The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20161208050113/http://www.gapatton.net/

Wednesday, December 7, 2016

#342 / The Itsy Bitsy Spider



Santa Cruz 4 Bernie is taking Bernie's "Our Revolution" thing seriously. At a meeting held last night at the Louden Nelson Community Center in Santa Cruz, about 250 people came together to begin working on a way to rejuvenate progressive politics at the local level, and to prepare for the very opposite kind of politics at the national level. Santa Cruz 4 Bernie and other activist groups put the meeting together. 

Here's what Louden Nelson looks like from the outside: 


Here's what it looked like last night, from the inside. The biggest meeting room was jammed, standing room only, filled with an incredibly energetic, enthusiastic, and motivated crowd: 


















So what about that spider? 

Drew Glover, an unsuccessful Council candidate (but he came close; he was number five with the first four being the winners), led the crowd in a very spirited rendition of the childhood song we probably all remember:




Glover suggested, and the crowd definitely bought it, that this story, the "itsy bitsy spider" story, is really "our" story. 

However much the presidential election in November may have washed out our hope for a democratic politics of diversity, inclusion, and citizen engagement, the folks in Santa Cruz haven't given up. Far from it!

Everyone at the Santa Cruz 4 Bernie meeting held at the Louden Nelson Center last night (and they'll bring their friends and neighbors next time) are heading right back "up that spout again."


Image Credits:
(1) - https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.juangomez.JoshFairyTales.incywincyspider
(2) - http://firstfridaysantacruz.com/louden-nelson-community-center/
(3) - Gary Patton Personal Photo
(4) - http://abcnotation.com/tunePage?a=trillian.mit.edu/~jc/music/abc/song/Itsy_Bitsy_Spider_Fw/0000

Tuesday, December 6, 2016

#341 / A Catchy Title



I have just started grading the senior "Capstone Thesis" submissions from students in my Fall Quarter UCSC course, LGST 196. The course is titled, "Privacy, Technology, And Freedom," and successfully completing the course is a requirement for any UCSC student who wants to graduate with a major in Legal Studies. 

I provide a memo with some advice for my students on "What Makes A Good Thesis," and the very first suggestion is to  come up with a "Title That Will Interest The Reader." I further explain this concept as follows: "The title should let the reader know the topic AND it should be 'catchy,' in the sense that the title should catch the reader's attention, and make the reader interested...." If you want to see the rest of my suggestions, just click the link above. 

My own attention was certainly caught by the title of Chris Kraus' 1997 book (picture of cover above). Actually, it was a review in The New Yorker that first drew my attention to this book, which The New Yorker describes in very favorable terms:

Chris’s intimate, discursive voice, her range of literary and artistic references, and her mordant self-criticism have put “I Love Dick” within the central current of contemporary fiction.

I Love Dick is a catchy title, alright. At least that is my view. While the title may be just a bit misleading (but not that misleading, let me say), Kraus' title does attract readers to what is a kind of "epistolary novel," and a novel which, according to The New Yorker, is not really "fiction," but is largely filled  with real letters, describing real events.

I was thinking of citing this book to my students as an example of how to write a "Catchy Title," but then I thought again, since I have very much enjoyed the chance to talk with students about "Privacy, Technology, And Freedom," and I'd like to be able to teach the course again in the future.

However, if you think you might like the book, attracted by its catchy title, you could read that New Yorker review. Or, check out the book itself. I checked it out, and I did like it!

Chris Kraus


Image Credits:
(1) - https://www.amazon.com/I-Love-Dick-Chris-Kraus/dp/1781256470
(2) - http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/11/21/chris-kraus-female-antihero

Monday, December 5, 2016

#340 / OCEAN Scores And Dark Posts



On November 20, 2016, the Sunday New York Times printed an opinion piece  titled, "The Secret Agenda of a Facebook Quiz." The article was of interest to me, as someone who is an active participant on Facebook, where this Two Worlds blog is routinely republished. I have, from time to time, taken such quizzes, offered on Facebook - as perhaps some of my readers have, too. 

McKenzie Funk, the author of the Times' opinion piece, is a reporter who works on global environmental issues. He has an impressive resume that you can review by clicking the link. Funk's article tells us that various "quizzes" found on Facebook are, actually, efforts by Cambridge Analytica, a Republican Party political consulting firm, to amass a psychological profile of Facebook users. 

According to Funk, the company now has a database of some 230 million adult Americans, and this database was mobilized during the Trump presidential campaign, and may well have played a part in helping Trump to win the election. 

The profiles being amassed by Cambridge Analytica are based on so-called "OCEAN" scores - psychological profiles that evaluate "how you rate according to the big five psychological traits of Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism."

In the future (and probably already), Facebook advertisers, including political advertisers, can use the Cambridge Analytica system of OCEAN scores to send you "dark posts," which are fine-tuned to appeal to a very restricted group, all of whom have the same psychological profile. Those with different profiles will get different ads.

Read all about it by clicking this link. Then, watch out!

As Funk says, if you don't understand what's going on here, "you may ... be responsible the next time America is shocked by an election upset."

Hey, the last time was bad enough!!


Image Credit:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/the-secret-agenda-of-a-facebook-quiz.html

Sunday, December 4, 2016

#339 / Bleak Mirror



Black Mirror is a television series that is now available on Netflix. I found Seasons One and Two rather compelling, and we are now up to Season Three, which has been specially commissioned by Netflix. The first show in Season Three is called "Nosedive." It takes that "Like" idea you find on Facebook, and pushes it quite a bit further. You can get a bit of the flavor of that episode, and learn more about Black Mirror, by activating the You Tube link below. 

I am teaching a course at the University of California, Santa Cruz, entitled, "Privacy, Technology And Freedom." Almost all of the Black Mirror episodes raise serious questions about the "privacy" and "freedom" implications of our new technologies. 

If you like books, and would like to explore the conjoined topics of privacy, technology, and freedom, you can read The Circle, by Dave Eggers. I recommend it unequivocally! 

If you like video, check out Black Mirror. I don't want to be too alarmist, but the future portrayed, perhaps only slightly exaggerated, is what I'd call horrific:





Image Credit:
(1) - http://www.manrepeller.com/best_of_internet/black-mirror-netflix.html
(2) - http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/24/13379204/black-mirror-season-3-episode-1-nosedive-recap

Saturday, December 3, 2016

#338 / Heads Up



By clicking this link, you can read about a recent law, passed in Great Britain, that is described as "the most extreme surveillance law ever passed in a democracy." Among other things, "the law will force internet providers to record every internet customer's top-level web history in real-time for up to a year, which can be accessed by numerous government departments, and it will also force companies to decrypt data on demand."

This does go beyond anything that the United States government is currently legally authorized to do, though our government may be doing it anyway; that is pretty much what the revelations made by Edward Snowden told us. 

I teach a Legal  Studies course at UCSC called, "Privacy, Technology, And Freedom." If you care about "freedom," then you had better start worrying about what "technology" is doing to the assumption  that there is any such thing as personal "privacy." 

Check the photo above.

Heads Up!


Image Credit:
http://www.zdnet.com/article/snoopers-charter-expansive-new-spying-powers-becomes-law/

Friday, December 2, 2016

#337 / Our Humble Planet



That is Stephen Hawking in the foreground. I think that's Mars, the "Red Planet," in the background. Mars is where Stephen Hawking thinks that human beings should be living. The environment there, the way I see it, does not seem welcoming. You might be excused, after seeing the picture above, if you thought that going to Mars could be like visiting the fires of Hell.

At any rate, according to a recent report, "the 74-year-old scientist warned that humans are using up Earth's ecological resources faster than it [sic] can be replenished." Given that fact, says Hawking, "we must go beyond our humble planet."

With all reasonable deference to Dr. Hawking and his fabulous intellect, might it not be better to rearrange our activities on Earth, during the next 1,000 years (which certainly gives us some time), so that we live within the resource constraints of  this "humble" planet?

That is exactly what I would propose, and in fact (again giving all deference due to Dr. Hawking), I think that is our only chance! 

Check it out folks: "A," or "B?"

A

Earth

B

Mars

That is the kind of question your optometrist asks. I know what I think. I am sticking with Earth. 

Earth may, indeed, be a "humble" planet, and though I have always been told that an appropriate level of humility is a virtue, I actually think our planet has got a lot to brag about!


Image Credits:
(1) - http://www.ecowatch.com/stephen-hawking-trump-climate-change-2097005537.html
(2) - http://www.universetoday.com/41702/picture-of-earth-from-space/
(3) - http://www.australianetworknews.com/watch-mars-earth-reunion-mars-will-near-earth-decade/

Thursday, December 1, 2016

#336 / The Trump Opportunity




Price, a physician, is currently a Member of the United States House of Representatives, representing a Congressional District in Georgia. He is an aggressive opponent of "Obamacare," and The Times ran a concurrent editorial calling Price a "radical choice" to head the Health and Human Services Department, since Price is "intent on systematically weakening, if not demolishing, the nation’s health care safety net."

I have many friends who are either discouraged or frightened about the politics that we are going to experience under the "reign" of a President Trump.* "Totalitarian" is the word that is being used to describe what kind of government may lie ahead, and there is definitely cause for concern.

However, I would urge my friends not to be either discouraged or frightened. I see the upcoming Trump presidency as an opportunity to recover a functioning democracy in the United States.

Let's remember how our government is actually supposed to work. MOST of the actions of our government are not supposed to be initiated by the President (so "reign" is definitely not the right word for the President's job). Most governmental actions are supposed to be initiated by the Congress, which is made up of persons directly chosen by voters who live in the local districts which the Members of Congress are supposed to represent.

This governmental system is premised on the idea that political power, in fact, does reside in "the people." Do "the people" want to "demolish" the nation's health care safety net? Do they want to roll back the extensions of health protection provided by Obamacare? Do they want to repeal or radically modify Medicare?

Frankly, I doubt it!

If and when the Trump Administration proposes to modify our existing health care system, in a way that will radically reduce health care for ordinary Americans, Congress will have a role to play, either to stop outrageous actions by the Administration, or to vote on proposed reductions in health care that the Administration wants the Congress to enact. Repealing Medicare, for example, would require Congress to vote to do that. Just because the Republican Party has a majority in both the House and Senate doesn't mean that any specific Member of the Congress will vote to do something that his or her own constituents oppose and abhor.

However, this system of citizen control over Congress only works when ordinary people decide they care enough about politics to get personally involved. In other words, outrageous proposals coming from the Trump Administration will provide an opportunity to reenergize democracy, but that won't automatically happen.

Trump won in the first place because the United States government is not, in fact, responding to the needs of ordinary Americans. Under both the Republicans and the Democrats our government has been sold out to the 1%. Trump's Administration will be no different (note Trump's pick of a Goldman Sach's alumni as Secretary of the Treasury).

Look on the bright side, friends! Want to change land use policy to establish protective rules that will preserve farmland and natural environments? I'm speaking from my personal experience when I say that outrageous land use development proposals can be used to galvanize the public to take over power and to move governmental decision making in the direction that the majority of a community actually wants. Citizen action to Save Lighthouse Field, and to preserve Wilder Ranch, are examples from Santa Cruz County, and my personal experience.

Want to have a truly good health care policy for the United States? I think that a lot of outrageous proposals to take away even the little health care that  people already have can be used as the fulcrum to leverage some real change.

So, look on the bright side! We may have some really great political opportunities for grassroots, effective, political action, thanks to a President who thinks that it is his  prerogative to "reign."

He'll only "reign" if we let him!

I'm betting that the people of the United States aren't actually looking for a totalitarian solution to our nation's problems, and that when they are faced with outrageous proposals to do them in, they are going to remember and relearn how democracy actually works!


_______________________________
*"Reign" is, in fact, the word that our president-elect has sometimes used to describe what he sees as the role of the president. It is not for nothing that another Times editorial, on November 30th, was headlined, "Mr. Trump, Meet the Constitution." That editorial focused on Trump's Tweet that anyone who burns an American flag should be deprived of their citizenship, and/or placed in jail for a year. Since the United States Supreme Court has explicitly ruled that flag-burning comes under the protection of the First Amendment, as an exercise of free speech, Trump's comment does show a certain unwillingness to respect the idea that the powers of the president (and the government in general) are limited.


Image Credit:
http://infidel753.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-trump-rebellion-danger-and.html

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

#335 / Is It Time For "Earth Time?"



On November 6, 2016, the day that we all "fell back" one hour, implementing Daylight Savings Time for the upcoming winter, The New York Times ran a provocative article by James Gleick, "Time to Dump Time Zones."

The article is pretty short, and well worth reading. The basic idea is that the whole idea of "time zones" should be eliminated, and everyone on Earth should move to a system of uniform "Earth Time."

Currently, the world structures its time-keeping system so that 6:00 a.m. is when morning begins (more or less) wherever in the world you are. 12:00 a.m. means it's midnight. 12:00 p.m. means it's noon. Of course, when it's noon in Santa Cruz, California (with the sun directly overhead on the summer equinox) it will be a different time, elsewhere; for instance, it will be 9:00 p.m. in Paris.

Gleick suggests that the entire planet should have one "time zone." Thus, when it is 12:00 noon in Santa Cruz, it will also be 12:00 noon in Paris. Of course, under the current system, 12:00 noon always means that it's midday, no matter where on earth you are. Under the Gleick system, which he calls, "Coordinated Universal Time, or U.T.C.," 12:00 p.m. (I think we'd have to drop the "noon" and "midnight" modifiers) could well be in the middle of the night. 

Intellectually, the proposed U.T.C. system is interesting, but I do think it's worth pointing out that it would be a step away from trying to tie our time-keeping system to our actual experience of physical reality. Our planet, part of the World of Nature, revolves around the sun, and that means that we all get roughly twelve hours of sunlight and twelve hours of darkness, each day, no matter where on Earth we live. Is our relationship to this natural system more or less important than our own human-made system for describing the reality?

Our current system acknowledges that the physical experience of what we now call "noon," or 12:00 p.m., is the key thing that we need to know about time. If it's "noon" in Hong Kong or Paris, we can picture what the people who live there are experiencing. But if the "time" we decide to use is a uniform human-created convention, we won't intuitively, know what someone in Hong Kong or Paris is doing at 12:00 p.m. We will have to consult a chart. 

My own opinion? 

I think I'd like to stick with the current system. 12:00 p.m. should always be "noon," the same for everyone, all around the world. Wherever you are, noon (12:00 p.m.) should mean that the sun is high in the sky, and that you have reached the mid-point of the day. This system (the current system) lets us all empathize with the other inhabitants of the planet. We know what they are experiencing, pretty much, when it's 12:00 p.m. where they live.

Gleick's proposal? It doesn't have that feature. It's not for me!


Image Credit:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/06/opinion/sunday/time-to-dump-time-zones.html

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

#334 / Radical Reengineering



The beautiful creature pictured above is an Escherichia coli bacterium. Usually called "E. coli," the bacteria of this species are commonly found in the lower intestines of warm-blooded organisms. Sound like anyone you know?

Yep! We've got 'em, and in abundance. If you click right here, or click the link above, you can get a briefing from Wikipedia

The picture came from an article published online by Scientific American. The author of the article is Erika Check Hayden, who is a science and technology reporter based in San Francisco. She also teaches at the University of California, Santa Cruz. The article originally appeared, I gather, in Nature, the international weekly journal of science.

While I love the picture, and think the article is well worth reading, I am not really very positive about the news that Ms. Hayden brings us:

Synthetic biologists report the most far-reaching rewiring yet of a bacterial genome. The feat, described ... in Science, involved repurposing 3.8% of the base pairs of the bacterium Escherichia coli. 
The scientists replaced 7 of its 64 genetic codons—sequences that code for amino acids—with others that produce the same components. They were able to reduce the number of codons by synthesizing the DNA in 55 fragments, each of which was 50,000 base pairs long. They have yet to reassemble those pieces into a functioning E. coli. 
Despite that, the team, led by researchers at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, say that it is a major step in the push to engineer organisms with new properties, such as resistance to infection by viruses. The synthetic biologists, including George Church at Harvard, reported their results on 18 August in Science. They say the work also serves as a prototype for the Human Genome Project—Write, in which scientists aim to synthesize a human genome
“This is a demonstration that that kind of radical reengineering is feasible,” Church says.

Finding ways for human beings radically to "reengineer" the human genome, as part of a project that aims, implicitly, at liberating human beings from the constraints of their origins in the Natural World, seems very ill-advised to me. 


Image Credit:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/most-extensive-reengineering-of-an-organism-s-genetic-code-now-complete/

Monday, November 28, 2016

#333 / Good Advice From An Iranian Father



Pictured is Dina Nayeri, a writer who lives in London. On October 16th, her essay titled, "Out of Touch" appeared in the New York Times Magazine. In the online version, her essay is called, "My Divorce, My Father, My Mistake." 

Nayeri's essay is well worth reading, and I appreciated her father's advice, which I am passing on, below:

Trying to make rules for each other makes everyone unhappy.

Image Credit:
http://www.dinanayeri.com/contact/

Sunday, November 27, 2016

#332 / Instead Of Typing, Talk


Otis R. Taylor, Jr., who writes an "East Bay" column for the San Francisco Chronicle, has this advice for all of us:

Instead of typing, talk!


This is a shorthand way to make an important point about our politics today - and the politics we need to return to in days to come.

Politics, Taylor is saying, properly understood, is not something we can practice in a "virtual" world. Politics is the way we create a "real" world, the world in which we most immediately reside, and that's where our political activities need to take place. We need actually to talk to people, not just sign petitions and send messages over the Internet.

To be an effective political participant, in other words, it is not enough to post to Facebook (or to sign a MoveOn petition, or to write a blog - and I do take Taylor's advice personally).

What is required is real action in the real world. 

  • Get drenched by the water cannons at Standing Rock.
  • Show up personally on the Capitol Mall, at the Inauguration protest.
  • Hit the streets with those protesting the next U.S. military adventure.
  • Actually attend the meetings of the City Council and the Board of Supervisors during which our elected representatives are making the crucial decisions about the future shape and character of our local community. Speak up! Watching it all go down on the government channel, and firing off an email to the Board or Council is not sufficient.
  • Organize or join a political group. Meet each week!

A genuine and healthy politics takes place in the real world, and involves actual human beings

Taylor's column is worth reading - and maybe you can get through the Chronicle's paywall and actually read it. The link I have provided will get you to the full text, providing you aren't stopped for being a Chronicle non-subscriber. But if you do get blocked by the paywall, one line sums it up:


Instead of typing, talk!


Image Credit:
http://www.sfchronicle.com/author/otis-taylor/

Saturday, November 26, 2016

#331 / 5 Steps



On Thanksgiving this year, the San Francisco Chronicle published an "Open Forum" column on "Listening," authored by Mary Pratt, co-founder and creative director of goforwardfilms.com, "a video agency that works with small companies and nonprofits to tell their story." In her column, Pratt provided "5 steps to a respectful political discussion." 

While Thanksgiving Day is now in the past, it is still quite timely to reflect on what it takes to have a "respectful political discussion." The steps outlined by Pratt in her Chronicle column are as follows: 

  1. Find someone who voted differently than you.
  2. Invite her/him to participate in this challenge.
  3. Think of three un-insulting questions you’d each like to ask each other.
  4. Take turns listening to answers without offering counterarguments. Instead, say, “Thanks for sharing,” and keep moving.
  5. End things ASAP on a positive note.

I would like to second Pratt's motion that we aim for some respectful political dialogue between those who differ. And please feel free to send a copy of Pratt's column to your Member of Congress!

We just went through a presidential campaign characterized by an almost unprecedented nastiness. Candidate Clinton said that a large fraction of her opponent's supporters were in a "basket of deplorables." Candidate Trump's outrageous personal attacks were numerous - too numerous to list here. The "campaign," though, is now over, and hurling insults at the other side, at this stage, seems counterproductive (presuming that this approach was ever "productive," as a campaign tactic, in the first place).

President-elect Trump issued a Thanksgiving Day statement that seems to indicate that he agrees with the idea that political opponents should now be trying to forge a "respectful relationship." According to a news story from The Washington Post, which appreared in the San Jose Mercury News on Thanksgiving, the President-elect said, "we have just finished a long and bruising political campaign...but we have before us the chance now to make history together to bring real change to Washington...." 

Don Miller, the editor of my hometown newspaper, the Santa Cruz Sentinel, has chimed in to much the same effect: "Here's the question du jour for the holiday; How can I possibly sit down at the same table with relatives whose views (opinions, voting record) I detest? Hint: Drinking excessively is not the answer...Try, instead, to just ... listen." 

I found a column in the Thanksgiving Day edition of The New York Times to be another worthwhile appeal for what might most properly be called "empathy." Former politician and Kennedy family member Mark K.  Shriver urged readers to make "mercy" a guiding principle in their lives, citing specifically to the teachings of Pope Francis. 

The "equation" below, is a little shorthand description of how our political system works, and describes our efforts to live together in a human-created and "political" world. I have mentioned it before in this Two Worlds blog. I know it's not really an "equation," but I do think that a short guide to democratic self-government can be written as follows: 

Politics: Law: Government

To work from the back to the front: "government" means the way we find to live together, and to create the "human world" in which we most immediately reside. That "government" derives from "rules" or "laws" that reflect our collective decisions. WHAT those rules and laws turn out to be is the product of our "politics." 

Politics is the debate and discussion that, ultimately, in a democratic society, leads to a decision. The written down decisions, our laws and rules, generate the realities that our human actions create, and in this manner we govern ourselves. A failure to understand how properly to follow this equation leads to the failures of government that most of us now admit are characteristic of self-government as currently practiced in the United States. 

We can't have good government - or even democratic government itself - without the debate and discussion that is the very definition of politics. That means we do need to "listen" to those with whom we disagree, and to hope that they will listen to us.

Hurling insults is not a good way to get a hearing, or to have a discussion. We can't blame "the other person" for their insults and failures to hear us, either. 

12-step recovery programs have proven their effectiveness against certain types of addiction. Let's not get addicted to political division and divisiveness. 

It wouldn't be a bad idea, I think, to try out the 5-step program from the Chronicle column!


Image Credit:
http://seapointcenter.com/how-to-write-a-mission-statement/

Friday, November 25, 2016

#330 / Necessity, Supply, And Demand



Thinking about "necessity," a category that should always be treated with suspicion if it's being discussed with reference to any reality in the world that we create, I got to thinking about the so-called "law" of supply and demand. Or "laws" of supply and demand, as the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics puts it:

The most basic laws in economics are the law of supply and the law of demand. Indeed, almost every economic event or phenomenon is the product of the interaction of these two laws. The law of supply states that the quantity of a good supplied (i.e., the amount owners or producers offer for sale) rises as the market price rises, and falls as the price falls. Conversely, the law of demand (see demand) says that the quantity of a good demanded falls as the price rises, and vice versa. (Economists do not really have a “law” of supply, though they talk and write as though they do.)

One function of markets is to find “equilibrium” prices that balance the supplies of and demands for goods and services. An equilibrium price (also known as a “market-clearing” price) is one at which each producer can sell all he wants to produce and each consumer can buy all he demands. Naturally, producers always would like to charge higher prices. But even if they have no competitors, they are limited by the law of demand: if producers insist on a higher price, consumers will buy fewer units. The law of supply puts a similar limit on consumers. They always would prefer to pay a lower price than the current one. But if they successfully insist on paying less (say, through price controls), suppliers will produce less and some demand will go unsatisfied.

In essence these two "laws," as described above, outline a theoretical reality in which the supply and the demand for economic goods must always come into balance. As we know, however, these "laws" are not like the law of gravity, so the postulated balance is not always achieved. An oversupply of goods and materials, and the opposite case, in which we find demands unsatisfied, are both realities with which we are acquainted. Nonetheless, there is a lot of truth to the idea that supply and demand do balance out, over time.

Here's my question: what if supply and demand don't balance; what happens then? How is that balance going to be achieved?

In the human and political world that we create by our own actions, human beings determine how to balance demand with supply. It isn't automatic. There is no "necessary" result. We can talk about the balance being achieved as though this occurs through the operation of the "laws" of supply and demand, but these "laws" are definitely not like the "law" of gravity. When, and if, a "balance" between demand and supply is achieved, it is because certain choices were made, and because certain actions were taken, and not because some self-actuating "law" makes it happen.

If that is correct, decisions on how best to balance "supply" and "demand" are political decisions, and it is not "necessary" to increase "supply" to balance off an increase in "demand." That has tended to be how we have done it, and new demands of all kinds have usually lead to the development of new supplies. From an environmental perspective, though, that is going about it in the wrong way. 

The human demand to consume more is, effectively, boundless. Whatever we already have, we are always ready to consume even more. Because this is true, human beings have continued to insult and injure the natural environment, as we find new ways to "supply" the endless demands for more consumption (demands that are stimulated, of course, by an advertising "industry" that is constantly prodding us to want more).

There is a different way to achieve the balance. Rather than balancing supply and demand by always making political decisions that increase supply, we could make a political choice to reduce demand, to match the supplies already available. 

In other words, we could decide to live within the existing limits of the natural environment, instead of trying always to find ways to exceed those limits to supply more, to keep up with insatiable demand.

The effort to modify the genetic characteristics of existing living things, to make such living organisms produce more of what human beings are "demanding," is only one of our possible avenues towards balance. 

Let's think about this! Maybe the day after Thanksgiving is a particularly appropriate time to do that, since this is a day that stimulates and celebrates overconsumption of food, followed by that Black Friday (today) that celebrates a mad effort to buy and consume more tangible goods.

Yes, you heard me right. I am suggesting that right now (today), would be a good time to start reducing demands, to balance with supplies available. 

Ask Mother Earth. That's what she'd say!


Image Credit:
http://www.investopedia.com/video/play/law-supply-and-demand/

Thursday, November 24, 2016

#329 / Uncertainty Persuades



The image above pretty much conveys how we encounter "uncertainty." With every step, we face that Robert Frost dilemma.

The article from which I snagged the photo, published in Scientific American online, was titled, "The Upside of Uncertainty." The point of the article is that when making an argument, it is sometimes more persuasive to admit some uncertainty, instead of being ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE about the position for which you advocate. 

Why would that be?

Well, our lives are, at every step, very uncertain, indeed.

Therefore, acknowledging the uncertainties we face comes across as "honest."

For those engaged in political debate, that's a lesson worth learning!


Image Credit:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-upside-of-uncertainty/?WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20161108

Wednesday, November 23, 2016

#328 / Chatbots



In case you missed it, it appears that Donald Trump not only got the most electoral votes in the recent presidential election, he won the battle of "ranting, raving Twitter Robots," too.

How much Trump's victory in the "bot" wars helped him win the election is a matter of dispute. You can read about this topic in a recent article from The New York Times, authored by John Markoff, and posted from San Francisco, where Twitter is headquartered.

In the print edition, the title of Markoff's article includes the quoted reference to "ranting, raving Twitter Robots." The online article is titled, "Automated Pro-Trump Bots Overwhelmed Pro-Clinton Messages, Researchers Say."

In essence, Markoff's article seems correct in stating that "chatbots" deployed by the Trump campaign outperformed the chatbots put out into the virtual battlefield by Hillary Clinton. Twitter, of course, denies that these chatbot wars had any impact on voter behavior. While I'd like to believe that's true, I do think that information from the Internet, including "fake news," did change voter opinion, and thus did affect the outcome of the election.

I am all for more engagement in politics. However, as you gear up for contests yet to come, let's get this clear: Involvement in "politics" means involvement with "actual human beings."

Politics by Internet is no politics at all!


Image Credit:
http://demo.vhost.pandorabots.com/pandora/talk?botid=b0dafd24ee35a477

Tuesday, November 22, 2016

#327 / Just A Little Update



Pictured above are young Somalis, near the wreckage of a car bomb after a double suicide attack. The attack was carried out by the al-Qaida–affiliated extremist group al-Shabaab; it killed eighteen people and injured dozens more at a popular Mogadishu restaurant in the Somali capital on September 7, 2013. The picture was chosen to illustrate an article titled, "Deadly Force," which appeared in the Summer 2016 edition of The University of Chicago Magazine.

A friend sent me the article (including the picture) as a follow up to a blog posting here called, "Do Unto Others." My point in that posting was that the United States government should stop carrying out drone attacks on those it regards as terrorists, unless and until we are all prepared to have an increasing number of terrorist attacks, including drone attacks, directed at us. 

The "Deadly Force" article notes the increasing rise of suicide terrorist attacks, which it calls the "lung cancer of terrorism." It cites the work of Robert Pape, professor in political science and director of the Chicago Project on Security and Terrorism, as follows: 

The belief that only Muslim groups engage in suicide terrorism “is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy" ... "The more we’re putting different Muslim populations under heavy military intervention stress, the more we’re seeing suicide terrorism." Pape believes the American invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan triggered the deadly wave of suicide attacks in the Middle East and the West that continues today. 
To deter potential terrorists, Pape argues the United States should limit military intervention and instead focus on improving domestic security. He also hopes the United States will support stable governance structures that benefit the local people in the Middle East, not just American interests. This, he thinks, will prevent the rise of new terrorist groups and recurrence of old ones. “The study of suicide terrorism … tells us that the political solutions are the true lasting solutions.”



Image Credits:
http://mag.uchicago.edu/law-policy-society/deadly-force

Monday, November 21, 2016

#326 / A Tribute To Tom



Tom Hayden died on October 23rd, and a few days later I mentioned the following piece of good advice from Tom, gleaned from an obituary that appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle

A citizen [is] obliged not only to vote, but also to disagree with those [for whom] he [or she has] voted. Dissent has been crucial to positive social change.

Now, I can refer you to a tribute to Tom appearing in the November 14, 2016 edition of The Nation. Tom's authorship of The Port Huron Statement is featured in The Nation's brief retrospective, and I am providing a link, for those who have never read it.

It was the Port Huron Statement that first introduced me to the phrase that I continue to believe is the best definition of a healthy politics: 

Participatory Democracy

I have often put it this way: If we want to have self-government, we need to get involved in government ourselves.

The Nation begins its tribute to Tom by saying that Tom "rests in peace," though its tribute ends with a wish that Tom will have "good luck organizing the angels."

If participatory democracy is our objective, "resting" isn't in the playbook!


Image Credit:
https://www.thenation.com/article/tom-hayden-and-the-unfinished-business-of-democracy/

Sunday, November 20, 2016

#325 / 9-11 And 11-9



The events of September 11, 2001, which we all know in shorthand as 9-11, have forever changed the United States. These changes, which did not come immediately, but which came rather soon after the 9-11 attacks, were changes for the worse. At least, that's how I judge them. 

All by itself, in other words, 9-11 was bad enough. What then came after has been horrible, particularly in terms of the state of our democracy, civil liberties, privacy, military involvements, and religious tolerance.

November 9, 2016 is the date on which the results of our most recent presidential election were announced. We could call it 11-9, and that's how I am thinking about it. 

I am not that much into numerology, but I don't have a very good feeling about what that 11-9 date portends.

What comes after 9-11 backwards (11-9) may end up being even worse than 9-11, in terms of the state of our democracy, civil liberties, privacy, military involvements, and religious tolerance.

Since we should have learned, the first time around, let's try to make sure that doesn't happen!



Image Credit: 
http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2011/09/911-the-day-of-the-attacks/100143/

Saturday, November 19, 2016

#324 / Actual Human Beings



Here's Sam Altman (see the picture above). CNN calls Altman "Silicon Valley's 28-year old whiz kid." Altman is the guy who is now in charge of that economic powerhouse Y-Combinator, the venture capital "accelerator" I mentioned in my posting yesterday

In talking about Y-Combinator, I cited to an article in the October 10, 2016 edition of The New Yorker, titled, "Sam Altman's Manifest Destiny." Discerning readers will have noticed that I was not very much entranced by the whiz kid's ideas for the future. As it turns out, others had a similar reaction. Here's a letter published in the November 21, 2016 edition of The New Yorker, commenting on one of the whiz kid's pronouncements:

THE RESISTANCE

Sam Altman, the tech wunderkind profiled by Tad Friend, is quoted as saying, “Democracy only works in a growing economy. Without a return to economic growth, the democratic experiment will fail.” Doomsday prediction aside, democracy is a tool that people use to make decisions together. You can find democracy at your local PTA, at community meetings and block parties—wherever people are free to decide among themselves what happens next. To suggest that democracy relies on economic growth to exist is to forget that social change is created not by big companies backed by venture capitalists but by actual human beings.

Andrew Seeder
Somerville, Mass.

Thank you, Andrew Seeder! My sentiments exactly. 

Whiz kid versus democracy?

I'm with democracy!

I'm with "actual human beings!"


Image Credit:
http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/09/technology/innovation/sam-altman-y-combinator/

Friday, November 18, 2016

#323 / Maybe Take Your Foot Off That Accelerator?



Sam Altman, described by Wikipedia as an "entrepreneur, programmer, venture capitalist and blogger," is the current president of Y Combinator. That organization calls itself an "accelerator," with a mission to promote and inspire new high-tech startup businesses that will make lots of money. Money for the startups, certainly, but also money for Y Combinator. How that works is explained by a recent article in The New Yorker:

They created the greatest business model of all time. For basically no money” — YC gives each company just a hundred and twenty thousand dollars, to cover expenses — “they get seven per cent of a lot of the best startups in Silicon Valley!” Collectively, YC companies are worth eighty billion dollars, a valuation that has grown seventeenfold in the past five years.

In fact, Y Combinator is the "top accelerator in the country," according to a recent article in The New York Times, and has directed $10.2 billion in financing to the startups it has fostered. That start up capital is what has produced that eighty billion dollar valuation for the companies that were financed. The Times article, and The New Yorker article, which is titled, "Sam Altman’s Manifest Destiny: Is the head of Y Combinator fixing the world, or trying to take over Silicon Valley?" will tell you a lot about Y Combinator specifically, and about "accelerators" in general.

Altman, who is only thirty-one years old, is clearly an unusual personality, at least as depicted in The New Yorker article:

"I like racing cars,” Altman said. “I have five, including two McLarens and an old Tesla. I like flying rented planes all over California. Oh, and one odd one—I prep for survival.” ... He explained, “My problem is that when my friends get drunk they talk about the ways the world will end. After a Dutch lab modified the H5N1 bird-flu virus, five years ago, making it super contagious, the chance of a lethal synthetic virus being released in the next twenty years became, well, nonzero. The other most popular scenarios would be A.I. that attacks us and nations fighting with nukes over scarce resources.” ... “I try not to think about it too much,” Altman said. “But I have guns, gold, potassium iodide, antibiotics, batteries, water, gas masks from the Israeli Defense Force, and a big patch of land in Big Sur I can fly to.”

In essence, the Y Combinator method for wealth creation is education plus contacts. According to The New Yorker, "YC provides the university experience they wish they could have had." Maybe in the future aspiring entrepreneurs will have that experience at a university. Or maybe they are already having it!

Steve Blank, a Silicon Valley "entrepreneurship guru," has recently reported that my old alma mater, Stanford University, is now nothing more than "an incubator with dorms." Blank revealed in a blog post that Stanford now has 145 courses on entrepreneurship in its catalogue. That includes a course in "Hacking For Defense," aimed at mobilizing student talent to support U.S. military adventurism. These courses have, very clearly, displaced courses devoted to what used to be called the "humanities," and the "liberal arts." 

The bottom line for the "accelerator" concept is always measured in money, and that "make more money" objective, if generally adopted, will doom our species to a perpetual search to increase consumption. Buying things (from cars, and planes, and houses in coastal communities, and property in Big Sur) is what money is good for.

What's good for those who have the money, however, is most emphatically not good for the rest of us.

Let's take our foot off that accelerator!


Image Credit:
http://techjaw.com/tag/y-combinator/

Thursday, November 17, 2016

#322 / Our Transgender Deity


Rabbi Mark Sameth (pictured) has recently stepped down as the Rabbi of a trans-denominational Community Synagogue in Westchester County, New York, known for  its commitment to "Joyful Judaism."

In an article that appeared in The New York Times on Saturday, August 13th, Sameth asks the question, "Is God Transgender?"

Biblical accounts often depict God as full of wrath (a behavior pattern often associated with the male gender), while at other times the Bible portrays God as supremely tender and merciful (characteristics that are typically said to be associated with the female gender). Sameth, though, is not basing his suggestion about the nature of God on the way God is portrayed in the Bible. He has been doing a close reading of Biblical texts, and has decoded the Tetragrammaton, the four-letter name of God, generally spelled as "YHWH."

According to Sameth, there is a "secret" in these four letters, and he lets the cat right out of the bag: "Israelite priests would have read the letters in reverse as Hu/Hi - in other words, the hidden name of God was Hebrew for "He/She."

I liked Sameth's article. Click this link to read it for yourself. Click right here for another blogger's thoughts "About God's Name."

The results of Sameth's research, if you think about it, though based on ancient texts, actually outlines an approach that closely conforms to our modern understanding of the nature of reality.

Sameth's view of God, in other words, is pretty much the way that Heisenberg or Schrödinger might have thought about Him/Her!

Speaking of cats, that is!

Wednesday, November 16, 2016

#321 / The Hard Problem



The same day I saw the movie Arrival, I went to a performance of Tom Stoppard's newest play, The Hard Problem, performed by the American Conservatory Theatre. That's a play worth seeing, though  if you want to see it you will have to hunt it down somewhere else, since the last ACT performance was a matinee on November 13th. Incidentally, Santa Cruz Shakespeare's Artistic Director, Mike Ryan, had a major part in the ACT production. Click here for a review

If you want to get into the "hard problem" as a matter of philosophy, and it does seem to be a problem worth thinking about, you can click this link or the other "hard problem" link, above. 

According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the "hard problem" challenge "arises because it does not seem that the qualitative and subjective aspects of conscious experience—how consciousness “feels” and the fact that it is directly “for me”—fit into a physicalist ontology." 

In other words, "it appears that even a complete specification of a creature in physical terms leaves unanswered the question of whether or not the creature is conscious. And it seems that we can easily conceive of creatures just like us physically and functionally that nonetheless lack consciousness. This indicates that a physical explanation of consciousness is fundamentally incomplete: it leaves out what it is like to be the subject, for the subject. There seems to be an unbridgeable explanatory gap between the physical world and consciousness. All these factors make the hard problem hard."

The nature of the questions being explored in both Arrival and The Hard Problem are, in fact, or so it seems to me, somewhat related. I'm still thinking about that!

Here's one thought: If it cannot be demonstrated how physical reality creates consciousness (and consciousness, of course, includes that consciousness of time that Einstein thought was a persistent "illusion"), then maybe we should assault the "hard problem" from the opposite flank.

Maybe physical reality doesn't create consciousness. 

Maybe consciousness creates physical reality.


Image Credit:
https://www.bayarea.com/play/the-hard-problem/

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

#320 / Arrival



I saw Arrival in San Francisco, but it is playing in Santa Cruz and Scotts Valley, and in Watsonville, Salinas, and Monterey, too. The story is about an alien invasion of Earth, and of our efforts, as human beings, to communicate with these visitors, to find out why they are here. Click the link for a brief movie review that I think does the film justice. I'm just piling on, here, to recommend the movie.

I haven't yet read the book from which the movie was made (Ted Chiang’s Story of Your Life), but the movie did make me want to read the book. So did the movie review, which I read after I saw the movie, since the review tells us that the book is aimed, mainly, at "challenging Newtonian physics and the idea of linear time, which Einstein once called 'a stubbornly ­persistent illusion.'” 

Louise, the heroine of Arrival, who is a brilliantly talented linguist, "comes to realize," as the review informs us, "that merely learning the aliens’ syntax will require changes in our brains — a controversial idea in linguistics but one that’s seen, by its partisans, as bringing us closer to a unified theory of matter. Chiang wants to move the sci-fi border in the direction of quantum physics."

While the review complains that the director let a "grade-B military melodrama run away with the story," I am not so sure that the military melodrama is a fault in the movie. Because the movie includes such a military melodrama, there can be a crisis, related to the melodrama, in which immediate action is necessary, and in that crisis it is possible for the message of the movie to be articulated directly, as the aliens tell the linguist: 

There is no time....


This is a movie worth seeing. This is an idea worth considering!


Image Credit:
https://www.ilbe.com/8633031678