A Well-Deserved Reward

I just searched for the lyrics of a tune recorded by many artists in 1942. And I found them on line. I don't know how I would have discovered them otherwise since I didn't remember the name of the song. Remembering some of the words, I used Google^®, which is amazing. But I suspect that I would also have found what I sought using one of the other “search engines” instead.

Clearly the person who conceived of the concept, made it practicable, and found a way to display it to the rest of us, is a genius – both in computer skills and in his entrepreneurship. And he's (or she's – I didn't bother to Google^® it so I don't really know) helped us all. I assume he's been well rewarded and he deserves it. He's opened up a new world to us by providing a means of negotiating the information highway. By now he's probably in the “1%” (actually the 0.1%) and everybody hates him. Not what he did, but him. He's rich and we're not.

Not me. All I have for him is praise. He earned what he earned. And computer users (that's a lot of us) benefit directly from his work. He should be rich. He's enriched the rest of us. I'm especially happy that the service is free, even if I have to tolerate the ads.

I wonder if, whoever he is, he took “shortcuts” along the way – both in the development and in the implementation. If he did anything unethical or criminal, he should be punished appropriately, but that does not take away from his accomplishments. For those he should be rewarded. And the reward should be his, not one that is shared. He did it, and he should profit from it.

It's not a unique story. Creativity – originating something that no one thought of, or could figure out how to implement – is a rare commodity. And it's something that seems to be part of American DNA, which is why so many new ideas originate here. There are creative ideas in all fields, and we're all better for learning what they are and utilizing those that help us. There are ideas in all fields: new medicines and medical techniques have increased our life spans; new ideas in agriculture have made nutrition available to more people; and better mouse traps have made for both improves aesthetic and health situations.

But I want to focus on the ones whose primary purpose is to make a buck. Those are the ones that are most apparent to us and most likely to earn our anger. Even if the product is something we need and the originator has produced something that makes our life easier, we resent the fact that we have to shell out the money that makes him rich. He should be paying higher taxes. He should be helping the poor by supporting entitlement programs. He has taken advantage of the rest of us.

Such penalties of the creative, however, are counter productive. They are our way of convincing ourselves that there are others whose main aim is to take advantage of us. They are creating what we consider useless variations of already existing products – variations that we don't need. But we buy them anyway. We don't need them but the guy down the block has them and we don't want to be left behind. And, of course, we'll pay anything for something that makes us healthy.

We tolerate the developments that don't cost us money – like Google^®. We know that its developers are making lots of money from ads and fees – money that should be taxed and given to the needy – but we don't realize that our tax money is going into the same programs. So since the new tools that others develop are free and of value to us, we use them.

We don't realize that the use of economic penalties lessens the likelihood that creativity will continue. Creative people are like the rest of us – they want to earn (or “get” if they don't want to work) as much as they can, however they can. Thomas Edison didn't spend his 99% perspiration simply out of the goodness of his sweat glands. He expected, and received, a reward for it. And modern drug companies don't develop drugs that will lose them money. Perhaps they overcharge; perhaps they could get by with smaller profits, but we'd be less healthy as a society if we discouraged their development of new products. Suppose, for example, that drug companies, in fear of taxes, opted not to develop antibiotics. We'd all suffer.

That's not to suggest that there is no room for tax law review and change, but stifling the impulse to be creative, by taxing the rich to help the poor. is not the best idea. Let's start our search engines and look at the ways creativity has been encouraged around the world, and look as well at the policies that discouraged it. Lest we dissuade the creative from their activity, it's better to support their efforts to help us all. Society will get its cut even if taxes aren't raised.

Global Warming And Arrogance

The world has been around for billions of years. At least that's what I've read. I can't testify to it personally. I haven't been around for quite that long.

I've also read that there have been changes over time. Darwin and others have expounded on evolution and how plant and animal life have varied, and life on earth has been severely impacted by extraterrestrial phenomena, sometimes with severe effects on the mortality of our terrestrial life forms. A good example is the extinction of dinosaurs (and who knows what else) following our being hit by a meteor. Things can happen, and they do.

We are now entering a period characterized by increasing temperatures – Global Warming – that has provoked great debates. Many believe that human actions are responsible for what is happening, and they're focusing their attention on what steps we must take to repair the world. Without any intent to question their concern, I think their view is a little narrow, and there are several questions that need answers:

1. How do we define such “warming?”
2. Should we be concerned about it?
3. What causes it?
4. Does human action contribute to it?
5. Can we stop it or at least limit it?
6. At what cost?
7. What are the likely effects of our actions?

It's a lot to consider, but I thought I'd start with a quote from the Wikipedia article on the subject:

The idea that Global Warming is a natural cycle is well understood from paleo data covering the past 1 million years. Is there a difference between current climate, and the natural cycle? For the past million years the natural climate has oscillated between warm periods and ice ages. This shifting in and out of warm periods and ice ages is correlated strongly with Milankovitch cycles.

I don't pretend to understand the subject all that well – especially Milankovitch cycles – but it's clear that warming happens. It's an anticipated feature related to the earth's position relative to the sun and happens without human actions. According to NASA, the earth has warmed 0.9^o Celsius since 1880 – almost 140 years. It seems like a small number, and it's below the peaks in some other periods of warming, but it's significant, and how much higher the peak it will go if it continues to rise is uncertain. There is certainly justification for concern.

And we're concerned. But many think that we're responsible for global warning. It's just like us humans to be so arrogant, so chutzpadik. We weren't around billions of years ago, but everything went on without us. Including global warming. We're not to blame for it.

But we're not off the hook altogether. We ought not wallow in hubris, but we do have some effect on the heavens and on earth. There's much argument about the existence of global warming and its cause(s). Some think that over the long haul we're in a period of cooling. Not likely, but it doesn't change anything. We don't cause cooling either.

There's much evidence, however, that we can affect the degree and the rate of warming. Without debating all the scientific equations and computer models – especially since I don't understand them – it's hard to ignore the predominant opinion of the scientific community that some of what we're producing is driving up the temperature. Whether what we do results in increased levels of carbon dioxide, an enlarging hole in the ozone layer, or something else, they're convinced that we can cause harm. How much? I don't know. I certainly wouldn't postulate on behalf of those who fear cooling that we accelerate programs that cause warming in order to fend off another ice age. Thinking that we can do so is more arrogance.

Recognizing the disagreement, it appears that our approach should be prudent. Proposals to change the nature of those products that appear to be contributing to warming are reasonable. But the changes should themselves be reasonable. Disruption of our lives and industries in the hope of an improvement in the situation is not the answer. (It is not arrogance to suggest that we're able to make many aspects of our situation worse. We've proved we can do that.) Improved utilization of natural forces (eg wind power) is expensive, but perhaps that is only in the short range. Substitution of products less likely to disrupt our earth and its environment makes sense as well.

What makes less sense is the mandate for rapid changes that will greatly unsettle our lives and industries. Inducements for improvements are warranted, but rapid, unthought-out, actions often lead to harmful results. It is presumptuous to believe that we can change the course of global warming quickly – or even at all. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

With humility.






May 22, 2017

Too Much Information

Capital One, in advertising its credit card, asks everyone “What's in your wallet?” Mostly garbage, I assume. Including too many credit cards. We live, at least in this part of the world, amidst excess. There's too much of everything – at least the things you would be better off without.

Let me give an example. The last time you looked at your snail mail, how much was pertinent and how much was junk mail? (And the same is true of e-mail, which is the reason that so many people have stopped looking at it.) If it's anything like mine it's primarily junk – catalogs, ads, bulk mailings from organizations that somehow or other got my address, political mailings, and wrong addresses – with very little of any consequence. Most of the envelopes go on the recycle pile (apart from form letters with blank backs that we recycle in our printer) after wasting too much of my time. In all fairness I have to admit that it's my wife's time. I wouldn't waste mine on the junk.

Perhaps if that were the extent of the problem it would be tolerable. But it isn't, so it isn't. Don't answer your telephone. It's a “robo” call or some other kind of auditory spam. Especially during “silly season.” Political calls seem to come in every few minutes – usually robot calls not blocked by mechanisms that stop other robo calls. I'm glad I still have the strength to get up and answer them – and hang up immediately – but I resent them. My electoral choice is often the one who bothers me least by 'phone or mailing, and the one whose message is positive rather than a rant about the other candidate. Even after my visit to the polls I get calls from the party in which I enrolled (stupidly) years ago to ask me if I have voted. It's the most active time of year for politicians who never seem to be interested in getting any kind of useful legislation passed. They're too busy. (Try calling them and you'll only get an aide whose salary you, as a taxpayer, are supplying.) Except for catering to the needs of contributors and those who can assure them of lots of publicity. (A significant number of laws named after unfortunate individuals fall into this category. Call something “Gretchen's Law” and there's certain to be wide coverage. One of the things of which we have an excess are named laws.)

It shouldn't be surprising. Scientists tell us the Universe is expanding, so shouldn't we expect the same of everything else? Since I don't know (or, frankly, care) how fast that is I can't determine if the rate of junk mail is or isn't exceeding it. Whether or not it is, it's clearly coming too fast.

But the most rapd expansion is in one of the products of science and technology – the internet and its children. Search for something on Google^® for example and, unless the search terms are very restrictive, you'll get more responses than you can deal with. And they're not always reliable. Too many are sucked into the trap of accepting what they read as fact and ignoring the advice of real experts as they defer to the views and prejudices of loud-voiced and opinionated correspondents. The same occurs in other applications. The various social media are absorbing all the free time of too many people. There are, for example, too many useless blogs by those who think they have something to say immediately and need a platform. (I should point out that this is not one of those blogs. Mine, of course, is useful.)

Accompanying the varied, and excessive, postings are too many uninteresting or insipid pictures and videos dealing, mostly, with “cute” children, “amusing” animals, and the views of the same politicians you can't reach. And ads. Targeted ads. Designed to induce your purchase of something you don't need.

Too much. Too much junk mail and telephone calls; too much political blather; too much time wasted on the computer: too many advertisements – not only on the internet but everywhere you look. And they're all detracting from the time that used to be spent thinking, or reading some worthwhile material. Things are moving too fast.

We've lost our focus. Rather than spend our time on activities of value to us we're overwhelmed by everything going on in society, whether or not it's of any consequence. And there's too much that doesn't matter. We're more interested in an idiotic “fact” from the Guinness book than in speaking to our children, or spending time in contemplation. Sadly our children aren't interested in talking to us. They're too busy on their own devices. And they have no interest in contemplation.

Is there any solution to the problem? Not really. The mail and telephone problems will get worse. Portable smartphones will increase and increase the time we spend away from thought. Politics remain as certain as death and taxes. And advertising will only increase over time as it has been doing.

I'm too pessimistic. There is a solution, but very few will follow it. Isolation. That's my approach, and, to a degree, the approach of many families. Don't answer your phone unless you want to speak to the one calling. That takes “caller ID” and some kind of answering machine, but it's worth it. Ditto your mail. Open it only if the return address is that of someone from whom you want to hear. Throw the rest of the mail out. Don't watch television. Resign from Facebook^® and its analogues. Read a classic every now and then. Think.

I suspect you'll view me as a troglodyte. That's OK. The concerns in previous generations were probably similar, but they didn't act on them and we suffer because of it. Shouldn't we protect future generations from society's advances?






May 1, 2017

Mixed Grill XXVIII

It never ends. My bad. I suspect you agree.

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

The king is dead. Long live the king – Alternative versions of the Elvis saga

What ho. The grad – Time to buy another used car

“Gun rights advocate” – Hate speech by some

Wearing your hate on your sleeve – Pacifists' new creed. Ditto moralists and other protesters

My funeral – Wouldn't miss it

Checkmate – Pen or typewriter

Facebook – Frontal lobe vanquisher and major cause of blindness

Self-driving cars – Smarter than most drivers

The Puritans nobly fled from a land of despotism to a land of freedim [sic], where they could not only enjoy their own religion, but could prevent everybody else from enjoyin [sic] his. (Artemis Ward)

The year of too much writing – Every year (my writing excluded)

Where's Carmen Santiago? – She seems to have disappeared

Rube Goldberg – Disoverer of chaos theory

Maid in the shade – No comment

If you can read this you're too close – And you're wise not to try anyway

Fit to be tie dyed– A good remedy for stained items

People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use. (Søren Kierkegaard)

Can you top this – It used to be feature of radio. Now we need to stop almost everything.

The picture of health – Nutritionists' text. Science fiction. Graphic novel. Mostly novel

Let's turn out the lights and go to sleep – Or find something else to do

Four Freedoms – Freedom to shoot my mouth off, Freedom get whatever I want (it's all about me), Freedom to silence whoever offends me, Freedom to violate law of which I don't approve

Erin go broke – The Irish economy isn't exactly flourishing

Give me liberty or give me death (Socrates – Sir Oracle translation)

Bach to basics – The Well Tempered Clavichord

Random killing – Proof of quantum theory however sad it may be

One thing leads to another – Watch out for things

If you can't stand the heat – Better not go to Hell

Turn the other cheek – Moon from another angle

The ties that blind all men – Unless they wear zoot suits

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

My worse. But just wait. The worst is yet to come.

April 5, 2017

The Modern Approach

Times change. They do so moment by moment. At one time there was a “bully pulpit,” for our people, who responded with respect to our leaders and to proposals they made, even when they disagreed.

Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.

I remember President John Kennedy's inaugural speech. It was inspirational. Relatively little was accomplished by the government during his foreshortened adminitration, but the country was inspired. Now the theme is who can promise more, and who can insult the opposition more. The blame extends to all those whom you oppose: "foreigners," ("first they came for ...") the "1%," the government, anyone I'm not. Who should pay? Someone else.

I return to my oft-repeated charges: the fault for most of our problems lies with people, technology, and the government. And in part our current problem is the fault of President Kennedy. By inspiring us he raised our expectations, of what our country could do and, even more, what we could do. Most of it was favorable and did honor to our country, especially our effort to help others as exemplified by the Peace Corps. But there were those who misunderstood his message.

I'm willing to accept the view that those of whom I'm writing were well-intentioned. They “knew” what was right and they wanted it for everyone. They were convinced that the means for accomplishing their ends were justified – whether it involved sit-ins, theft, kidnaping, protests, riots, or whatever. Most of those were the methods of our founders and they were equally justified for modern revolutionaries. They began a trend which – to a large extent – continues. They believed that this was what they could “do for [their] country," but such was not the case and we are the worse for it. People died as a result of their efforts, and the lives of many who survived were damaged forever in the wake of their actions – their own lives and the lives of others.

Whom did they consult about the desirability of their goals and their actions? Each other, or no one at all. The imposition of "right" on everyone was necessary, and who better to determine what was right than the revolutionary. The president had asked that we act to improve our country, but he didn't say how, or indicate the valid ways of doing so. And in a society that was becoming increasingly self-centered, people assumed that their "absolutes" were everyone's, and the president had signaled the need for us to act on their behalf.

The protests and riots continue, and deaths sometimes result from mob action, but those who promote the process feel righteous about what they do. The are acting to promote right and "Rights," some of which require much teasing from our founding documents – or may not even be there – usually by our courts (or by other opinionated politicians).

And the sense of omniscience of the judiciary, mostly reflecting the ideas of the protesters, also evidences the "I know what's right for everyone" perspective which a lifetime position can originate and nurture in the minds of those who believe in their own wisdom. What the law says has become less the issue than it was in the past. More important is what the law means. At least what it means in the opinion of the interpreter. Clearly the views of those who wrote the law are less significant than his or hers. Me. I know what the law says and means, and I know what is right.

That's not solely the view of the Judiciary. Our most recent leaders, like those who preceeded them, had, or have, the good of the country and its citizens at heart and know their views are correct. But their approaches are different. The last president said "Yes I can." For the current commander-in-chief the approach is more like the rasher "because I can." Both have strong egos, but they respond differently to them. The two had (and have) passionate opinions on which they acted, but the previous one spoke carefully and relatively quietly, although he was convinced of his own positions, notwithstanding any questions raised about them or about the validity of their basis. The current president has a penchant for rapid and off-the-cuff responses to anything someone says. There is no time for thought – only action. And that often results in middle-of-the-night forays into the social media. He too, like almost all politicians (including previous presidents), has no interest in facts if they don't correspond to what he is thinking. Rapid response is more important.

And that's what is worrisome. Rapid and unconsidered action could lead to results unfavorable to our country. A quick reading of the situation, along with a "gut" feeling about the motives of the opponent and a desire to "one-up" him, without a strategy or a plan for future actions or consultation with one's allies may demonstrate resolution but not thought. It's folly to take the position that we can deal with unintended circumstances if and when they occur, but we have to act now. Modern technology has given us the power to respond quickly, leaving thought to machines. And the machines are programed by those who know what's best for us and the country. Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead.

There was a time when America spoke softly and carried a big stick. Now individuals have taken the stick and the control of us, and they are speaking more loudly, in our name. They – we – are no longer asking what we can do for our country, but telling it what we know it should do. The leaders should respect me, rather than I the country and its traditions. It's all about me. I know best.

It's time to return government to those we've elected.






April 28, 2017