BILL CLINTON AND SCIENCE
Have yet to meet. . .
How does Bill Clinton create an embryo without fertilization? Rhodes Scholar? What can explain it?
A Blog of Current Events and Ancient Issues.
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Saturday, February 16, 2008
RANDOM THOUGHTS
1. Thanks to the "Juntoboys" for inspiring me to continue my research on Prisoner Re-Entry. I am now writing a proposal with a collaborator I found at the University. We are putting together a research project to study some of the ideas I developed and test them for effectiveness. This is very exciting as this will likely turn into funded and publishable research.
2. I've been reading a lot lately about Neuropsychology (a new and growing field). Particularly I am currently reading research on The Neuropsychology behind Paranormal Experiences. This field was evidently pioneered by Michael A. Persinger, Ph.D. who also invented a crazy contraption called the "God Helmet." The God-Helmet introduces ultra low frequency pulses of Electro-Magnetic energy into the temporal lobes of the brain. This device is devised so that it will induce religious/paranormal experiences in those who wear it. Among reported experiences are the feeling that someone is watching you, feelings of oneness, feelings of being pulled from the inside, fear, anger, joy, and a variety of other emotions. Persinger believes that stimulation of the temporal lobes is what causes mystical experiences as well as Alien abduction reports. I've got the plans for this helmet and am currently building one for my own experiments.
3. I've been tasked with teaching more diversity courses now. Apparently my students love my "refreshing right wing approach" (as one student evaluation put it) to diversity areas such as Cross cultural psychology, Psych of Women, and Psych of Racism.
4. What if McCain asks Barak Obama to be his Vice-President, which was earlier suggested in this blog by "E" I believe. Would that collapse the ends of the Bell Curve (ultra right conservatives and ultra liberals) creating a new coalition of moderates, independents, and the like? Are we in for a major political transformation of the cultural landscape? All pundits seem aghast.
5. If social intelligence or emotional intelligence is a valid construct, then evidently there must be Emotional Genius'. If so, what would they look like? What would an Emotional Einstein be like? Would they be master manipulators able to inspire or corrupt or whisper and control at will? Sounds like a cool power. Perhaps that is what the great leaders and politicians were.
6. The recent book "Love and Sex with Robots" is quite fascinating. I've been waiting for the Robot Women and Flying cars all my life. This books central thesis is that as robots become more and more human like, we will eventually begin using them for intimate practices as well. It makes sense since the average Joe/Jane uses a computer and a variety of mechanical aids currently to enhance carnal pleasure. It would be nice in some ways because the Robot Woman would not nag, nor divorce, nor spend you into bankruptcy. It's all very interesting. I suppose the sophisticated enough Robot woman could be intellectually stimulating (since she would have a internet enabled brain and therefore access to the sum total of human knowledge) plus physically arousing since presumably some basic psychology tests could discern the exact physical type you would be interested in. Human women may be jealous at first or not allow this at all (just as many now rally against Porn and such) while others would view the Robot Woman as simply an appliance and would likely welcome this addition which could help "fill the void" between love making sessions and thus help curb her Human Husbands desire to cheat. Since the Robot Woman would be learning enabled and adaptive, she would continue to get better with each session and could create both variety as well as become a teacher to the human couple or even live-aid for the ultimate "threesomes."
1. Thanks to the "Juntoboys" for inspiring me to continue my research on Prisoner Re-Entry. I am now writing a proposal with a collaborator I found at the University. We are putting together a research project to study some of the ideas I developed and test them for effectiveness. This is very exciting as this will likely turn into funded and publishable research.
2. I've been reading a lot lately about Neuropsychology (a new and growing field). Particularly I am currently reading research on The Neuropsychology behind Paranormal Experiences. This field was evidently pioneered by Michael A. Persinger, Ph.D. who also invented a crazy contraption called the "God Helmet." The God-Helmet introduces ultra low frequency pulses of Electro-Magnetic energy into the temporal lobes of the brain. This device is devised so that it will induce religious/paranormal experiences in those who wear it. Among reported experiences are the feeling that someone is watching you, feelings of oneness, feelings of being pulled from the inside, fear, anger, joy, and a variety of other emotions. Persinger believes that stimulation of the temporal lobes is what causes mystical experiences as well as Alien abduction reports. I've got the plans for this helmet and am currently building one for my own experiments.
3. I've been tasked with teaching more diversity courses now. Apparently my students love my "refreshing right wing approach" (as one student evaluation put it) to diversity areas such as Cross cultural psychology, Psych of Women, and Psych of Racism.
4. What if McCain asks Barak Obama to be his Vice-President, which was earlier suggested in this blog by "E" I believe. Would that collapse the ends of the Bell Curve (ultra right conservatives and ultra liberals) creating a new coalition of moderates, independents, and the like? Are we in for a major political transformation of the cultural landscape? All pundits seem aghast.
5. If social intelligence or emotional intelligence is a valid construct, then evidently there must be Emotional Genius'. If so, what would they look like? What would an Emotional Einstein be like? Would they be master manipulators able to inspire or corrupt or whisper and control at will? Sounds like a cool power. Perhaps that is what the great leaders and politicians were.
6. The recent book "Love and Sex with Robots" is quite fascinating. I've been waiting for the Robot Women and Flying cars all my life. This books central thesis is that as robots become more and more human like, we will eventually begin using them for intimate practices as well. It makes sense since the average Joe/Jane uses a computer and a variety of mechanical aids currently to enhance carnal pleasure. It would be nice in some ways because the Robot Woman would not nag, nor divorce, nor spend you into bankruptcy. It's all very interesting. I suppose the sophisticated enough Robot woman could be intellectually stimulating (since she would have a internet enabled brain and therefore access to the sum total of human knowledge) plus physically arousing since presumably some basic psychology tests could discern the exact physical type you would be interested in. Human women may be jealous at first or not allow this at all (just as many now rally against Porn and such) while others would view the Robot Woman as simply an appliance and would likely welcome this addition which could help "fill the void" between love making sessions and thus help curb her Human Husbands desire to cheat. Since the Robot Woman would be learning enabled and adaptive, she would continue to get better with each session and could create both variety as well as become a teacher to the human couple or even live-aid for the ultimate "threesomes."
Thursday, December 13, 2007
POPE AND GLOBAL WARMING
I love that the Pope gets to remind the secular hysterics about the importance of science.
Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.
The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.
The 80-year-old Pope said the world needed to care for the environment but not to the point where the welfare of animals and plants was given a greater priority than that of mankind.
I love that the Pope gets to remind the secular hysterics about the importance of science.
Friday, November 30, 2007
FUNDING PORTRAYED AS LEGALITY
Maybe you remember Michael Kinsley from his Crossfire days opposite Pat Buchanan, back when the show had a level of civility lost with the Carville/Tucker approach. He has Parkinson's disease which means he's a moral authority on stem cell research. Even though it was found that skin cells could be cloned to resemble embryonic stem cells, that's not enough for the ailing Kinsley.
No law says they can't.
SPECIAL BULLETIN: No one knows the future!
If scientists say that it should continue and it's perfectly legal to continue it then what's your point?
Again, what delay except by the FDA that takes forever to approve anything.
In what way are they going to waste if scientists want to do the research and the research is legal?
Is the Justice Department raiding laboratories and rounding up scientists?
If all knowledge, innovation and discovery can only be found at the bottom of a crate of government funding then this statement is true.
What does that mean for Kinsley's position on funding the war? This is from his column in June.
Kinsley mocks that anything less than victory in Iraq is a betrayal of the troops, but thinks that anything less than a government victory in stem cell research is a betrayal that shows a lack of "character, values and intellect." Stem Cell research can go on with or without government funding, but defeating our enemies is illegal without funding.
But no timetable for government funding of stem cells should ever be discussed because the breakthrough is always right around the corner.
Maybe Clinton and Obama just lack the "Character, Values and Intellect" that it takes to see the importance of an American victory.
This is the perfect example of which I speak. Congress cut off funding for the Contras so Oliver North and company raised their own money despite Congress. Kinsley, of course, didn't like it and would have liked to have seen people go to jail for it. He would have liked to have seen the funding on anti-communist freedom fighters criminalized. The action of North and company brought about free elections in Nicargua despite Congress.
Has anyone in Congress treated scientists the way the Contras and their supporters were treated? Kinsley pretends that people are treating scientists the way Congress treated Oliver North.
So it undermines scientists to lose funding but the troops just have to deal?
Maybe you remember Michael Kinsley from his Crossfire days opposite Pat Buchanan, back when the show had a level of civility lost with the Carville/Tucker approach. He has Parkinson's disease which means he's a moral authority on stem cell research. Even though it was found that skin cells could be cloned to resemble embryonic stem cells, that's not enough for the ailing Kinsley.
But any Republicans who think the stem-cell breakthrough gets them off the hook are going to end up very unhappy. This issue will not go away.
First, even the scientists who achieved the latest success believe strongly that embryonic-stem-cell research should continue.
No law says they can't.
No one knows for sure whether the new method of producing pluripotent cells will pan out or where the next big developments will come from.
SPECIAL BULLETIN: No one knows the future!
We are still many thresholds away from anything that can be of practical value to me and others. Scientifically, it makes no sense to abandon any promising avenue just because another has opened up.
If scientists say that it should continue and it's perfectly legal to continue it then what's your point?
Second, even if this were a true turning point in stem-cell research, people like me are not going to quickly forget those six lost years. I am 56. Last year I had a kind of brain surgery that dramatically reduces the symptoms of Parkinson's. It received government approval only five years ago. Every year that goes by, science opens new doors, and every year, as you get older and your symptoms perhaps get worse, doors get shut. Six years of delay in a field moving as fast as stem-cell research means a lot of people for whom doors may not open until it is time for them to shut.
Again, what delay except by the FDA that takes forever to approve anything.
The embryos used in stem-cell research come from fertility clinics, which otherwise would discard them. This has been a powerful argument in favor of such research. Why let these embryos go to waste?
In what way are they going to waste if scientists want to do the research and the research is legal?
Even if all embryonic-stem-cell research stopped tomorrow, this far larger mass slaughter of embryos would continue. There is no political effort to stop it. Bush even praised in vitro fertilization in his 2001 speech about the horrors of stem-cell research. In vitro has become too popular for politicians to take on. But their failure to do so makes a mockery of their alleged agony over embryonic stem cells.
Is the Justice Department raiding laboratories and rounding up scientists?
Finally, the position a politician takes on an issue tells you something about his or her character, values and intellect. And that understanding doesn't disappear even if the issue itself does. Over the past six years, Bush and most Republicans in Congress have done their best to stop medical research that could cure many diseases, including one that I have.
If all knowledge, innovation and discovery can only be found at the bottom of a crate of government funding then this statement is true.
What does that mean for Kinsley's position on funding the war? This is from his column in June.
Last week President Bush condescended to sign a bill authorizing $100 billion for his war, but only after any serious timetables or criteria or deadlines for troop withdrawal were stripped from the legislation. . . it is considered the height of naivete, irresponsibility and indifference to the fate of American soldiers to suggest the possibility of any exit strategy short of triumph. If you do, you are betraying the troops. And no one sees actual triumph in the cards, so there is no exit strategy.
Kinsley mocks that anything less than victory in Iraq is a betrayal of the troops, but thinks that anything less than a government victory in stem cell research is a betrayal that shows a lack of "character, values and intellect." Stem Cell research can go on with or without government funding, but defeating our enemies is illegal without funding.
And woe betide any politician who suggests that waiting for complete triumph might not be the only alternative -- just in case democracy, prosperity, peace and brotherhood don't flower in Iraq next week. Sens . Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama opposed the war-funding bill because it lacked even the mealy-mouthed timetables in an earlier version that Bush vetoed.
But no timetable for government funding of stem cells should ever be discussed because the breakthrough is always right around the corner.
For this they got crocodile tears from Sen. John McCain. Squandering a bit more of his war-hero capital, McCain came close to accusing the two leading Democratic presidential candidates of treason: "I was very disappointed to see Senator Obama and Senator Clinton embrace the policy of surrender."
Maybe Clinton and Obama just lack the "Character, Values and Intellect" that it takes to see the importance of an American victory.
So there is a "power of the purse," you see. Congress can cut off funds for a war that people don't like. In this connection, older readers might recall the Iran-contra affair, in which sources of money were found to keep the contra war going in Nicaragua without Congress's even knowing about it. This met with the enthusiastic approval of the Wall Street Journal, even though funds you do not know about are hard to cut off.
This is the perfect example of which I speak. Congress cut off funding for the Contras so Oliver North and company raised their own money despite Congress. Kinsley, of course, didn't like it and would have liked to have seen people go to jail for it. He would have liked to have seen the funding on anti-communist freedom fighters criminalized. The action of North and company brought about free elections in Nicargua despite Congress.
Has anyone in Congress treated scientists the way the Contras and their supporters were treated? Kinsley pretends that people are treating scientists the way Congress treated Oliver North.
That Wall Street Journal editorial accuses these three Democratic senators of "vot[ing] to undermine U.S. troops in the middle of a difficult mission." If this is true of last week's vote, it will always be true of any attempt to cut off a war by cutting off funds.
So it undermines scientists to lose funding but the troops just have to deal?
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
STEM CELL BREAKTHROUGH
And think of the hysteria one year ago.
NEW YORK -- Scientists have made ordinary human skin cells take on the chameleon-like powers of embryonic stem cells, a startling breakthrough that might someday deliver the medical payoffs of embryo cloning without the controversy.
Laboratory teams on two continents report success in a pair of landmark papers released Tuesday. It's a neck-and-neck finish to a race that made headlines five months ago, when scientists announced that the feat had been accomplished in mice.
The "direct reprogramming" technique avoids the swarm of ethical, political and practical obstacles that have stymied attempts to produce human stem cells by cloning embryos.
And think of the hysteria one year ago.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
YOU CAN'T SAY THAT ON TELEVISION
Luckily for Dr. Watson, a prominent American won the Nobel Peace Prize this week for championing inconvenient truths. He doesn't care about popularity or praise or even his own checking account. All he cares about is science and he doesn't filter it through his own politics or world view. He just believes whatever the data says. A week ago Dr. Watson would have been ruined. Now two Nobel Laureates can walk hand in hand speaking truth to power and chasing the rest of us meat heads right back to the cave.
One of the world's most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that "equal powers of reason" were shared across racial groups was a delusion.
James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America's leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for a speaking tour at venues including the Science Museum in London.
The newly formed Equality and Human Rights Commission, successor to the Commission for Racial Equality, said it was studying Dr Watson's remarks "in full". Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".
Critics of Dr Watson said there should be a robust response to his views across the spheres of politics and science. Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: "It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments. I am sure the scientific community will roundly reject what appear to be Dr Watson's personal prejudices.
"These comments serve as a reminder of the attitudes which can still exists at the highest professional levels."
Anti-racism campaigners called for Dr Watson's remarks to be looked at in the context of racial hatred laws. A spokesman for the 1990 Trust, a black human rights group, said: "It is astonishing that a man of such distinction should make comments that seem to perpetuate racism in this way. It amounts to fuelling bigotry and we would like it to be looked at for grounds of legal complaint."
Luckily for Dr. Watson, a prominent American won the Nobel Peace Prize this week for championing inconvenient truths. He doesn't care about popularity or praise or even his own checking account. All he cares about is science and he doesn't filter it through his own politics or world view. He just believes whatever the data says. A week ago Dr. Watson would have been ruined. Now two Nobel Laureates can walk hand in hand speaking truth to power and chasing the rest of us meat heads right back to the cave.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
SPAM FROM TEXAS DOLLY
This might be the most unintentionally funny spam I've read all year. I think the intern stole Doyle's email password. Commentary by me.
LEO: Where did you first hear of global warming?
DOYLE: From you at the Bogata. You?
LEO: Christian Slater told me.
DOYLE: Leo, there are poker players and then the rest of the world.
LEO: What's the best way to educate the rest of the world?
DOYLE: Not really a good idea if you want to make a living at poker.
LEO: What was it like in the old days before floods, fires, droughts, heat waves, melting ice caps and extinct animals?
DOYLE: Back then you could get sirloin for 35 cents a pound.
DOYLE: Poker Rooms have actually gotten a little colder over the years. You'd have to write a script if you want me to be an expert.
LEO: Nah, we're going to get celebrities, scientists outside their field of expertise, and then just whatever guy we find on the street that scares easily and put them all on camera.
DOYLE: And call them experts.
LEO: Better than calling them a hodge podge of people who would participate.
HAWKING: Which should I say, hotter or colder?
FIELD PRODUCER: We'd prefer hotter, but you're the scientist.
HAWKING: Hotter then. I don't want to be on the cutting room floor. When that Star Trek cameo repeats I get a sizable spike at Amazon.
FIELD PRODUCER: Do you think it will rain tomorrow?
HAWKING: How the hell do I know?
MAATHAI: It would be for my daughter.
FIELD PRODUCER: Leo is tired of everyone's daughter. Is it hot here or not? Right, so just tell him you think so.
FIELD PRODUCER: You're the guy who helped ruin Dr. Leary?
WEIL: Yeah, I'm into juicing and deep breathing now.
FIELD PRODUCER: We think you're a squealing pig. But nice to have you on this.
FIELD PRODUCER: So uh, when did you notice it getting warmer?
GORBY: Right after Reagan handed me my ass and that ended. . . wait for it. . . the COLD WAR.
JOE: Six months ago it was freezing and now I can't walk to the mini mart without getting swamp ass.
FRANK: Me too.
JOE: I wish they'd produce a movie to explain why.
FRANK: And even if the whys were clouded in conjecture at supposition there would be no reason why we shouldn't change life as we know it in order to feel better about ourselves.
JOE: And a promise to end swamp ass.
LEO: Can we get the "Profit of Doom" for this?
EXECUTIVE PRODUCER: He's in the middle of a 3 picture deal with Michael Moore but we could reference him here and there.
LEO: Check with the lawyers.
LEO: I don't get this quote. Do we need it?
EXECUTIVE PRODUCER: Carlin's funny. Have you heard that thing about his "stuff" or all those curse words.
LEO: Yeah, but I heard those words already.
EXECUTIVE PRODUCER: Carlin is saying that the chances of us dying are even greater if we don't stop global warming now.
DOYLE: Greater than 100%?
GORBY: You're like the smartest guy in the world. Why isn't this problem solved yet?
HAWKING: I don't know. I wake up in the morning, have an omelet, check the west coast box scores, flip around on the TV and it's nearly noon. I keep telling myself that I have to get on this first thing and work through the day, but I just have too many distractions. I sometimes substitute the omelet for an English Muffin and Yogurt. What I need is to watch movies about it and get impassioned.
This might be the most unintentionally funny spam I've read all year. I think the intern stole Doyle's email password. Commentary by me.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
"Doyle Brunson, in partnership with Leonardo DiCaprio, would like to take this opportunity to present to you a project that has been extremely important to everyone at the Doyle Brunson Poker Network. Global warming and the negative effects it has on mankind, is an issue that we have taken very seriously.
LEO: Where did you first hear of global warming?
DOYLE: From you at the Bogata. You?
LEO: Christian Slater told me.
In an effort to help educate poker players as well of the rest of the world about this important issue, Doyle Brunson and Leonardo DiCaprio, have partnered to produce the feature film environmental documentary entitled "The 11th Hour" which is now being distributed worldwide by Warner Bros. studio.
DOYLE: Leo, there are poker players and then the rest of the world.
LEO: What's the best way to educate the rest of the world?
DOYLE: Not really a good idea if you want to make a living at poker.
DOYLE: My life is great really. We gave up the Texas bookie joint back in the 50s and eventually moved out here to Vegas. Now I have a big energy burning, water wasting mansion in the desert. You can't grow anything out here without a truck of chemicals. All the food has to be driven here from hundreds of miles away. If Louis XVI only had it so good.
We don't know how things are in your life, but no matter what's going on, this planet has got you beat. We've made it sick, and it, in turn, is sick and tired of us. We have the floods, fires, droughts, heat waves, melting ice caps, and endangered or extinct species to prove it.
LEO: What was it like in the old days before floods, fires, droughts, heat waves, melting ice caps and extinct animals?
DOYLE: Back then you could get sirloin for 35 cents a pound.
The film, featuring DiCaprio, exposes these issues with an array of stunning visuals and expert analysis from renowned expertsLEO: I thought of this last night - "expert analysis from renowned experts"
DOYLE: Poker Rooms have actually gotten a little colder over the years. You'd have to write a script if you want me to be an expert.
LEO: Nah, we're going to get celebrities, scientists outside their field of expertise, and then just whatever guy we find on the street that scares easily and put them all on camera.
DOYLE: And call them experts.
LEO: Better than calling them a hodge podge of people who would participate.
such as physicist Stephen Hawking
HAWKING: Which should I say, hotter or colder?
FIELD PRODUCER: We'd prefer hotter, but you're the scientist.
HAWKING: Hotter then. I don't want to be on the cutting room floor. When that Star Trek cameo repeats I get a sizable spike at Amazon.
FIELD PRODUCER: Do you think it will rain tomorrow?
HAWKING: How the hell do I know?
and Kenyan activist (and 2004 Nobel Peace Prize winner) Wangari MaathaiFIELD PRODUCER: Mr. DiCaprio doesn't sign autographs and you may address him as Leo on camera but off camera it's strictly Mr. DiCaprio or sir.
MAATHAI: It would be for my daughter.
FIELD PRODUCER: Leo is tired of everyone's daughter. Is it hot here or not? Right, so just tell him you think so.
as well as Andrew Weil
FIELD PRODUCER: You're the guy who helped ruin Dr. Leary?
WEIL: Yeah, I'm into juicing and deep breathing now.
FIELD PRODUCER: We think you're a squealing pig. But nice to have you on this.
and Mikhail Gorbachev.
FIELD PRODUCER: So uh, when did you notice it getting warmer?
GORBY: Right after Reagan handed me my ass and that ended. . . wait for it. . . the COLD WAR.
Their opinions, along with the observations made by people from all walks of life,
JOE: Six months ago it was freezing and now I can't walk to the mini mart without getting swamp ass.
FRANK: Me too.
JOE: I wish they'd produce a movie to explain why.
FRANK: And even if the whys were clouded in conjecture at supposition there would be no reason why we shouldn't change life as we know it in order to feel better about ourselves.
JOE: And a promise to end swamp ass.
make a compelling case that if we human beings don't change our ways soon, we're doomed.
LEO: Can we get the "Profit of Doom" for this?
EXECUTIVE PRODUCER: He's in the middle of a 3 picture deal with Michael Moore but we could reference him here and there.
LEO: Check with the lawyers.
"Save the Planet," as humorist George Carlin says, decrying the arrogance of the environmentalists' motto. "The planet isn't going anywhere - we are."
LEO: I don't get this quote. Do we need it?
EXECUTIVE PRODUCER: Carlin's funny. Have you heard that thing about his "stuff" or all those curse words.
LEO: Yeah, but I heard those words already.
EXECUTIVE PRODUCER: Carlin is saying that the chances of us dying are even greater if we don't stop global warming now.
DOYLE: Greater than 100%?
In support of this important message, we are telling all of our family and friends to go to their local theatre and watch the movie. We are confident, that if you understand the issues as we have learned ourselves, you will become as impassioned as we are to do something about it.
GORBY: You're like the smartest guy in the world. Why isn't this problem solved yet?
HAWKING: I don't know. I wake up in the morning, have an omelet, check the west coast box scores, flip around on the TV and it's nearly noon. I keep telling myself that I have to get on this first thing and work through the day, but I just have too many distractions. I sometimes substitute the omelet for an English Muffin and Yogurt. What I need is to watch movies about it and get impassioned.
Since you played it so close to the chest, I just can't imagine what kind of feedback you're looking for.
Thank you for taking the time to read this important message from the Doyle Brunson Poker Network, we look forward to hearing your feedback.
Saturday, June 09, 2007
HOW TO WIN ANY DEBATE IN FIVE EASY STEPS
Over the years I've watched many debates. Every debate by politicians to activists to average everyday over zealous (and over educated) college grad-students all have one thing in common: They think they are right. Of course when you are in a debate, you simply know that you are right. However, often in debates objective truth seldom manners. What matters is whether you win the debate or not. In political debates, the after-action commentary always centers on who won and very marginally, who got facts correct. If you are ever in a debate with anyone over anything, the following are quick and easy solutions/techniques to disarming them that I have come up with through my many years in the study of human behavior.
1. Evoke an Emotional Reaction that is in Counter-flow to your opponents oration.
This is the most powerful method and is always your number one choice. Emotion always over rides reason or logic. For example, your opponent is debating you on why gas prices are too high. Begin to ask asinine questions like, "Then why aren't you driving an electric car?" or "Then why don't you walk." or "If you really cared about the environment you would live in a yurt and only eat local produce. It's obvious that you're just a enviro-poser." Making your opponent angry and displaying an emotional reaction that is in counter to his speech makes them expend precious energy. If you can evoke an emotional reaction, you're 90% on your way to winning. Further, emotions that are in counter flow to a desired emotion, blocks the energy behind an argument and blunts it's persuasion effects on others. Emotions can have a powerful effect on an audience, so you always want to minimize your opponents emotional impact and maximize your own.
Other counter-flow methods include:
a. Get childish if your opponent is too serious or stuffy. Acting the fool can make them seem very rigid and closed minded by comparison. Think of any Bill Murry comedy. He is the master at taking on the stuff-shirt and defanging them with just a look sometime.
b. If your opponent gets childish first, then get very parental and condescending.
c. If they get teary-eyed, then laugh; if they mock and laugh, then get teary. Again, this will counter-flow their emotional stream.
d. Tell them, "I know what kind of family you came from and this is not what your family stands for." This causes counter-flow by evoking old complexes in them tied to their family of origin. Further, it implies that you know something about them that they weren't aware that you knew.
e. Evoke a religious complex by saying, "Well, I'll tell you this, when I stand before God someday and have to give an account of my life, I'd hate to have to justify it with your beliefs." This causes counter-flow because there is viritually no comeback. Also try, "Well God told me that this is not right." or say "That's not what the Bible says!" or try a more intellectual/philosophical take by stating, "Every great religious teacher and philosopher from Jesus to Kant have stated otherwise."
f. In the face of indisputable logic, make an outrageous statement and have an extreme emotional reaction, "WHAT! THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HITLER WROTE IN MEIN KOMF" or "THAT SOUNDS LIKE THE SOVIET MODEL OF (whatever)."
2. Memorize quotes from at least 3 or 4 very obscure intellectuals or philosophers then throw them at your opponent.
No one likes to think they are stupid. But the fact that you might know something that no one else does really spins your opponent for a loop. Worst yet, if you can frame it in such a way that you imply that your opponent, should know who are are talking about, will freak them out further. For example, say you are debating big government vs. small government. Say to your opponent, "Yes that is interesting. Hearing your argument reminds me of Wilhelm von Humboldt who stated in his classic work 'On the limits of State Action'...blah, blah, blah." You don't even have to be exactly correct in your quote. Wait for a reaction of your opponent. If they say, "Who?" Then over exaggerate your shock and dismay at their ignorance, "What! Sir I'm shocked that a supposed learned man (or woman) of your alleged caliber would not know the work of von Humboldt! And I thought I was debating with an equal." Then storm off and grab yourself a beer.
This process also works by throwing out obscure statistics or data that supports your argument. Again, the truth or fact of the stats is irrelevant. By the time they check you data, you'll be long gone or can just laugh it off.
3. Create hetero-erotic or homo-erotic tension.
It's a well known fact that men can't think about anything sexual and reason properly at the same time. Women are similar but to a lessor degree. In the middle of the debate or speech by your opponent make a suggestive look at them by licking your lips or winking or repeatedly placing your right index finger into a circle formed by your left index finger and thumb. Then suddenly deny that you are trying to do anything remotely sexual and return to the debate. They'll be so put off by the thought of your "actual" intentions that you'll win by default.
4. Create strange images or thoughts in others by negative inference.
Humans have this ability that is beyond the ability of the machine (at this stage) to grasp. To know things indirectly through negative inference. For example, the statement, "It is certainly good to see my opponent sober today." While directly this statement is the truth, your opponent is indeed sober, it leads to a negative inference assumption. It implies that there are days in which he is not sober. In fact, one might conclude that there may be many days in which he is a raging alcoholic. Further, it is not a statement that can be flatly denied. If your opponent says, "No I am not!" You can say, "I see. So you are not sober?" Of if they agree, then they've simply further strengthened the negative inference. Instead, they have to counter the argument with an awkward, circuitous argument that will leave the audience scratching their heads. Here are some other examples: "It's nice to see that mental illness is not a problem on your mother's side" or "I'm glad my opponent is on time today and actually drove himself to this debate" or "I'm happily surprised to see my opponent eating healthy." etc. etc.
Other ways to create strange thoughts in others:
a. Make a motion with your finger such as the "come here" finger wiggle that is just out of sight of the audience but can be seen by your opponent. If they walk over say, "What are you doing?" if they stay put just smile.
b. Make eye contact then look just past them and over the shoulder, then furrow your brow or look surprised. When the look back quickly switch drinks with them or put a peanut in their drink.
c. Subtly place your hand over your crotch and every time they start talking, you start scratching. When they stop then you stop. This will unconsciously reward them for keeping quite.
d. In the middle of the debate ask them if they were spanked or harshly toilet trained as a child. If they say yes, then you say, "I thought so!", If they say no, then you say, "Yeah, I can tell", If they ask why you are asking this question say, "I think it would really help to explain a lot of tonight's behavior."
e. In the middle of the debate, motion for someone else to come over, keep eye contact with your opponent and whisper something funny to the other person. When they laugh, wink at your opponent.
f. After they make their initial argument, simply sigh long & loud, then roll your eyes. Put on some sunglasses and pretend to go to sleep.
g. Make an flattering comment about their hair.
h. Pretend to speak a few words in a foreign language. Ask them if they are familiar with that quote.
i. If you know their political persuasion, use it against them. For example, if they are (D) them tell them, "WOW! Newt Gingrich published an article on the Heritage foundation website on that very topic agreeing with your argument. Amazing! You must be a republician at heart."
j. Ask them, "What kind of medication are you taking? Is it prescription?"
k. Hold your ear as if you have a "hidden" ear piece, look down and slump down slightly and turn slightly to one side, nod your head while saying, "yes, yes, ok, no not now, no he's not ready, ok, yes, ok." Then continue your conversation. Deny that anything at all just took place.
5. Create Cognitive Dissonance in your opponent.
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation. It therefore occurs when there is a need to accommodate new ideas, and it may be necessary for it to develop so that we become "open" to them. For example, people who smoke know smoking is a bad habit. Some rationalize their behavior by looking on the bright side: They tell themselves that smoking helps keep the weight down and that there is a greater threat to health from being overweight than from smoking. Or they relieve their Dissonance by telling themselves "Oh well, we all have to die someday." Others quit smoking.
The key to using this strategy is to create cognitive dissonance and therefore psychological discomfort then at the moment of their peak discomfort, offer a way out of their discomfort that brings them to your side. Televangelists are experts at this. The above mentioned #4 is a subset of creating cognitive dissonance. Black and White thinkers have no cognitive dissonance because they usually reject arguments that are opposed to their beliefs by simply disbelieving or rationalizing the argument.
Way's to create cognitive dissonance:
a. Sit up on the edge of your seat. Crouch toward them with your elbows on your knees, look as serious as you can, widen your eyes, make a fist with your left hand and point at them with your right, say, "As sure as Moses crossed the Red Sea, everything I am saying tonight is correct."
b. Say with equal conviction, "Every fiber in me, every molecule of my essence, every thing I know about (your chosen profession or field of expertise) tells me you are flat wrong."
c. Say the opposite of what they say no matter what it is. State your statements as a fact.
d. Say, "Well I don't expect you of all people to understand any of this, but....." Then report some obscure fact.
e. Start beating your head and say, "How many times do I have to have this debate with you people."
f. Agree with them but disagree with one small facet of their argument then conclude this is why the entire argument is wrong.
f. Whatever they say, sing it back to them word for word then say, "That sounds like musical theatre to me."
g. True Cognitive Dissonance is created when you use Statistics and the individualized personal story. Clinton was a master of the personal story. It would go something like this. Bush1 would say, "Only12% are actually in the poverty level and of those only 2% have families." Then Clinton would say (without ever addressing the statistic or it's impact on public policy, "I was in Mississippi the other day on the campaign trail when a young mother and her 3 month old child came up to me. They were wearing rags and the child was starving to death. I gave him a fry from my McDonald's super sized meal and his mama said maybe he'd now survive another day..." Again, emotion always trumps logic. The best way to handle this is the counter a stat with a personal story that emphasizes the statistical argument. Republicans did a great job of this on capital hill when they paraded dozens of small business and family run businesses before congress to testify against the horrific practices of the IRS. They told us about the stats and the abuses of the IRS enforcement models but then also let us know about how this impacted a single person. It makes it more real. They should do more of this with property tax reform here in Florida.
That's my take. What do you say Junto Boys? What are your methods for winning debates? What are the core assumptions people have about who wins in debates and why? What makes someone a good orator vs. a lousy one? Would a debate in the style of Lincoln work today? Would any of my techiques above work for a nationally televised debate?
Over the years I've watched many debates. Every debate by politicians to activists to average everyday over zealous (and over educated) college grad-students all have one thing in common: They think they are right. Of course when you are in a debate, you simply know that you are right. However, often in debates objective truth seldom manners. What matters is whether you win the debate or not. In political debates, the after-action commentary always centers on who won and very marginally, who got facts correct. If you are ever in a debate with anyone over anything, the following are quick and easy solutions/techniques to disarming them that I have come up with through my many years in the study of human behavior.
1. Evoke an Emotional Reaction that is in Counter-flow to your opponents oration.
This is the most powerful method and is always your number one choice. Emotion always over rides reason or logic. For example, your opponent is debating you on why gas prices are too high. Begin to ask asinine questions like, "Then why aren't you driving an electric car?" or "Then why don't you walk." or "If you really cared about the environment you would live in a yurt and only eat local produce. It's obvious that you're just a enviro-poser." Making your opponent angry and displaying an emotional reaction that is in counter to his speech makes them expend precious energy. If you can evoke an emotional reaction, you're 90% on your way to winning. Further, emotions that are in counter flow to a desired emotion, blocks the energy behind an argument and blunts it's persuasion effects on others. Emotions can have a powerful effect on an audience, so you always want to minimize your opponents emotional impact and maximize your own.
Other counter-flow methods include:
a. Get childish if your opponent is too serious or stuffy. Acting the fool can make them seem very rigid and closed minded by comparison. Think of any Bill Murry comedy. He is the master at taking on the stuff-shirt and defanging them with just a look sometime.
b. If your opponent gets childish first, then get very parental and condescending.
c. If they get teary-eyed, then laugh; if they mock and laugh, then get teary. Again, this will counter-flow their emotional stream.
d. Tell them, "I know what kind of family you came from and this is not what your family stands for." This causes counter-flow by evoking old complexes in them tied to their family of origin. Further, it implies that you know something about them that they weren't aware that you knew.
e. Evoke a religious complex by saying, "Well, I'll tell you this, when I stand before God someday and have to give an account of my life, I'd hate to have to justify it with your beliefs." This causes counter-flow because there is viritually no comeback. Also try, "Well God told me that this is not right." or say "That's not what the Bible says!" or try a more intellectual/philosophical take by stating, "Every great religious teacher and philosopher from Jesus to Kant have stated otherwise."
f. In the face of indisputable logic, make an outrageous statement and have an extreme emotional reaction, "WHAT! THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HITLER WROTE IN MEIN KOMF" or "THAT SOUNDS LIKE THE SOVIET MODEL OF (whatever)."
2. Memorize quotes from at least 3 or 4 very obscure intellectuals or philosophers then throw them at your opponent.
No one likes to think they are stupid. But the fact that you might know something that no one else does really spins your opponent for a loop. Worst yet, if you can frame it in such a way that you imply that your opponent, should know who are are talking about, will freak them out further. For example, say you are debating big government vs. small government. Say to your opponent, "Yes that is interesting. Hearing your argument reminds me of Wilhelm von Humboldt who stated in his classic work 'On the limits of State Action'...blah, blah, blah." You don't even have to be exactly correct in your quote. Wait for a reaction of your opponent. If they say, "Who?" Then over exaggerate your shock and dismay at their ignorance, "What! Sir I'm shocked that a supposed learned man (or woman) of your alleged caliber would not know the work of von Humboldt! And I thought I was debating with an equal." Then storm off and grab yourself a beer.
This process also works by throwing out obscure statistics or data that supports your argument. Again, the truth or fact of the stats is irrelevant. By the time they check you data, you'll be long gone or can just laugh it off.
3. Create hetero-erotic or homo-erotic tension.
It's a well known fact that men can't think about anything sexual and reason properly at the same time. Women are similar but to a lessor degree. In the middle of the debate or speech by your opponent make a suggestive look at them by licking your lips or winking or repeatedly placing your right index finger into a circle formed by your left index finger and thumb. Then suddenly deny that you are trying to do anything remotely sexual and return to the debate. They'll be so put off by the thought of your "actual" intentions that you'll win by default.
4. Create strange images or thoughts in others by negative inference.
Humans have this ability that is beyond the ability of the machine (at this stage) to grasp. To know things indirectly through negative inference. For example, the statement, "It is certainly good to see my opponent sober today." While directly this statement is the truth, your opponent is indeed sober, it leads to a negative inference assumption. It implies that there are days in which he is not sober. In fact, one might conclude that there may be many days in which he is a raging alcoholic. Further, it is not a statement that can be flatly denied. If your opponent says, "No I am not!" You can say, "I see. So you are not sober?" Of if they agree, then they've simply further strengthened the negative inference. Instead, they have to counter the argument with an awkward, circuitous argument that will leave the audience scratching their heads. Here are some other examples: "It's nice to see that mental illness is not a problem on your mother's side" or "I'm glad my opponent is on time today and actually drove himself to this debate" or "I'm happily surprised to see my opponent eating healthy." etc. etc.
Other ways to create strange thoughts in others:
a. Make a motion with your finger such as the "come here" finger wiggle that is just out of sight of the audience but can be seen by your opponent. If they walk over say, "What are you doing?" if they stay put just smile.
b. Make eye contact then look just past them and over the shoulder, then furrow your brow or look surprised. When the look back quickly switch drinks with them or put a peanut in their drink.
c. Subtly place your hand over your crotch and every time they start talking, you start scratching. When they stop then you stop. This will unconsciously reward them for keeping quite.
d. In the middle of the debate ask them if they were spanked or harshly toilet trained as a child. If they say yes, then you say, "I thought so!", If they say no, then you say, "Yeah, I can tell", If they ask why you are asking this question say, "I think it would really help to explain a lot of tonight's behavior."
e. In the middle of the debate, motion for someone else to come over, keep eye contact with your opponent and whisper something funny to the other person. When they laugh, wink at your opponent.
f. After they make their initial argument, simply sigh long & loud, then roll your eyes. Put on some sunglasses and pretend to go to sleep.
g. Make an flattering comment about their hair.
h. Pretend to speak a few words in a foreign language. Ask them if they are familiar with that quote.
i. If you know their political persuasion, use it against them. For example, if they are (D) them tell them, "WOW! Newt Gingrich published an article on the Heritage foundation website on that very topic agreeing with your argument. Amazing! You must be a republician at heart."
j. Ask them, "What kind of medication are you taking? Is it prescription?"
k. Hold your ear as if you have a "hidden" ear piece, look down and slump down slightly and turn slightly to one side, nod your head while saying, "yes, yes, ok, no not now, no he's not ready, ok, yes, ok." Then continue your conversation. Deny that anything at all just took place.
5. Create Cognitive Dissonance in your opponent.
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation. It therefore occurs when there is a need to accommodate new ideas, and it may be necessary for it to develop so that we become "open" to them. For example, people who smoke know smoking is a bad habit. Some rationalize their behavior by looking on the bright side: They tell themselves that smoking helps keep the weight down and that there is a greater threat to health from being overweight than from smoking. Or they relieve their Dissonance by telling themselves "Oh well, we all have to die someday." Others quit smoking.
The key to using this strategy is to create cognitive dissonance and therefore psychological discomfort then at the moment of their peak discomfort, offer a way out of their discomfort that brings them to your side. Televangelists are experts at this. The above mentioned #4 is a subset of creating cognitive dissonance. Black and White thinkers have no cognitive dissonance because they usually reject arguments that are opposed to their beliefs by simply disbelieving or rationalizing the argument.
Way's to create cognitive dissonance:
a. Sit up on the edge of your seat. Crouch toward them with your elbows on your knees, look as serious as you can, widen your eyes, make a fist with your left hand and point at them with your right, say, "As sure as Moses crossed the Red Sea, everything I am saying tonight is correct."
b. Say with equal conviction, "Every fiber in me, every molecule of my essence, every thing I know about (your chosen profession or field of expertise) tells me you are flat wrong."
c. Say the opposite of what they say no matter what it is. State your statements as a fact.
d. Say, "Well I don't expect you of all people to understand any of this, but....." Then report some obscure fact.
e. Start beating your head and say, "How many times do I have to have this debate with you people."
f. Agree with them but disagree with one small facet of their argument then conclude this is why the entire argument is wrong.
f. Whatever they say, sing it back to them word for word then say, "That sounds like musical theatre to me."
g. True Cognitive Dissonance is created when you use Statistics and the individualized personal story. Clinton was a master of the personal story. It would go something like this. Bush1 would say, "Only12% are actually in the poverty level and of those only 2% have families." Then Clinton would say (without ever addressing the statistic or it's impact on public policy, "I was in Mississippi the other day on the campaign trail when a young mother and her 3 month old child came up to me. They were wearing rags and the child was starving to death. I gave him a fry from my McDonald's super sized meal and his mama said maybe he'd now survive another day..." Again, emotion always trumps logic. The best way to handle this is the counter a stat with a personal story that emphasizes the statistical argument. Republicans did a great job of this on capital hill when they paraded dozens of small business and family run businesses before congress to testify against the horrific practices of the IRS. They told us about the stats and the abuses of the IRS enforcement models but then also let us know about how this impacted a single person. It makes it more real. They should do more of this with property tax reform here in Florida.
That's my take. What do you say Junto Boys? What are your methods for winning debates? What are the core assumptions people have about who wins in debates and why? What makes someone a good orator vs. a lousy one? Would a debate in the style of Lincoln work today? Would any of my techiques above work for a nationally televised debate?
Monday, June 04, 2007
WHOLENESS AND THE IMPLICATE ORDER
Going back to E's review of THE HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE, I had to read the review a couple of times before I knew what E was talking about. I read that book a few years ago and I don't remember the least bit of religion in the book. It got me thinking about the original Junto and how all the members would read a book and then have a group discussion. I'm not proposing outright that we do that here but just that it got me thinking about our unique worldviews and how this forum has become an outlet for our indivual and shared takes on the world. We each have the genres we enjoy and mine is nonfiction science. I could read a book for the science and filter out all the other stuff. Only when E mentioned the New Age bent of the Holographic Universe did I even recall that the author did indeed admit some paranormal awareness in the back half of the book. Meanwhile, E reads self-improvement and religious-themed books so that is the lens through which he read this one. To E, the science was the gobbledly-gook which he filtered out. When Tom reads a book, he latches on to the politics and Steve dissects the psychology. We are a fascinating group, the four of us, so in that spirit, I will offer what I got out of THE HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE.
In truth, I don't recall much of this book in particular except for one thing - it introduced me to David Bohm, a twentieth century physicist of whom I was previously unaware. The reason he is not well-known to the layman despite being a great American-born thinker, is the fact that he did the majority of his thinking overseas. The reason for his self-imposed exile is because he had communist sympathies in a country and an era which would not tolerate it. This offers an avenue for Stamper to enter the debate as I'm sure he could find parallels between the thinker and the thoughts as manifestations of a leftist worldview, but that is beyond the scope of my review as I will analyze the thoughts and not the thinker.
Bohm was the originator of the concept of the holographic universe which basically says that the third-dimensional reality that we experience directly is a manifestation of a higher-ordered reality which we cannot directly experience. I don't think that is New Age, in fact, I think every religion ascribes to this position in one way or another so it could even be accepted as a scientific expression of a spiritual concept. Bohm described a distinction between the implicate and explicate order in the interaction between matter and our consciousness:
I consider this example whenever I see steam dissipate into the air or watch salt dissolve into my pool water. There is always a point at which the thing I am watching becomes invisible. It is egocentric to claim that it no longer exists just because I can no longer account for it. Yet it is equally wrong to claim that a thing is outside of human comprehension just because it once resided behind the veil. I know I could reclaim that salt if needed - I could boil away the water until the salt reveals itself explicitly once again. This is the connection to paranormal activity - if something manifests itself explicitly, however randomly and unscientifically, then that means there is a hidden implicit order just waiting to be discerned - we simply must figure out what to boil away in order to see the thing more clearly. E and I had a long discussion about evolution vs creationism a few years ago. We have different beliefs but we were united in admitting that there is an implicit order at work behind the scenes - there is energy in the system for which nobody can account, and the argument between the two camps involves the origin of this energy: is it naturally emergent via seemingly random processes (which must be embedded in the system) or is it actively divined by a higher consciousness which some call God?
Back to Bohm, he used the hologram as his metaphor because of the way holograms work: each region of a photographic plate in which a hologram is observable contains within it the whole three-dimensional image, which can be viewed from a range of perspectives. That is, each region contains a whole and undivided image. In Bohm’s words:
Bohm's theory is expressed most eloquently in view of the phenomenon of quantum entanglement. In the Einsteinian view of the universe, energy is information with a speed limit. There is no way that a particle on this side of the universe can communicate instantaneously with a particle on the other side of the universe given the well-defined speed limit of light. Einstein called this notion "spooky action at a distance" and the former patent clerk found it patently ridiculous. However, it can be shown without a doubt that entangled particles (subatomic particles which share a common origin) indeed can communicate instantly at great distances and the only way to explain this interaction is to admit that both particles are in communication with some third thing which resides behind the veil.
In Bohm's book, WHOLENESS AND THE IMPLICATE ORDER, he offers a nice analogy: say there is a fish in a bowl with two camera's pointed at it. The cameras are set up perpendicularly such that one shows a front view while the other shows a side view. If a viewer were watching the two-dimensional images of this fish, he might conclude that he is watching two distinct fish, yet he would inescapably conclude that the two fish are related in some fundamental way since whenever one moves, the other moves without hesitation. There is no solution to this puzzle when thinking two-dimensionally; only by moving up a dimension and seeing the two cameras pointed at a single fish is the puzzle solved. There must be a similar mechanism at work which will explain quantum entanglement to the first person who can successfully envision the higher dimension. How I would love to be that person but alas, I am a mere Junto Boy.
Going back to E's review of THE HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE, I had to read the review a couple of times before I knew what E was talking about. I read that book a few years ago and I don't remember the least bit of religion in the book. It got me thinking about the original Junto and how all the members would read a book and then have a group discussion. I'm not proposing outright that we do that here but just that it got me thinking about our unique worldviews and how this forum has become an outlet for our indivual and shared takes on the world. We each have the genres we enjoy and mine is nonfiction science. I could read a book for the science and filter out all the other stuff. Only when E mentioned the New Age bent of the Holographic Universe did I even recall that the author did indeed admit some paranormal awareness in the back half of the book. Meanwhile, E reads self-improvement and religious-themed books so that is the lens through which he read this one. To E, the science was the gobbledly-gook which he filtered out. When Tom reads a book, he latches on to the politics and Steve dissects the psychology. We are a fascinating group, the four of us, so in that spirit, I will offer what I got out of THE HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE.
In truth, I don't recall much of this book in particular except for one thing - it introduced me to David Bohm, a twentieth century physicist of whom I was previously unaware. The reason he is not well-known to the layman despite being a great American-born thinker, is the fact that he did the majority of his thinking overseas. The reason for his self-imposed exile is because he had communist sympathies in a country and an era which would not tolerate it. This offers an avenue for Stamper to enter the debate as I'm sure he could find parallels between the thinker and the thoughts as manifestations of a leftist worldview, but that is beyond the scope of my review as I will analyze the thoughts and not the thinker.
Bohm was the originator of the concept of the holographic universe which basically says that the third-dimensional reality that we experience directly is a manifestation of a higher-ordered reality which we cannot directly experience. I don't think that is New Age, in fact, I think every religion ascribes to this position in one way or another so it could even be accepted as a scientific expression of a spiritual concept. Bohm described a distinction between the implicate and explicate order in the interaction between matter and our consciousness:
In the enfolded [or implicate] order, space and time are no longer the dominant factors determining the relationships of dependence or independence of different elements. Rather, an entirely different sort of basic connection of elements is possible, from which our ordinary notions of space and time, along with those of separately existent material particles, are abstracted as forms derived from the deeper order. These ordinary notions in fact appear in what is called the "explicate" or "unfolded" order, which is a special and distinguished form contained within the general totality of all the implicate orders.His favorite example of this concept involvied placing a drop of ink in a highly viscous substance such as glycerin. The glycerin was then rotated until the droplet became a thread and ultimately became invisible. However, by rotating the substance in the reverse direction, the droplet was reformulated, proving that the order of the droplet was implicate within the substance even when it was imperceptible.
I consider this example whenever I see steam dissipate into the air or watch salt dissolve into my pool water. There is always a point at which the thing I am watching becomes invisible. It is egocentric to claim that it no longer exists just because I can no longer account for it. Yet it is equally wrong to claim that a thing is outside of human comprehension just because it once resided behind the veil. I know I could reclaim that salt if needed - I could boil away the water until the salt reveals itself explicitly once again. This is the connection to paranormal activity - if something manifests itself explicitly, however randomly and unscientifically, then that means there is a hidden implicit order just waiting to be discerned - we simply must figure out what to boil away in order to see the thing more clearly. E and I had a long discussion about evolution vs creationism a few years ago. We have different beliefs but we were united in admitting that there is an implicit order at work behind the scenes - there is energy in the system for which nobody can account, and the argument between the two camps involves the origin of this energy: is it naturally emergent via seemingly random processes (which must be embedded in the system) or is it actively divined by a higher consciousness which some call God?
Back to Bohm, he used the hologram as his metaphor because of the way holograms work: each region of a photographic plate in which a hologram is observable contains within it the whole three-dimensional image, which can be viewed from a range of perspectives. That is, each region contains a whole and undivided image. In Bohm’s words:
There is the germ of a new notion of order here. This order is not to be understood solely in terms of a regular arrangement of objects (e.g. in rows) or as a regular arrangement of events (e.g. in a series). Rather, a total order is contained, in some implicit sense, in each region of space and time. Now, the word 'implicit' is based on the verb 'to implicate'. This means 'to fold inward' ... so we may be led to explore the notion that in some sense each region contains a total structure 'enfolded' within it".Bohm noted that although the hologram conveys undivided wholeness, it is nevertheless static. We perceive reality as a steady construct of unfolded order which streams forth from the implicate order in which the energies interact, just as our television set plucks from the ether a progressive stream of bits of information and then constructs a corresponding progression of images on the screen. Reality is where consciousness intersects with the information stream. There is really no question any longer that consciousness plays a role in reality as proven by endlessly repeatably laboratory tests using quantum theory and conscousness to direct reality how to behave. I don't know how this affects anyone's religious beliefs, but I do know that belief is one thing and fact another and sometimes we must choose one or the other when they are incompatible.
Bohm's theory is expressed most eloquently in view of the phenomenon of quantum entanglement. In the Einsteinian view of the universe, energy is information with a speed limit. There is no way that a particle on this side of the universe can communicate instantaneously with a particle on the other side of the universe given the well-defined speed limit of light. Einstein called this notion "spooky action at a distance" and the former patent clerk found it patently ridiculous. However, it can be shown without a doubt that entangled particles (subatomic particles which share a common origin) indeed can communicate instantly at great distances and the only way to explain this interaction is to admit that both particles are in communication with some third thing which resides behind the veil.
In Bohm's book, WHOLENESS AND THE IMPLICATE ORDER, he offers a nice analogy: say there is a fish in a bowl with two camera's pointed at it. The cameras are set up perpendicularly such that one shows a front view while the other shows a side view. If a viewer were watching the two-dimensional images of this fish, he might conclude that he is watching two distinct fish, yet he would inescapably conclude that the two fish are related in some fundamental way since whenever one moves, the other moves without hesitation. There is no solution to this puzzle when thinking two-dimensionally; only by moving up a dimension and seeing the two cameras pointed at a single fish is the puzzle solved. There must be a similar mechanism at work which will explain quantum entanglement to the first person who can successfully envision the higher dimension. How I would love to be that person but alas, I am a mere Junto Boy.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
GREAT WEEK
It was really a delight to see art by Steve followed by E's poetry. The sharing of our talents is an inspiration. I have done neither activity for a while and seeing your works is a great motivation. Steve's, for instance, has a larger voice than any of his previous works, I think. E's poem showed me a gutsy combination and wit, wisdom and human truth.
And then Steve outs with his comprehansive post of career crimainals and his program that I have never heard him explain in depth. It's on the short short list of the greatest things ever posted on this blog.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January has been a big movie month for me. I'll have as many reviews this month as I normally have for two months. Trish and I make it to the movies so infrequently that last Saturday we devoted ourselves to a triple header -- PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, THE QUEEN, and CHILDREN OF MEN. It timed out just right so that we only had about ten minutes in between movies. In addition, I've seen a bunch of DVDs, including one of the few left from the SIGHT AND SOUND poll that I hadn't seen.
I don’t really blog from work not quite knowing if I can justify it even thought I use it as a writing exercise to get ready to work on things that are pertinent. Now that I have a chance, I’d like to share something that I ran across this week. It comes from the Volokh Conspiracy, which might be the most cleverly simple blog name on the net, with honorable mention to Instapundit. The blog is UCLA Law Professor Euegene Volokh’s group blog. I wish I would have thought of it first and named this the Junto Boys Conspiracy.
The post by Jonathan Adler is book review on the REPUBLICAN WAR ON SCIENCE by Chris (I’ve got a cold in my nose) Mooney, which Adler says is misleading because while Mooney’s examples of Republican politicalization are true, the book all but ignores an equal number of Democrat examples which are just as demonstrative. It also ignores how the institutional process of government plays a role.
Like anything that has public policy implications, science has become politicized by everyone trying to shape America to their own prejudices. This was inevitable the moment that scientists started accepting government money for research. No free lunch for science. But even outside the government where private grants allow for scientific research, so many times the findings reveal exactly what they money wanted them to reveal.
Does anyone think that Sierra Club money won’t make a case for more conservation and Exxon money won’t make the case for the benefits of drilling? The media has a way of covering conservative pushes as medieval thinking and liberal goals as enlightened when they both derive from a worldview rather than disinterested data.
The danger is that we still tend to think of science as a group if disinterested men trying to find objective evidence to lead them down the trail to enlightenment. Those men do exist somewhere, especially when they’re goal is to create a device to solve a specific problem. I contend that they are rarely to be found in the public arena where science is a career first and shaping findings to a particular bent is more advantageous for funding and prestige than simply tinkering around for truth.
The leftwing theft of science has harmful lasting implications. Remember that conservation use to be a conservative issue, and there was scant opposition to things like cleaning up the rivers and air. With the book Silent Spring, the leftwing realized that the environmental movement was a perfect vehicle for pushing socialism. Chemicals that are effective and perfectly safe in small quantities are frequently challenged and even banned because a mouthful is poison. The ban of DDT causes about 50,000 deaths from malaria in the third world each year. But bird eggs are saved.
If the Republicans lose voice on science America will spend precious money each year on socially acceptable science rather than things backed up by hard data. Every ten years we’ll be shifting our focus from making the world cooler to making it hotter. Al Gore has already championed both ideas in the last 20 years. Businesses will be made to constantly change their means of production to satisfy the current prejudices and they’ll have even more incentive to move their plants to countries not covered under things like Kyoto. Our economy and our freedom will suffer.
If we agree that science needs objectivity to serve mankind, can anyone tell me if that is still possible under any type of government funding? If so, how?
It was really a delight to see art by Steve followed by E's poetry. The sharing of our talents is an inspiration. I have done neither activity for a while and seeing your works is a great motivation. Steve's, for instance, has a larger voice than any of his previous works, I think. E's poem showed me a gutsy combination and wit, wisdom and human truth.
And then Steve outs with his comprehansive post of career crimainals and his program that I have never heard him explain in depth. It's on the short short list of the greatest things ever posted on this blog.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January has been a big movie month for me. I'll have as many reviews this month as I normally have for two months. Trish and I make it to the movies so infrequently that last Saturday we devoted ourselves to a triple header -- PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, THE QUEEN, and CHILDREN OF MEN. It timed out just right so that we only had about ten minutes in between movies. In addition, I've seen a bunch of DVDs, including one of the few left from the SIGHT AND SOUND poll that I hadn't seen.
I don’t really blog from work not quite knowing if I can justify it even thought I use it as a writing exercise to get ready to work on things that are pertinent. Now that I have a chance, I’d like to share something that I ran across this week. It comes from the Volokh Conspiracy, which might be the most cleverly simple blog name on the net, with honorable mention to Instapundit. The blog is UCLA Law Professor Euegene Volokh’s group blog. I wish I would have thought of it first and named this the Junto Boys Conspiracy.
The post by Jonathan Adler is book review on the REPUBLICAN WAR ON SCIENCE by Chris (I’ve got a cold in my nose) Mooney, which Adler says is misleading because while Mooney’s examples of Republican politicalization are true, the book all but ignores an equal number of Democrat examples which are just as demonstrative. It also ignores how the institutional process of government plays a role.
UPDATE: One of the best examples of the politicization of science by the "left" — and one of the few that Mooney acknowledges — is the treatment of agricultural biotechnology, and the decision to subject such products to more stringent regulatory review than those developed with other methods. This policy has no scientific basis, as the National Academy of Sciences has stated many times.
Another example would be claims by environmentalist groups that pesticide residues on foods pose a significant cancer risk, a claim which the NAS has also rejected. A third would be seeking endangered species listings for the purpose of halting development. A fourth would be efforts to claim asthma incidence (as opposed to asthma attacks) are related to outdoor air pollution, when there is no data to support such a claim. A fifth would be the EPA's second-hand smoke study, which a federal court found was driven to reach a predetermined result. A sixth would be claims that the "precautionary principle" is a "science-based" approach to risk, when it acutally reflects a normative policy judgment about how to weigh and evaluate risks. A seventh would be the compounded conservatisms that are embedded into many agency risk assessments, such as those conducted for the federal Superfund program. An eighth would be molding "ecosystem management" to satisfy non-scientific normative preferences about how land should be managed. And so on.
Some of these occurred within the Clinton Administration, others were the result of interest group action and occurred at other times. Overall, however, one can only claim the Clinton Administration never abused science for political reasons if one wasn't paying attention. Examples beyond those mentioned above are easy to come by. Here are two from Ronald Bailey:In 1993, Princeton University physicist William Happer was fired from the Department of Energy because he disagreed with Vice President Al Gore's views on stratospheric ozone depletion. In 1994, President Bill Clinton rejected the finding from the Embryo Research Panel of the National Institutes of Health which declared that the intentional creation of human embryos for genetic research was ethical. Clinton simply banned any federal funding for such research.
Like anything that has public policy implications, science has become politicized by everyone trying to shape America to their own prejudices. This was inevitable the moment that scientists started accepting government money for research. No free lunch for science. But even outside the government where private grants allow for scientific research, so many times the findings reveal exactly what they money wanted them to reveal.
Does anyone think that Sierra Club money won’t make a case for more conservation and Exxon money won’t make the case for the benefits of drilling? The media has a way of covering conservative pushes as medieval thinking and liberal goals as enlightened when they both derive from a worldview rather than disinterested data.
The danger is that we still tend to think of science as a group if disinterested men trying to find objective evidence to lead them down the trail to enlightenment. Those men do exist somewhere, especially when they’re goal is to create a device to solve a specific problem. I contend that they are rarely to be found in the public arena where science is a career first and shaping findings to a particular bent is more advantageous for funding and prestige than simply tinkering around for truth.
The leftwing theft of science has harmful lasting implications. Remember that conservation use to be a conservative issue, and there was scant opposition to things like cleaning up the rivers and air. With the book Silent Spring, the leftwing realized that the environmental movement was a perfect vehicle for pushing socialism. Chemicals that are effective and perfectly safe in small quantities are frequently challenged and even banned because a mouthful is poison. The ban of DDT causes about 50,000 deaths from malaria in the third world each year. But bird eggs are saved.
If the Republicans lose voice on science America will spend precious money each year on socially acceptable science rather than things backed up by hard data. Every ten years we’ll be shifting our focus from making the world cooler to making it hotter. Al Gore has already championed both ideas in the last 20 years. Businesses will be made to constantly change their means of production to satisfy the current prejudices and they’ll have even more incentive to move their plants to countries not covered under things like Kyoto. Our economy and our freedom will suffer.
If we agree that science needs objectivity to serve mankind, can anyone tell me if that is still possible under any type of government funding? If so, how?
Thursday, January 25, 2007
WHY FELONS RETURN TO CRIME
answers to a "Special Request"
Of course when talking about human behavior the answer is not so easy. It is impossible to predict the behavior of one single man. Why a single felon returns to a life of crime is as varied as there are felons. A better question is, "What are the over all patterns of inmate recidivism?" In the past the correctional system believed that criminals needed a good old fashion does of religion, quite time, and hard work. What studies found was that while change was apparent while the inmate was in prison, he/she quickly reverted to his old ways once back in his old environment; surrounded by the people, places, and things that tempted and reminded him of his old life of crime. Then in the early 1970's, hot on the heels of the 60's movement, was a "re-educate" or "rehabilitate" the inmates. It was thought that crime arose out of an environment of poverty, lack of education, and lack of economic opportunity. It was thought that the "teach a man to fish" philosophy would help. After a decade of giving free high school education and in some Federal prisons, a free college education, what studies showed was that you were simply getting a better educated class of criminals. The criminals (or "offenders" as they are now referred) were using their knowledge to plan more and more sophisticated brand of crimes. Then came the 80's and Reagan's war on drugs. Even Bill Buckley and other Libertarian leaning conservatives agree that this war is a losing battle. But we went full force none the less. On the positive side, what was discovered in all this was that what those who committed crimes lacked was right thinking. For example, here is a common judgment question that psychologists pose to people to assess moral/ethical judgement, "What are you to do if you find a wallet lying on the sidewalk with $500 in cash, credit cards, and identification?" The answer is of course, "Return the wallet to the person it belongs to." What those with criminal thinking say, when answering the question, is "Do you want me to tell you what I am supposed to do or what I would do?" Criminals have something of a psychological disorder in the way they think. They always think of themselves first, always assume others are out to scam them so they must scam first, always believe that they cannot get ahead without breaking the law, etc. etc. They have a large and well developed set of "attributions" or assumptions about how the world works, that lead them to make criminal choices instead of pro-social ones. Add drug abuse that also impairs judgment on top that that, and you get a person who is really lousy at making appropriate decisions. What the Federal Bureau of Prisons found in now over 20 years of research, is that focusing on criminal thinking, helping to rehab old drug inclinations, and working on education is at the core of any prison treatment program. When I was at the BOP, I designed a program called FREE (Focused Re-Entry to Exemplify Excellence)
which attempted to pull together all the resources that the prison system had scattered around and focus it toward one goal: preparing the inmate for release back into the community and teaching him how to lead a pro-social, law abiding lifestyle.
The program, FREE attempted to focus on nine essential skill sets (that were all ready available in various departments but weren't being taught with re-entry in mind). The Warden and higher ups loved this program because it did not utilize and additional tax payer dollars and it put a significant portion of the inmate population into "24" programming mode which reduced idol time.
Here is an outline of the program:
I. The FREE Program FOCUSED RE-ENTRY to EXEMPLIFY EXCELLENCE
A. ASSESSMENT TOOL Each Inmate is given the Inmate Skills Assessment
B. Take the Nine Essential Skill Sets and translate them into viable, practical, measurable goals in the real world. Classes taught in the FREE program each fit into one of the 9 essential skills. They are:
1. Daily Living
2. Mental Health Functioning
3. Physical Wellness
4. Interpersonal Proficiency (Communication Skills i.e. toastmasters)
5. Academic Readiness
6. Cognitive Abilities (this is where criminal thinking is attacked and replaced with pro-social thinking).
7. Vocational Revitalization
8. Positive Leisure Time Management (this was essential, what other studies found is that inmates, once released, could find a job and find a place to sleep, it was the 8 hours awake, away from work that usually led to new crimes).
9. Character Building (my personal addition and focuses on values, ethics, and moral standards set forth in the inmates own religious or philosophical system).
C. Philosophy-Mission
1. Focused positive re-enforcement
2. Emphasis on natural, logical consequences of not completing tasks.
3. Develop Internal Motivation Not fear based
4. Continue to develop a creative, innovative approach to programing
5. Cultivate a Rich Unit environment where self-help opportunities are abundant
6. Focus on Empowering and Supporting participants
7. Motivate participants toward life-long growth and service to others.
8. Program requires acquisition and demonstration of mastery in all nine skill sets.
D. Some of the Classes Covered over Six Months
1. The Attitudes of Change
2. Living free
3. Personal Growth and Development Class on Goal setting and time management
4. Men at Work A class on understanding personal responsibility
5. Victim Impact
6. Toastmasters public speaking and effective communication
7. Employment Skills
8. Long Distance Dads A parenting program
9. Thinking for a Change
10. Meditation classes and Spiritual life building
11. Vocational Programs
12. FDIC Money-Smart Financial Literacy Program.
E. Other Programing During FREE
1. Inmates are encouraged to seek out Mentor assistance (Mentors are inmates who have been through extensive programming and have demonstrated the character and skills necessary to lead by example).
2. Inmates are required to create a Physical, Spiritual, and Mental Wellness plan. They are required to show evidence that they are committed to their own self-improvement programs.
F. Inmates are Required to complete a Community Service Project: (This was great training for them because it caused them to focus their attention toward the greater community--in our experiment it was the inmate community which we hoped would translate into pro-social community involvement once released).
1. This project is one of their own creation that serves to foster empathy and a sense of belonging to a greater community.
2. Community Service Projects Include:
a. A booklet and classes to teach how to clear up your driving record prior to release.
b. Classes on How to Repair Credit
c. A physical education program
d. Forms of Insurance and why you need it.
e. Teach the 7 Habits of Highly Effective People
f. Create Booklet of Job Contacts via local trade union
g. A booklet for Distance education via colleges to inmates
h. Creating a booklet that lists local employers willing to hire ex-Inmates
i. CDL Trucking courses
j. Implementation of Toastmasters.
3. In addition, each participant must create a binder of community resources for the city which they will be returning to.
The FREE program was adopted by the feds nation wide and I won a national recognition award from the director for it shortly before I left. Preliminary studies have shown that it is quite effective and has reduced recidivism in the federal inmate population by 40% in the two years that it's been in effect. Older studies show that those who can stay out, employed, involved with their community for more than 3 years are likely never to return to prison.
ANYWAY, E's original request was "what would SirSaunders do as King, to end recidivism." As King, I would immediately return to a more libertarian form of government. I would recall all troops worldwide immediately and return them to our borders. I would end all Federal authority over all of crimes of vice (i.e. drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc.). I would use the immence surpluses toward tax rebates then ending the income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax. I would take all remaining resources and devote them to space exploration/colonization. Once my fusion and anti-matter generators came online, no one would need oil so the Arabs could go back to living in the 14th century. After a decade, I would leave planet Earth for the nearest star where my family and all my Junto brothers, and their loved ones, would sleep safey in chrono-suspension storage until we reached "New Eden" 10,000 light years away; a planet I so named after it's discovery by the international observatory. Then I will establish a new order of utopian freedom that would last a 1000 years!
But, I probably would be assassinated shortly after recalling the troops.
answers to a "Special Request"
Of course when talking about human behavior the answer is not so easy. It is impossible to predict the behavior of one single man. Why a single felon returns to a life of crime is as varied as there are felons. A better question is, "What are the over all patterns of inmate recidivism?" In the past the correctional system believed that criminals needed a good old fashion does of religion, quite time, and hard work. What studies found was that while change was apparent while the inmate was in prison, he/she quickly reverted to his old ways once back in his old environment; surrounded by the people, places, and things that tempted and reminded him of his old life of crime. Then in the early 1970's, hot on the heels of the 60's movement, was a "re-educate" or "rehabilitate" the inmates. It was thought that crime arose out of an environment of poverty, lack of education, and lack of economic opportunity. It was thought that the "teach a man to fish" philosophy would help. After a decade of giving free high school education and in some Federal prisons, a free college education, what studies showed was that you were simply getting a better educated class of criminals. The criminals (or "offenders" as they are now referred) were using their knowledge to plan more and more sophisticated brand of crimes. Then came the 80's and Reagan's war on drugs. Even Bill Buckley and other Libertarian leaning conservatives agree that this war is a losing battle. But we went full force none the less. On the positive side, what was discovered in all this was that what those who committed crimes lacked was right thinking. For example, here is a common judgment question that psychologists pose to people to assess moral/ethical judgement, "What are you to do if you find a wallet lying on the sidewalk with $500 in cash, credit cards, and identification?" The answer is of course, "Return the wallet to the person it belongs to." What those with criminal thinking say, when answering the question, is "Do you want me to tell you what I am supposed to do or what I would do?" Criminals have something of a psychological disorder in the way they think. They always think of themselves first, always assume others are out to scam them so they must scam first, always believe that they cannot get ahead without breaking the law, etc. etc. They have a large and well developed set of "attributions" or assumptions about how the world works, that lead them to make criminal choices instead of pro-social ones. Add drug abuse that also impairs judgment on top that that, and you get a person who is really lousy at making appropriate decisions. What the Federal Bureau of Prisons found in now over 20 years of research, is that focusing on criminal thinking, helping to rehab old drug inclinations, and working on education is at the core of any prison treatment program. When I was at the BOP, I designed a program called FREE (Focused Re-Entry to Exemplify Excellence)
which attempted to pull together all the resources that the prison system had scattered around and focus it toward one goal: preparing the inmate for release back into the community and teaching him how to lead a pro-social, law abiding lifestyle.
The program, FREE attempted to focus on nine essential skill sets (that were all ready available in various departments but weren't being taught with re-entry in mind). The Warden and higher ups loved this program because it did not utilize and additional tax payer dollars and it put a significant portion of the inmate population into "24" programming mode which reduced idol time.
Here is an outline of the program:
I. The FREE Program FOCUSED RE-ENTRY to EXEMPLIFY EXCELLENCE
A. ASSESSMENT TOOL Each Inmate is given the Inmate Skills Assessment
B. Take the Nine Essential Skill Sets and translate them into viable, practical, measurable goals in the real world. Classes taught in the FREE program each fit into one of the 9 essential skills. They are:
1. Daily Living
2. Mental Health Functioning
3. Physical Wellness
4. Interpersonal Proficiency (Communication Skills i.e. toastmasters)
5. Academic Readiness
6. Cognitive Abilities (this is where criminal thinking is attacked and replaced with pro-social thinking).
7. Vocational Revitalization
8. Positive Leisure Time Management (this was essential, what other studies found is that inmates, once released, could find a job and find a place to sleep, it was the 8 hours awake, away from work that usually led to new crimes).
9. Character Building (my personal addition and focuses on values, ethics, and moral standards set forth in the inmates own religious or philosophical system).
C. Philosophy-Mission
1. Focused positive re-enforcement
2. Emphasis on natural, logical consequences of not completing tasks.
3. Develop Internal Motivation Not fear based
4. Continue to develop a creative, innovative approach to programing
5. Cultivate a Rich Unit environment where self-help opportunities are abundant
6. Focus on Empowering and Supporting participants
7. Motivate participants toward life-long growth and service to others.
8. Program requires acquisition and demonstration of mastery in all nine skill sets.
D. Some of the Classes Covered over Six Months
1. The Attitudes of Change
2. Living free
3. Personal Growth and Development Class on Goal setting and time management
4. Men at Work A class on understanding personal responsibility
5. Victim Impact
6. Toastmasters public speaking and effective communication
7. Employment Skills
8. Long Distance Dads A parenting program
9. Thinking for a Change
10. Meditation classes and Spiritual life building
11. Vocational Programs
12. FDIC Money-Smart Financial Literacy Program.
E. Other Programing During FREE
1. Inmates are encouraged to seek out Mentor assistance (Mentors are inmates who have been through extensive programming and have demonstrated the character and skills necessary to lead by example).
2. Inmates are required to create a Physical, Spiritual, and Mental Wellness plan. They are required to show evidence that they are committed to their own self-improvement programs.
F. Inmates are Required to complete a Community Service Project: (This was great training for them because it caused them to focus their attention toward the greater community--in our experiment it was the inmate community which we hoped would translate into pro-social community involvement once released).
1. This project is one of their own creation that serves to foster empathy and a sense of belonging to a greater community.
2. Community Service Projects Include:
a. A booklet and classes to teach how to clear up your driving record prior to release.
b. Classes on How to Repair Credit
c. A physical education program
d. Forms of Insurance and why you need it.
e. Teach the 7 Habits of Highly Effective People
f. Create Booklet of Job Contacts via local trade union
g. A booklet for Distance education via colleges to inmates
h. Creating a booklet that lists local employers willing to hire ex-Inmates
i. CDL Trucking courses
j. Implementation of Toastmasters.
3. In addition, each participant must create a binder of community resources for the city which they will be returning to.
The FREE program was adopted by the feds nation wide and I won a national recognition award from the director for it shortly before I left. Preliminary studies have shown that it is quite effective and has reduced recidivism in the federal inmate population by 40% in the two years that it's been in effect. Older studies show that those who can stay out, employed, involved with their community for more than 3 years are likely never to return to prison.
ANYWAY, E's original request was "what would SirSaunders do as King, to end recidivism." As King, I would immediately return to a more libertarian form of government. I would recall all troops worldwide immediately and return them to our borders. I would end all Federal authority over all of crimes of vice (i.e. drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc.). I would use the immence surpluses toward tax rebates then ending the income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax. I would take all remaining resources and devote them to space exploration/colonization. Once my fusion and anti-matter generators came online, no one would need oil so the Arabs could go back to living in the 14th century. After a decade, I would leave planet Earth for the nearest star where my family and all my Junto brothers, and their loved ones, would sleep safey in chrono-suspension storage until we reached "New Eden" 10,000 light years away; a planet I so named after it's discovery by the international observatory. Then I will establish a new order of utopian freedom that would last a 1000 years!
But, I probably would be assassinated shortly after recalling the troops.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
THE POLITICS OF SCIENCE
If all of my knowledge came from a combination of political rhetoric and the reality in of my own personal experience, I would guess that George W. Bush finally caved to pressure and signed the Kyoto treaty. Otherwise, how would I explain the fact that it’s late September and I’m still waiting for the devastating hurricane season brought about by man’s misuse of his habitat?
When we talk about science in relation to politics we are rarely talking about anything settled. Much of science is a mystery to be solved. Some men spend their whole lives working without ever finding the definitive answers to the questions they tackled. They are the heroes of enlightenment. Others use science in order to gain grants and make a very cushy life for themselves by parroting the political orthodoxy that pays the bills. I’ve noticed that we’ve had more than the usual number of political issues relating back to science lately and it got me to thinking.
A few years ago looking for a change of pace I read Dava Sobel’s book LONGITUDE based on some positive reviews. Those of you who played the old video game “Pirates” know that Latitude at sea can be deciphered simply by measuring the sun at high noon. Longitude at sea was impossible in those days and it was costing ship owners and governments a great deal of money in late ships and wreckage. The British crown offered an award equivalent to winning the lottery to anyone that could solve the problem of calculating it.
Many great minds of the time tackled the question Galileo, Newton and Halley among others and many died before the problem was solved. The best any of the professionals could do was to propose mapping the stars, which was both cumbersome and imprecise. A clockmaker with no scientific training figured it out. If you build a double faced clock with one face reading the time in your home port and the other one based on local time according to the noontime sun, you can do simple math to get a very precise position.
The man who figured it out then spent the rest of his life trying to build the perfect clock that would weather the sea. The British government who wouldn’t have had the guts to stiff a big name didn’t pay up, and then interlopers tried to horn in and take the credit and accusation were flying at the poor man that he stole the idea from someone else. Instead of being happy that an important problem was solved the elite were actually angry that it was solved by a commoner. The relationship between science and politics is still less than noble.
It’s no trick these days for a politician or special interest to adopt a position relating to science and then pile up a bunch of “experts” that wholeheartedly agree. The Left and the media have been getting many headlines for doing just that lately and the smugness of it is irksome. The way they treat opposing views as unenlightened is nothing but a dishonest way of not having to answer the criticisms of their position. That their solution (more government involvement) is the answer to every problem reveals the lack of science in their approach.
What the Left is really offering is the same emotional package of joy (government funding of stem cells will create everlasting life) and fear (government’s inability to stop global warming will cause sure death). They couch it in science when it helps forward the agenda, but their support doesn’t begin with the science. When they are against something like nuclear power they use the “sky is falling” rhetoric about the potential dangers, even when the science has shown otherwise. More people die in coal mines each year trying to fuel conventional power plants. And unlike either stem cells or global warming that are still in the theoretical phase, the uses and safety of nuclear power can actually be measured by a ratio of benefits to deaths.
If embryonic stem cells yield results different from adult stem cells the Right will buy into it like everyone else. Even an ardent pro-lifer will have trouble turning down a cure for his daughter that was brought about by aborted babies. And whether or not the government funds this research, the research will go on and the results will be the same despite the implication that it all hinges on tax dollars.
As far as global warming, why should anyone on the Right think that it isn’t just the crisis of the moment that will soon join the trash pile with Ozone depletion, Ebola, the Y2K bug, SARS, and the bird flu? Remember how each of those was going to be devastating? Not only were they duds, but we never got any follow-up on why we were spared.
On the other hand, liberal theories on the causes and solutions of poverty have been given 40 years to yield results and so far they haven’t made a dent. The same goes for their notions on educating kids and keeping Social Security solvent. If these are people that were only interested in the dispassionate hard sciences they could prove it by rethinking their premises on the realities that disproved their pet theories.
Bill Maher was trying to make a point on his show the other night that he was scared because half of America doesn’t believe in evolution. He doesn’t want to live in a country surrounded by the unenlightened. Penn Gillette (an avowed atheist) said that Maher was foolish for thinking that because the people that need to believe in it like scientists do so. A great answer.
If I were a scientist studying the origins of earthly life I would need a premise like that to start from as I moved forward and backward studying the food chain. And I think most would agree that evolution on the small scale is fact. The separation is whether man was once a stinking ape.
Philosophically, I’m wary to give into that idea because it has harsh political implications for human beings. Totalitarianism is built on the premise that the state is supreme organ and I’d rather be endowed by my creator with certain inalienable rights.
From where I stand there is nothing to be gained seeing the world from a viewpoint designed as a base for the study of the mutations of molecular life unless your a person using that premise to study such things. The pros need to be indifferent to the man species and I don't. Though it might come in handy if I design gulags for a living. Our jails are full with people who behave like animals anyway and they don't need any encouragement from society or defense from lawyers over it. I can with contentment fight for the superiority of man and his natural rights with no measured (maybe science will measure it) ill effects.
There are many who disagree with me for thoughtful reasons and others with no thinking at all. I have done the thinking and don't see the upside. And that’s the part of science in public policy that seems to be missing from the debate.
Enlightenment isn’t about where you wind up in the debate of divisive questions, but how you arrive there. There are plenty of respected scientists that come up with different conclusions from hot button issues. Michael Crichton make a great case against global warming. And when the human causes of global warming are finally debunked or if the earth just starts getting cooler, Albert Gore Jr. or his agents will be onto his next bugaboo with a straight face never explaining to us why we’re not dead from the last one.
I don’t want to hear about the Right’s “War on Science” from a bunch of people who keep supporting the same social policies regardless of their results. I refuse to believe that any Chicken Little theory is more than a way for politicians and special interests to get more of the Washington pie. And I reject being called unenlightened by people who think less about these things than I do.
If all of my knowledge came from a combination of political rhetoric and the reality in of my own personal experience, I would guess that George W. Bush finally caved to pressure and signed the Kyoto treaty. Otherwise, how would I explain the fact that it’s late September and I’m still waiting for the devastating hurricane season brought about by man’s misuse of his habitat?
When we talk about science in relation to politics we are rarely talking about anything settled. Much of science is a mystery to be solved. Some men spend their whole lives working without ever finding the definitive answers to the questions they tackled. They are the heroes of enlightenment. Others use science in order to gain grants and make a very cushy life for themselves by parroting the political orthodoxy that pays the bills. I’ve noticed that we’ve had more than the usual number of political issues relating back to science lately and it got me to thinking.
A few years ago looking for a change of pace I read Dava Sobel’s book LONGITUDE based on some positive reviews. Those of you who played the old video game “Pirates” know that Latitude at sea can be deciphered simply by measuring the sun at high noon. Longitude at sea was impossible in those days and it was costing ship owners and governments a great deal of money in late ships and wreckage. The British crown offered an award equivalent to winning the lottery to anyone that could solve the problem of calculating it.
Many great minds of the time tackled the question Galileo, Newton and Halley among others and many died before the problem was solved. The best any of the professionals could do was to propose mapping the stars, which was both cumbersome and imprecise. A clockmaker with no scientific training figured it out. If you build a double faced clock with one face reading the time in your home port and the other one based on local time according to the noontime sun, you can do simple math to get a very precise position.
The man who figured it out then spent the rest of his life trying to build the perfect clock that would weather the sea. The British government who wouldn’t have had the guts to stiff a big name didn’t pay up, and then interlopers tried to horn in and take the credit and accusation were flying at the poor man that he stole the idea from someone else. Instead of being happy that an important problem was solved the elite were actually angry that it was solved by a commoner. The relationship between science and politics is still less than noble.
It’s no trick these days for a politician or special interest to adopt a position relating to science and then pile up a bunch of “experts” that wholeheartedly agree. The Left and the media have been getting many headlines for doing just that lately and the smugness of it is irksome. The way they treat opposing views as unenlightened is nothing but a dishonest way of not having to answer the criticisms of their position. That their solution (more government involvement) is the answer to every problem reveals the lack of science in their approach.
What the Left is really offering is the same emotional package of joy (government funding of stem cells will create everlasting life) and fear (government’s inability to stop global warming will cause sure death). They couch it in science when it helps forward the agenda, but their support doesn’t begin with the science. When they are against something like nuclear power they use the “sky is falling” rhetoric about the potential dangers, even when the science has shown otherwise. More people die in coal mines each year trying to fuel conventional power plants. And unlike either stem cells or global warming that are still in the theoretical phase, the uses and safety of nuclear power can actually be measured by a ratio of benefits to deaths.
If embryonic stem cells yield results different from adult stem cells the Right will buy into it like everyone else. Even an ardent pro-lifer will have trouble turning down a cure for his daughter that was brought about by aborted babies. And whether or not the government funds this research, the research will go on and the results will be the same despite the implication that it all hinges on tax dollars.
As far as global warming, why should anyone on the Right think that it isn’t just the crisis of the moment that will soon join the trash pile with Ozone depletion, Ebola, the Y2K bug, SARS, and the bird flu? Remember how each of those was going to be devastating? Not only were they duds, but we never got any follow-up on why we were spared.
On the other hand, liberal theories on the causes and solutions of poverty have been given 40 years to yield results and so far they haven’t made a dent. The same goes for their notions on educating kids and keeping Social Security solvent. If these are people that were only interested in the dispassionate hard sciences they could prove it by rethinking their premises on the realities that disproved their pet theories.
Bill Maher was trying to make a point on his show the other night that he was scared because half of America doesn’t believe in evolution. He doesn’t want to live in a country surrounded by the unenlightened. Penn Gillette (an avowed atheist) said that Maher was foolish for thinking that because the people that need to believe in it like scientists do so. A great answer.
If I were a scientist studying the origins of earthly life I would need a premise like that to start from as I moved forward and backward studying the food chain. And I think most would agree that evolution on the small scale is fact. The separation is whether man was once a stinking ape.
Philosophically, I’m wary to give into that idea because it has harsh political implications for human beings. Totalitarianism is built on the premise that the state is supreme organ and I’d rather be endowed by my creator with certain inalienable rights.
From where I stand there is nothing to be gained seeing the world from a viewpoint designed as a base for the study of the mutations of molecular life unless your a person using that premise to study such things. The pros need to be indifferent to the man species and I don't. Though it might come in handy if I design gulags for a living. Our jails are full with people who behave like animals anyway and they don't need any encouragement from society or defense from lawyers over it. I can with contentment fight for the superiority of man and his natural rights with no measured (maybe science will measure it) ill effects.
There are many who disagree with me for thoughtful reasons and others with no thinking at all. I have done the thinking and don't see the upside. And that’s the part of science in public policy that seems to be missing from the debate.
Enlightenment isn’t about where you wind up in the debate of divisive questions, but how you arrive there. There are plenty of respected scientists that come up with different conclusions from hot button issues. Michael Crichton make a great case against global warming. And when the human causes of global warming are finally debunked or if the earth just starts getting cooler, Albert Gore Jr. or his agents will be onto his next bugaboo with a straight face never explaining to us why we’re not dead from the last one.
I don’t want to hear about the Right’s “War on Science” from a bunch of people who keep supporting the same social policies regardless of their results. I refuse to believe that any Chicken Little theory is more than a way for politicians and special interests to get more of the Washington pie. And I reject being called unenlightened by people who think less about these things than I do.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
TARANTO ON THE STEM CELL LEGISLATION
Why do people think that the government will somehow do the research better than private industry? If stem cells have promise then a risk-taker stands to be a billionaire.
Let's remember that government gains its power and influence from problems while individuals gain their power and influence from solutions. That's why schools struggle to educate kids and grocery stores have 30 varities of mustard.
On balance, we suppose we're inclined to support the legislation. But the tone of the debate gives us second thoughts--in particular, this October 2004 quote from John Edwards:"We will stop juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and other debilitating diseases. . . . People like Chris Reeve will get out of their wheelchairs and walk again with stem cell research."
When people who claim to be speaking out for science talk like faith healers, they risk discrediting the entire enterprise. By contrast, President Bush's approach to the question, as we noted five years ago, is nuanced and thoughtful.
Further, Bush's foes and the press frequently misstate his position, referring to a "ban on stem-cell research." In fact, the Bush policy places no restrictions on any kind of stem-cell research that does not receive federal money, or on federal funding of adult stem-cell research. It does limit federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research to those cell lines that were in existence at the time the policy was initiated, in August 2001, but prior to then there was no federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research, so that the policy actually liberalized the conditions for federal research grants. Supporters of research subsidies are asking for a further liberalization, not a reversal of a "ban."
Why do people think that the government will somehow do the research better than private industry? If stem cells have promise then a risk-taker stands to be a billionaire.
Let's remember that government gains its power and influence from problems while individuals gain their power and influence from solutions. That's why schools struggle to educate kids and grocery stores have 30 varities of mustard.
Sunday, February 19, 2006
KATRINA WITHOUT THE POLITICS
Popular Mechanics has examined the disaster and aftermath. They debunk myths and lay out what needs to be done to prevent future episodes. Here are a couple of interesting excerpts:
Popular Mechanics has examined the disaster and aftermath. They debunk myths and lay out what needs to be done to prevent future episodes. Here are a couple of interesting excerpts:
MYTH: "The aftermath of Katrina will go down as one of the worst abandonments of Americans on American soil ever in U.S. history."--Aaron Broussard, president, Jefferson Parish, La., Meet the Press, NBC, Sept. 4, 2005
REALITY: Bumbling by top disaster-management officials fueled a perception of general inaction, one that was compounded by impassioned news anchors. In fact, the response to Hurricane Katrina was by far the largest--and fastest-rescue effort in U.S. history, with nearly 100,000 emergency personnel arriving on the scene within three days of the storm's landfall.
Dozens of National Guard and Coast Guard helicopters flew rescue operations that first day--some just 2 hours after Katrina hit the coast. Hoistless Army helicopters improvised rescues, carefully hovering on rooftops to pick up survivors. On the ground, "guardsmen had to chop their way through, moving trees and recreating roadways," says Jack Harrison of the National Guard. By the end of the week, 50,000 National Guard troops in the Gulf Coast region had saved 17,000 people; 4000 Coast Guard personnel saved more than 33,000.
NEXT TIME: Any fatalities are too many. Improvements hinge on building more robust communications networks and stepping up predisaster planning to better coordinate local and national resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MYTH: "This is a once-in-a-lifetime event."--New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin, press conference, Aug. 28, 2005
REALITY: Though many accounts portray Katrina as a storm of unprecedented magnitude, it was in fact a large, but otherwise typical, hurricane. On the 1-to-5 Saffir-Simpson scale, Katrina was a midlevel Category 3 hurricane at landfall. Its barometric pressure was 902 millibars (mb), the sixth lowest ever recorded, but higher than Wilma (882mb) and Rita (897mb), the storms that followed it. Katrina's peak sustained wind speed at landfall 55 miles south of New Orleans was 125 mph; winds in the city barely reached hurricane strength.
By contrast, when Hurricane Andrew struck the Florida coast in 1992, its sustained winds were measured at 142 mph. And meteorologists estimate that 1969's Category 5 Hurricane Camille, which followed a path close to Katrina's, packed winds as high as 200 mph. Two factors made Katrina so devastating. Its radius (the distance from the center of the storm to the point of its maximum winds, usually at the inner eye wall) was 30 miles--three times wider than Camille's. In addition, Katrina approached over the Gulf of Mexico's shallow northern shelf, generating a more powerful storm surge--the water pushed ashore by hurricanes--than systems that move across deeper waters. In Plaquemines Parish, south of New Orleans, the surge topped out at 30 ft.; in New Orleans the surge was 25 ft.--enough to overtop some of the city's floodwalls.
NEXT TIME: According to the National Hurricane Center in Miami, the Atlantic is in a cycle of heightened hurricane activity due to higher sea-surface temperatures and other factors. The cycle could last 40 years, during which time the United States can expect to be hit by dozens of Katrina-size storms. Policymakers--and coastal residents--need to start seeing hurricanes as routine weather events, not once-in-a-lifetime anomalies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MYTH: "They have people ... been in that frickin' Superdome for five days watching dead bodies, watching hooligans killing people, raping people."--New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin, The Oprah Winfrey Show, Sept. 6, 2005
REALITY: Both public officials and the press passed along lurid tales of post-Katrina mayhem: shootouts in the Superdome, bodies stacked in a convention center freezer, snipers firing on rescue helicopters. And those accounts appear to have affected rescue efforts as first responders shifted resources from saving lives to protecting rescuers. In reality, although looting and other property crimes were widespread after the flooding on Monday, Aug. 29, almost none of the stories about violent crime turned out to be true. Col. Thomas Beron, the National Guard commander of Task Force Orleans, arrived at the Superdome on Aug. 29 and took command of 400 soldiers. He told PM that when the Dome's main power failed around 5 am, "it became a hot, humid, miserable place. There was some pushing, people were irritable. There was one attempted rape that the New Orleans police stopped."
The only confirmed account of a weapon discharge occurred when Louisiana Guardsman Chris Watt was jumped by an assailant and, during the chaotic arrest, accidently shot himself in the leg with his own M-16.
When the Superdome was finally cleared, six bodies were found--not the 200 speculated. Four people had died of natural causes; one was ruled a suicide, and another a drug overdose. Of the four bodies recovered at the convention center, three had died of natural causes; the fourth had sustained stab wounds.
Anarchy in the streets? "The vast majority of people [looting] were taking food and water to live," says Capt. Marlon Defillo, the New Orleans Police Department's commander of public affairs. "There were no killings, not one murder." As for sniper fire: No bullet holes were found in the fuselage of any rescue helicopter.
NEXT TIME: "Rumors are fueled by a shortage of truth," says Ted Steinberg, author of Acts of God: The Unnatural History of Natural Disasters in America. And truth was the first casualty of the information breakdown that followed the storm. Hardening communications lines (see page 3) will benefit not just first responders, but also the media. Government officials have a vital role in informing the public. Ensuring the flow of accurate information should be part of disaster planning at local, state and federal levels.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)