Science Revisited

I see the "scientists" are at it again. Mask mandates, boosters, shots for infants and toddlers. And, of course, the convincing factor provided (and accepted by most people) is "The science is settled." I've written about this before, but I think it might be time to revisit this idea, that "The science is settled." How often have we heard that in the past few decades, more recently in dealing with Covid? "The science is settled." The statement, for a variety of reasons (political, nefarious, economic), has been summarily used to push agendas. It has been successful to discourage challenge and debate, especially when challenges and open discussion are feared. It has succeeded in swaying people who don't really know, but think the scientific community is always right. (You can read "medical community" into that, too.) How easy it has been to disarm (or at least try to disarm) opponents of certain agendas by tossing out, "The science is settled." Who, it has been asserted, but the most ignorant of people would argue with "science?" In recent decades the best example has been "global warming," er, "climate change"--or whatever it's called now. I'm old enough to remember the Newsweek magazine cover in the '70s that proclaimed "A New Ice Age?" Then there was the assurance that, due to acid rain, all of our lakes would soon be destroyed. Of course, now (the past couple of years) it's how we deal with the Corona virus. "The science is settled." It's distressing enough to hear politicians, even Presidents themselves, echo this. But when scientists do likewise, it seems to me they have forgotten a basic principle of what they have studied. No, the science is not settled. It never is. That is the essence of science, that there are unknowns and there is always something new, more to learn. But the phrase, "The science is settled," has been politicized to further agendas, to stifle debate (however compelling that debate may be), dissent, and challenges. It lends a legitimacy, perhaps undeserved, and a sense of credibility to a viewpoint. Worse, it sways and even convinces people who don't know much about an issue, but, well, if the science is settled, that's good enough for them. That the science is never settled is one of the important lessons I learned in my Physics courses at Amherst. I admit to not recognizing that at the time; it took some years before it "clicked," before I could rejoice, "I get it!" Consider..... For centuries, literally hundreds of years, the Western world believed that there were four elements in nature--earth, water, air, and fire (and sometimes something called "ether"). This was not disputed, not by anyone credible. People, even scientists, accepted this because Aristotle (and Empedocles and other Greek scientists) said so. Other cultures, Chinese, Indian/Buddhist among them, had similar beliefs. The science had been settled. No challenges allowed! In 1633, if I recall correctly, the most famous European scientist of the day, Galileo Galilei, was put on trial--with the very real possibility of losing his life and soul (excommunication, the death penalty of the soul). His crime was to challenge the accepted scientific and Church beliefs regarding the geocentric theory of Ptolemy, another of those Greeks. He postulated that the sun, stars, and entire universe moved around a stationary earth. Galileo's observations led him to agree, at least in part, with the heliocentric theory of the Polish scientist Copernicus and other. The earth was not stationary, but in fact revolved around the sun. (Copernicus didn't get it exactly right, but he was headed in the right direction.) Such blasphemy/heresy (What did the Church know about science? How many "heretics" were killed because of the Church's scientific ignorance?) almost cost Galileo his life--and his soul. The science had been settle. No challenges allowed! More than two and a half centuries after Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein said this about the greatest of British scientists. "To Newton, nature was an open book whose letters he could read without effort. Newton stands before us, strong, certain, and alone." Einstein was hardly the only one to recognize this "most genius" of scientists. Alexander Pope, a contemporary of Newton, penned this. "Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in the night. God said, 'Let Newton Be' and all was light." There was only one universe, physicists once said, and Newton had discovered all of its laws--optics, gravity, planetary orbits, wave motion, calculus, and, of course, his three laws of motion. I think Newton would have disagreed with much of this. To him, the entire universe was open for continued scrutiny. 20th Century science has, if not disproved, at least modified many of Newton's theories. These include Einstein's work with relativity and the quantum mechanics of Max Planck and others. But for 250 years, the science was settled. No challenges allowed! The 20th Century astronomer/astrophysicist Carl Sagan once wrote, "In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know, that's a really good argument. My position is mistaken.' And then they would actually change their minds." So, the science isn't really settled. But apparently only scientists, well, some of them who haven't sold out to politicization, sources of funding, and their own arrogance, know that. This is something we should all think about the next time, whether it's climate change, how do deal with the virus, or whatever, we hear, "The science is settled." It's not and it never is.

Augustus

I just finished a novel by John Williams, Augustus. I enjoyed it a lot, but realize it's likely not for everyone. If I didn't learn much new, the book did lead to a great deal of thinking. Can a book, fiction or otherwise, receive any higher a compliment? When we think of Augustus, we think of power, of authority. As the first emperor of Rome (creating the Roman Empire), he had as much power as modern-day dictators (with allowances for technology, military advances, etc.).  He had many titles, Imperator (military conqueror, almost like emperor), Caesar (after his uncle and adoptive father, who was declared a god), Pater Patria (Father of his country), Consul (the highest "elected" office, elected by the Senate), Magisterium (highest judge), and Augustus ("Revered One") and Pontifex Maximus ("Great Bridge Builder") both religious titles. But among them all, his favorite title was Princeps, which implied he was the first citizen of Rome, but nevertheless, a citizen of Rome first and foremost. Despite all of his power, he was quite tolerant.  When a poet wrote a satirical, demeaning, and perhaps even blasphemous poem about Augustus, he not only took no action against the poet, but decreed nobody else was to do that either.  In effect, this poet was being protected by the man he had lampooned.  "I was never hurt by the bark of a dog" it was claimed he once said. In addition, he re-created Roman society, its economic life, so that any Roman citizen, regardless of the station of his birth, could become as wealthy as his efforts  (and accidents of life!) would take him. Forty or more years of Roman civil war, "Romans killing Romans" he lamented, were ended, too, at least for a while. In his last days, Augustus wrote, "It is remarkable to have grown so old that one must depend upon the work of others to search into one's own life."  He was a valetudinarian, no, not the graduate with the highest GPA in his/her class. He was like a hypochondriac on steroids, often thinking he was on his deathbed. How close he actually was might be questioned, but at least six times before he died at the age of 76 he thought he was checking out. He also warned his successors of policies that would, in a little more than a century after his death, lead down the long road to the downfall of Rome.  He was incredibly prescient. The legacy of Augustus isn't merely that he was the first and greatest of all the Roman emperors. It is that he saved Rome, "the world" at the time.  In doing so he also paved the way for (saved?) the Western Civilization to come a millenium and a half later.  Had he not saved Rome, is it likely that the West would have become what it did, the beacon for the rest of the world to emulate (although much of it chooses not to do that)? I know it's not fashionable to pay tribute to old white men, but Augustus is deserving of accolades.

Meeting of Minds

Steve Allen was a Renaissance man of sorts. He composed music (thousands of songs) and was an actor (including starring as Benny Goodman in the biopic of the jazz legend). He hosted pioneering radio and television shows (the original host of the Tonight Show). "And he was the author of 50 or more books (including Ripoff, the first book I ever reviewed for publication). One of his television and book projects was called "Meeting of Minds." It was a brilliant concept, at least to me. The premise was gathering "minds" of the past to discuss the past, present, and future. Each episode was a roundtable discussion, usually centered around dinner. Topics discussed included religion and religious toleration, women's rights, slavery, race, and specific historical events such as the Civil War. He presented personalities from all walks of life, from different time periods, and from the world over. For instance, one "dinner" included US Grant, Marie Antoinette, Karl Marx, and Sir Thomas More. Another "starred" Galileo, Emily Dickinson, Charles Darwin, and Attila the Hun. Actors and actresses, including his wife Jayne Meadows, played the parts, with Allen providing them a great depth of research. My question is this: If you could host a Meeting of Minds, who would you invite? You could have several episodes, so you wouldn't be restricted to four or five personalities. You, like Allen, could plumb the depths of history, all ages/eras, and travel the world. I'm pretty sure regular readers and those who know me recognize Abraham Lincoln would likely be my first invitee. Who would be his fellow first diners? So many from which to choose! Reserving the right to change my mind, I would initially complement him with Augustus, the first and greatest Roman emperor, Theodora, the wife and at least co-ruler of the Byzantines with her husband Justinian in the 6th Century, Mark Twain, and maybe David, of Goliath fame. Leonardo da Vinci would certainly help form a second group, maybe paired with Henry Ford. I might add Karl Marx and Aristotle. Another set might include Isaac Newton, George Washington, Winston Churchill, and Augustine. How interesting to have Genghis Khan for dinner with Emily Dickinsn and Jeanette Rankin, the first woman member of the US Congress who was the only person to vote "NO" to declarations of war for both the First and Second World Wars, Napoleon, and Julius Caesar. Imagine this conversation between Atilla t. Hun and Emily Dickinson: "Attila, would you mind passing the bread?" "But of course Emily. Love your poetry by the way." "Can I call you Atti? Or how about Hunny?" Let me consider one more: Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Jr., Frederick Douglass, and Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha. The possible lists are endless and we could mix and match! If you had your "Meeting of Minds," who would be invited?

"Let's Go Brandon!"

Several AMs on my runs this week I came across "Let's Go Brandon" signs and pennants/flags hanging from homes or on flag poles. "Let's Go Brandon" appears to have died down some, but I have some thoughts. I am not a Donald Trump supporter, never was and never will be. I didn't vote for him in '16 and '20 and, if he's nominated, won't in '24. People can disagree with that, but I've made myself clear. Others can accept that or not. And, they can support him if they want. This is America. I hope that doesn't cause anybody to "cancel" me. That seems to be the trend in recent years: Cancel anyone with whom one disagrees. At the same time, I can't imagine voting for Joe Biden. I don't claim the election in '20 was stolen, but I can't get my head around 80 million people voting for him--I just can't. If people and the lame stream media jumped all over Trump for his lies, they seem pretty quiet about the multitude of whoppers told by Biden. Talk about a sociopathic liar! Back to "Let's Go Brandon1" after getting the groundwork framed. First, I think the entire episode tells a lot about the lame stream media. Of course we all know where this originated. Some woman reporter was interviewing a NASCAR race winner, "Brandon" something. (I don't know his last name; I don't follow NASCAR.) In the background a huge chorus of "F**k Joe Biden" erupted from the stands. The reporter smiled and said something like, "Listen! They're cheering 'Let's Go Brandon!'" If I recall correctly, the NASCAR guy grinned and replied, "I don't think that's what they're saying." But that was the story, at least initially, "Let's Go Brandon!" I suppose I could cut the interviewer some slack, but I've heard the You Tube and "Let's Go Brandon!" wasn't what I heard in the least. That for a few days the lame stream media tried to run with this, a cover-up, says a lot. That the lame streams didn't figure out someone somewhere recorded what was actually being chanted and would soon appear all over the Internet tells even more. But there's no media bias, nope. Now, what really has had me thinking is the reaction of many people, from back when to now. I have heard people say, as well as write letters-to-editors, how "disrespectful" and "vulgar" "Let's Go Brandon!" is. One said, "It's obscene." Hmmm. Funny how selective memory as well as selective morals come into play here. I wonder how many of these same folks who cite the vulgarity, the obscenity of "Let's Go Brandon!" have ever thought about it. No curse word, nothing vulgar or obscene was uttered. What do these people think of "We were screwed?" I'm pretty sure "We were screwed" doesn't emanate from threaded fasteners used to attach items to wood, etc. Nope, that's not it. How many of them use that phrase, "We were screwed?" Are they being "vulgar?" If not, why not, especially if they think "Let's Go Brandon!" is obscene? How many of these same people said anything at all when real vulgarity was used to refer to Trump? For four years, was there any major celebrkty awards show that didn't have the obligatory "F**k Trump!" or a flashing of the middle finger? I don't recall any letters-to-the editor about that! (Should I bring up the roundly-applauded, by such people, photo of a decapitated Trump?) I also don't remember anyone telling me, face-to-face, about such obscenities/vulgarities. Nope. I know why, though. "But that's different." So, can I say the same thing as above regarding "disrespect," being "disrespectful?" Oh, the holier-than-thou, self-righteous might claim "He's the President. At least respect the office." Did they respect "the office" when Trump was holding it? I know the answer to that one, too. And some of those same critics of "Let's Go Brandon" fully embraced the Michigan governor's political ads in '18 that ended with "And I'll fix the damn roads!" So, "damn" is no longer "vulgar?" Maybe it isn't if certain people utter it, but is if others do. I will not forget a radio talk show caller during the gubernatorial (Isn't that a great word to say, "gubernatorial?") campaign, shocked that his 5-year old daughter said the word "damn" at the dinner table the night before. Thank you, Governor Whitmer! Those people my age can easily imagine would would have happened to one of us had we said "damn" at the dinner table back when! Out to walk Andy on our street, one that resembles the Burma Road of the Second World War--and our streets are paved!

One Man's Lonely Opinions

When I read newspapers or magazines any more, it seems as if I am living in another world, maybe even a different universe. What I read, either fact or opinion, is so very far removed from what I think or know. There were several examples today. I saw two articles about some NFL team (I don't remember which, but it was just one of many in the queue.) which signed some player who has been accused of sexual assault--not by a single woman, not by two or three, but about two dozen! Apparently a handful (not all) of the criminal charges have been dismissed, but none of the civil proceedings have been. Regardless..... What on earth possessed this team (and the others which bid, but lost out) to want to sign this guy? It's further evidence of how out of touch I am. Character really doesn't count, does it? Winning, making money, etc., that's what it's at. When will I ever learn the ways of modern American life? Now, toss in this. Whatever team signed this guy is paying him $40-some million a year--GUARANTEED! I'd say "Shame on this team, on the other bidding teams, on the NFL," but that's another of my antiquated principles. There is no shame. And, let's not limit this to professional sports. How many of our politicians, people elected to office by US!, have had similar character flaws overlooked because, as was said 25 years ago, "The economy is good?" (No, it's not about "mean tweets.") What about our media? Aren't any journalists embarrrassed by their colleagues, especially in the Lame Stream Media? Are they gullible, lazy, or stupid? Or do they just buy into the latest talking points of certain groups, be they political parties, environmental groups, or whatever? Perhaps they are crusaders, self-righteously believing they are helping to save the world--from, well, from ourselves? The list is longer, but you get the point, maybe. A couple of months ago, I wrote of toppling statues of Confederate "heroes." I have no problem with that, although I'd prefer just quietly removing them from public view. I stick with my opinion that taking up arms against the US was treason and traitors should not be honored with statues, memorials, and the like. I read two related letters-to-the-editor recently in a Civil War magazine. One I just question outright, that the writer's view is nothing I've seen. He wrote, "I grow weary of hearing people calling Robert E. Lee a traitor because he left the US Army." He cites, correctly, that others such as US Grant and George McClellan also left the US Army, but aren't called "traitors." I've never heard anyone call Lee a "traitor" because he resigned his commission in the US Army. He served and served well, but he wasn't married to the US Army. I don't know where this writer is coming from on this. That Lee fought against the United States, though, was treason. The second letter was far more off base. The author wrote, "[I] will never understand calling a man a traitor for fighting alongside his family and for his home." So far, I think I agree. But then the writer goes off course. He claims, "When government fails to represent you, your family, neighbors, and home it is time to throw off that government." So, that the federal government, if not initially, but eventually, fought to rid the country of the scourge of slavery is evidence that "fails to represent?" Make no mistake; the Civil War was about slavery. It might have been one thing, I suppose, to think like this writer 160 years ago, although I again disagree. It's quite another in 2022 to castigate the US government for seeking to abolish slavery. So, the Confederate government was more legitimate, deserving of Lee's loyalty, for fighting to keep slavery? That Confederate government "represent[ed]" Lee by attempting to retain the institution of slavery? Especially now, a century and a half later, it is remarkable to read a statement such as this one, "This country has produced no better man than Robert E. Lee," that same Robert E. Lee who owned and/or managed more than 200 slaves. A different universe? I know Joe Biden's approval numbers are in the tank, deep in the tank. But I still can't imagine 30% or more of the people in these various polls who think he's doing a good job. Who are these people? Where do they live? They certainly can't live by or like me, although I am certain some do. For that matter, I am convinced our governor, who recently filed certificates to run for re-election, will win again in the fall. I can't, not in the world I live in, imagine how she can win, but I think she will, easily. From where I sit, she hasn't "fixed damn roads" and has no intention to do so. With her unilateral, dicatorial executive orders severely damaged or even ruined the lives of many people, including our children. During Covid she ordered patients with the virus to be sent to senior care facilities, where our most vulnerable citizens lived--even after we knew they were most vulnerable. She joined with other governors in asking the federal government to temporarily suspend the federal gasoline tax, but is prepared to veto any similar legislation about the state gas tax. The state legislature passed an income tax cut which she vetoed. How could any Michigan voter cast a ballot for her?

Random Thoughts

A century or so ago, Thomas Huxley suggested it wouldn't be political corruption, that is, dishonest and self-serving politicians, which brought about the end of American democracy. He cited "an entrenched bureaucracy" as the more likely culprit. Perhaps the past two years of Covid protocols have provided a picture of how that might happen. Mark Twain was a very witty guy! One of my favorite observations of his is, "In the first place, God made idiots. That was for practice. Then he made school boards." I came across this one recently. "Get your facts first. Then you can distort them as you please." I wonder if any of the people who steadfastly supported the Covid mandates, shutdowns, masks, etc. because they were "following the science" have had an epiphany. That is, have they realized that "the science is never settled?" The proclamations of that, "following the science" and "the science is settled," has lent a false legitimacy to the government reactions to Covid. It still befuddles me that in a country of 350 million people, American voters are still plagued with choices for President like W. Bush, Obama, Kerry, McCain, Romney, Obama, Clinton, Trump, and Biden. Hundreds of millions of people and these are our choices? Consider this, relative to our candidates today. Seattle, WA and Denver, CO have populations of about 750,000 today. That is what the population of Virginia, the entire state, was in 1790. Yet, what did VA produce then? Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Henry, the Lees, Mason, Randolph, and a guy by the name of Washington. Yep, think about that. I've read that the top ten hedge fund managers in the US (the top ten, not top ten percent) make more money than all of the kindergarten teachers in the country. Hmmm..... I don't begrudge anyone who makes money legally. No doubt these managers provide a desirable service and provide it well. But it seems to me that perahps our priorities need to be reconsidered. While I'm at it, it seems to me that the issue of "income inequality" is a red herring. So what if the top 10% of income earners make 60% of all income in the US? (I'm not sure that is the exact figure since there are so many different data.) There are other statistics perhaps designed to shock people, for instance, that the typical American CEO makes 100 times the typical worker in his/her company. (Again, I don't know if that's the exact figure.) If other, namely, lower income groups are also better off, what's the problem? Today most families, even considered low income, can and do afford luxuries unheard of in other parts of the world and even the US just a few decades ago. Who doesn't have a big screen television, a smart phone (other than me!), video game consoles, NBA-player endorsed sneakers, etc.? Besides, Thomas Sowell has shown that most people who at one time were in the lowest 20% of income earners rise out of that group and, in fact, more end up in the top 20% than stay in the bottom 20%. I suppose it's like the argument involving the most recent federal income tax cut. Some people complain that the "rich guy" received a bigger cut (in actual dollar amount) than they did. They never consider that the same "rich guy" still pays far more in taxes than they do. Perhaps most people should be more concerned that a recent study showed the IRS targets far more lower income groups for audits than upper income groups, up to five times more. I see more and more colleges allowing students to determine their own curricula, courses of study. But as strange as I find that, the move toward an "open curriculum" seems more irresponsible. To assume 18- and 19-year olds know better than their professors and advisers what academic experiences will best serve them in their real world futures outside of their majors is folly. I guess this is where I make my pitch, yet again, for the increasingly unpopular liberal arts education, you know, what many people now call "dead-end degrees." I still maintain that those who refuse to see the advantages of liberal arts graduates as employees are narrow- and even close-minded. I heard another guy say the other day, "I'm a social liberal and a fiscal conservative." I've heard that from people before. I wonder if they hear that on NPR????? I wanted to ask, "All those social programs you want, who will pay for them?" I didn't ask because I know the answer. I have heard it before. "Other people." Yep, those who want the social programs don't want to finance them; other people should. Gee, how many things are wrong with that line of thinking? Let's just start with selfishness. Why in the world is the Biden Administration trying to buy oil from Venezuela and Iran, but handcuffing US producers? Like so many other things I wonder about, why isn't this on the front pages of every newspaper in the US?

The January 6th "Insurrection"

It, January 6th, is still with us. The Congressional hearings are ongoing. The Justice Department is doing, well, who knows what it is doing? Aren't about three-quarters of those arrested, incarcerated, still awaiting trial? With so much talk about the threat to our democracy, what about the threat to these people's Constitutional rights to a speedy trial? But that's a topic for a future blog. We are still hearing it. "It" is this. That January 6th "insurrection" on the the Capitol building was "the greatest assault/threat on our democratic government since the Civil War." If I recall correctly some fools claimed this was a bigger threat than that Civil War. Such stupidity doesn't deserve a response. But even the modifying claim "since the Civil War" has come from unexpected sources, ones I thought were a little sharper than this. To start, from the dictionary, an insurrection is defined as "a rebellion of citizens or subjects of a country against its government." I suppose people can have their own views, but I don't see January 6th as "a rebellion." Certainly it was reprehensible and embarrassing to the majority of us. But, seriously, does anyone really believe several hundred protesters led by Viking Helmet Man were going to overthrow the federal government or its civil authority? Where was its revolutionary army? I favor criminal actions against these perpetrators--with quick due process as guaranteed by the Constitution. I also favor criminal actions agains the BLM and Anti-fa rioters, er, "peaceful protesters," who rioted, looted, burned and otherwise destroyed public and private property, not to mention assaulted people. But, again I digress, a topic for a future blog. My intent here is to address the very ignorant view that January 6th was "the greatest threat on our Democracy." Hmmm. Where to start? Maybe Viking Helmet Man didn't pose as great a threat as liberal icon (and autocratic wannabe) Franklin Roosevelt. It was FDR's Executive Order 9066 that interned 120,000 people, about two-thirds of whom were US citizens, during the Second World War because they were of Japanese ancestry. (Please spare me, "But that was different. We were at war." It doesn't fly. The 120,000 were no threat. Check out the history of the 442nd Regimental Combat Unit.) It seems to me that such an abuse of federal government power is a far greater threat to Americans than January 6th. What about the various Alien and Sedition Acts that have been enacted over the course of our history, from the 1790s to the Cold War? Isn't stifling perhaps the most fundamental of our Constitutional rights, freedom of speech not to mention freedom of the press and assembly, quite a threat? And these stemmed not from Viking Helmet Man, but from various Congresses and Presidents. Why wasn't Lyndon Johnson's handling of the Vietnam War a bigger threat? He deliberately lied to the American people. As if that weren't enough, he was aided and abetted in the dishonesty by top military leaders and Congress. January 6th resulted in one death. (That four or five law enforcement officers were killed is a lie that continues to find life more than a year later.) The dishonesty/lies surrounding Vietnam led to the deaths of 58,282 Americans. (Ask Mike Bowen, who ran a mile with a 25-pound POW/MIA flag for each of his fellow soldiers who died. https://www.runmichigan.com/view.php?id=20734 ) Is that Trump and many of his followers still push the idea that the election of 2020 was rigged, which sparked January 6th, a threat? More generally, what about the incredible amounts of money in American politics? It is not too hard to see that money counts for much more than the interests of many US citizens. What about the so-called "power elite," the intersection of large corporations (their leaders), the extremely wealthy, and policy makers? Perhaps I am misguided, but I think these elites and their money are far bigger threats to American democracy than Viking Helmet Man. I could go on with more examples, but you I hope get the picture. January 6th was not "the greatest threat to American democracy since the Civil War." It is a misguided and reprehensible event that has been turned into a political football.