned from my “training wheels” – my parents – who gave me the gift of language and my earliest instruction in how to think. It was a gift that perhaps I have repaid by passing it on to my children. Childhood learning never leaves us.

There was one vital lesson, however, that I learned in my childhood from a science teacher. I'm not sure which one, but the good teacher presented me with a bit of wisdom that has always been with me. It's not deep. At least on it's surface. Yet it's the basis for all I know [sic – no quotation marks] about life. The lesson was that everything comes from something. It's an explanation of the aphorism “There's no such thing as a free lunch.”

The lesson – everything comes from something – is obvious. Nothing you didn't know already. Yet it is, in a way, the pillar on which the world stands. It was one of the original foundations of philosophy. Where did we come from? We're still arguing about it today because we don't know. The question formed the basis for most religions as well. Where did we come from? Evolution^viii is a fine concept but it's only the description of a tool, not of the craftsman.

For those who believe in what Hawking says, we came about spontaneously as a result of the random formation of the universe, the ultimate development of our solar system,^ix and evolution. I say “believe” because no one was around at the time of Creation to attest to what happened. What they consider to have been proved may have various formulas and equations to back it up, but no first-hand evidence.^x

“Proved.” What constitutes proof? For many, the equations of those we consider smarter than ourselves is all it takes. For others it is what is observable and verifiable.^xi For still others it is the appearance of the idea in a holy book. Many consider the last option mentioned as “superstition,” and based on “belief” rather than “knowledge.” But even those words are imprecise, because, as was mentioned, “knowledge” is sometimes incorrect and in need of correction, and “belief” is usually said to be confined to the acceptance of religious doctrines. But perhaps these ideas should be examined.

What do we know? Nothing really. We accept what we are told. We've learned from our parents and teachers, and their words were long ago accepted as truths that we don't question. We even judge future teachings on the basis of what they've taught us. Moreover the greatest of scientists, those who “stand on the shoulders” of predecessors, are relying on what their antecedents have said. And it may be wrong or incomplete. But it's the benchmark by which they judge everything else. How reliable is that? And how are the results of such teachings to be evaluated? Even when what an equation predicts is found to be reproducible, it isn't always clear if this is because it describes a tool and not what we know and understand to be a creative principle.

In a way, “belief” is the same. We accept what we are told because our teachers assert that it is the word of G-d. What is written, however, was written by humans and is subject to error or dispute. Yet belief is often accepted as settled knowledge and not to be contradicted.^xii They have been told something and they consider it fact. They believe they were “told” by G-d, and the words are more than belief – they constitute knowledge. And they expect the same belief of us.

To evaluate such a view it is important that we return to an earlier question: can you get something from nothing? And, as I mentioned, that also raises theological issues, for example, is there a G-d? It's hard to argue with the idea that belief and knowledge, as well as the concepts of proof, knowledge and, for that matter, right and wrong, are inextricably related to that question. And, having been taught while I was young that you can't get something from nothing, I'm inclined toward a Divine origin of the universe and life. When I consider Hawking's arguments, the first thoughts I have are questions: where did the laws of physics come from? Did they precede the origin the universe? Who decreed them? After all, you can't get something from nothing.

But Hawking apparently believes they were just there. Eternal truths? Are they the Divine creators? Even if that is the case, there is some unexplainable force that is necessary to account for creation. In this case it would be laws, but most people call that force “G-d,” although the name is not the point. More important is the concept. And even more important is the idea that what we “know” is really what we believe.

If the same question were asked of me – specifically where did G-d come from – the only answer I could give is that I don't know. I wasn't around at that time.^xiii The response to unanswered scientific inquiries is “I don't know yet,” with the implication that humans will some day be able to answer all questions. I don't believe that will be true of our origin. I don't think wise men will – reporters, historians, or scientists – have all the answers. I think we'll forever have to believe, not know.

July 6, 2017

i As I'll explain later, I don't know what the “truth” is.

ii Same thing. I don't accept the usual definition of “know.”

iii That's David Greenberg in his book “Republic of Spin” summarizing a view of Walter Lippmann early in the twentieth century. Unfortunately, although the technique of news gathering is much more advanced now – members of the media are more interested in expressing their own opinions (“truth”), and those of the owners of the organs for which they work than in providing relevant facts and context. It's called “advocacy journalism.” What has resulted is that there is little in today's press that is a straightforward and objective delineation of the facts; rather articles are intended to convince you to take a particular point of view.

iv Because they're certain that what they think is the “truth,” that's what they want you to think. Anyone with a contrary opinion is wrong, and possibly evil, trying to convince you of a false set of facts. Today we call such reporting “spin.” It's an activity primarily of advertising and public relations, and mainly on behalf of politicians, political views, and other products. Thus “truth” is often no more than opinion with an objective of swaying the listener.

v Or, at least, attributed to him. There were others, including George Orwell and Walter Benjamin, who made similar observations. At best, it's origin is uncertain.

vi In The Grand Design.

vii By Robert Fulghum. It was first published in 1986.

viii “Darwinism”

ix There is a free lunch.

x Atheists, like everyone else, are believers. Their religion, however, is science.

xi A newborn baby is observable and verifiable, but is it proof of a Creator or the random functioning of a randomly originated universe? Is a scientific formula any more convincing than a baby's formula?

xii “God Said It; I Believe It; and That Settles It!” For those who subscribe to that formulation, what they believe, they “know.” It's established fact.

xiii As G-d says in Job: “Where were you when I founded the earth?” And it goes on to list phenomena which I never observed. Indeed, who am I?