Trump reversals

According to the LA Times this morning, yesterday Trump compromised on at least three issues.

First, he said he had been persuaded that torture was ineffective and that other methods work better -- torture only generates fabrications, not truth.  I would wish he would address the moral issue here -- that the appeal of torture seems to be sadistic and revenge impulses in the interrogator and has no scientific basis, and, more significantly, is wrong.

Second, he backed off on prosecuting Mrs. Clinton, saying she had suffered enough and that the Clinton Trust actually does a good deal of good.  This is really nothing more than an admission that the Big Lie he based his campaign (that Mrs. Clinton is "evil") and apparently won the Presidency on is false.  He would in fact, or at least should in fact, have no influence on whether there are prosecutions or not -- this is supposed to be done in a non-political way by the attorneys investigating -- and it would seem that no prosecutions are in the offing.  Putting it in terms of having "mercy" on the Clintons is transparent and outrageous, after the way he conducted the campaign. 

Third, now he says he has an "open mind" about global warming and that US withdrawal from recent warming agreements will not be automatic.  That is perhaps the most encouraging thing of all, since the consequences of his sticking with his prior unscientific attitudes could lead to disaster for future generations.

Qualia and Chemicals

I think it might be useful to insert a distinction here between "it's just chemicals" and "it's real."  Chemicals are real enough, and there is a reason the chemicals are there, but the presence of the chemicals might not be the cause but a result.

What we do think we know is that we "experience" things (known as "qualia" -- emotions, sensations, an ongoing narrative of the world).  It has been realized by introspective people from ancient times that none of this can possibly be "real" in the usual and intuitive sense of the world -- that our experience is not real but generated somewhere -- moderns assume in the brain.  About the best we can say is that the ongoing narrative of our experience is a useful interface between the outside world and ourselves -- like the odometer on a car is not "real speed" but just an interface telling us about the car's real speed.

Evolutionary fact and evolutionary theory

I wince when I see expressions like, "scientific fact."  It implies something determined beyond doubt that could never be questioned or modified.  I realize that when a scientist says it, he means something a bit different, but it is misleading regardless.

The best word in my opinion is "theory." Scientific theories are models of the world that explain in terms we understand what we observe -- the data.  There is atomic theory, genetic theory, germ theory, quantum theory, and so on.  Sometimes they are readily understood, sometimes they are not, and require us to just accept the fact that the theory makes predictions that can be tested and check out.

By the way, I do think evolutionary theory is so supported by all the biological and geological and genetic evidence that it is as close to "fact" as is humanly possible.

Trump's effects

In all Trump will probably be good for the economy.  He will reduce environmental regulation (it is feared to the harm of the environment and an increase in global warming), increase regulations on unions (it is feared to the point they will have no ability to change exploitive situations), eliminate all sorts of consumer protection regulations and so on and on.  This will happen mostly unseen by changes in rules and in the attitude toward their enforcement, but will tend to help the economy, at least short term, so there may be some growth.

However, it also appears there will be a surge in wasteful spending, on military boondoggles and, of course, on The Wall.  A lot of bridges and such will no doubt be built, some needed, but things less visible, such as water pipes and sewage disposal systems, will continue to be pushed aside.

Then there is trade policy.  If things go according to the rhetoric, a trade war with Mexico and China is in the offing, if not the rest of the world.  What seems to be forgotten is that these countries can retaliate.  Also, of course, such a policy is tailor made to increase China's trade and other economic influence with Latin America, Africa and Asia.  If carried far enough, it could precipitate a world-wide depression.

What worries me most however is social.  That women will lose the right to an abortion seems inevitable -- not just in states that want to do so but via Federal regulation of medical practice.  That gays may lose the right to marry also seems, for similar reasons, likely, even though Trump himself has pretty much avoided the issue.   It will be done by his appointees in small steps.  Of course immigrants, even legal ones, will lose most of their rights, and will end up living under a constant shadow of the threat of challenge (even when they produce papers, this sort of disturbance will cause many employers to terminate, just to avoid attention).

  

Not just immigrants, too, but Muslims (how about Jews, Catholics, Mormons, atheists) will live in a shadow, and, of course, blacks will have it hard.  Nothing official mind you -- just selectivity in the enforcement of existing laws and their interpretation will be enough.

There is also the right to vote.  I can see identification laws applied like Florida tried to apply, designed to see to it that only whites vote.

Love versus oxytocin

I have a split with myself over this.  The pleasure of a life partner to share things with and to raise children with is not to be denied.  Of course children are not the only reason for marriage -- a life partner, solemnized by ritual and recognized by family and community, is precious by itself.

Still, the knowledge that it is mainly oxytocin behind these feelings helps us keep a certain detachment, in the realization that no pleasure is permanent and all ultimately ends in frustration.  Our wife dies, our children disappoint us, we disappoint our children, and when we die we desperately desire to restore what we had, but cannot (or maybe we don't -- that one is still in the air.  

Balance is needed -- to prevent our detachment from making it too easy to abandon relationships and love making it too hard when the relationship dissolves regardless.

Stolen election

I don't think the election was rigged -- that was Trump's nonsense and would be impossible to do.  It nevertheless does appear to have been stolen.

All the polls -- unanimously among those with a scientific basis -- two weeks before the election had Clinton winning, then out comes the FBI, illegally, with "revelations" it has to investigate (although it was forced fairly quickly to back down -- the revelation was timed too close and the back down looked political).  Therefore it changed maybe two percent of the vote -- some pretty much undecided types.

One has to wonder what went on in the FBI.  It is not likely Trump's campaign was involved, but that there were a lot of anti-Clinton folk there who might easily have pulled such a stunt, knowing what might happen, makes the scenario probable.

At any rate Trump will not be seen as legitimate by most of the world, and probably after a little while by most Americans.  He may have the office but he has no mandate (to have that he would need a popular vote majority anyway).

Should California secede

Interesting question: given what may happen, should California secede.

Along with Washington and Oregon and a couple others, it now has a vastly superior governmental structure, with non-partisan districts, open primaries and term limits applied universally.

It is also grossly underrepresented and over taxed by the Feds (in effect California subsidies the rest of the country with far less voting power).

To secede legally would be almost impossible, as it would require consent of two-thirds of the other states -- so we may presume any secession will not be very peaceful, although it would not necessarily be violent.  It would take consistent non-cooperation by the State and refusal to forward tax revenues and things like that to get the Feds to back down.

We nevertheless see that the underrepresentation of California has had the effect of putting a nut in the White House -- the American people, if California were treated fairly, did NOT elect him.
I wait to see what happens when the Feds decide to ban abortion and contraception, ban marijuana, ban gay marriage and make being gay a crime, remove consumer protection laws, as well as environmental protection, worker safety protection, and so on and on.  I also wonder what might happen if Feds go into California and start deporting Latins and Muslims and maybe even Asians.
I see a huge amount of civil disobedience, at a minimum.

Trump has no mandate from the people -- he is President simply because of ugly spots in the American system.  He would do well to back off and not try to push anything he promised.  Of course if he does he will lose his base.  Besides, he doesn't appear to be in touch with reality enough to see the situation he is in, and so is likely to blunder forward blindly. 

It would be an interesting thing to watch, if it weren't so scary.

The Founding Fathers and Trump

It is ironic.  The Founding Fathers were mostly landed and wealthy aristocrats, and back then to vote you had to own land and pay taxes.

The thing is, they were influenced by the myths of the Enlightenment and hence ended up designing a government far more "democratic" -- not as democratic as Athens, perhaps, but much more than what Rome ever imagined.  After one generation the aristocrats were gone and replaced by standard American mediocre politicians and lawyers.

The problem here is that closed primaries has allowed a nut case to win the Republican nomination and then the Electoral College has defeated the voice of the people and via a series of flukes put him in the Presidency.

I notice he is complaining that it is "not fair" that people are protesting.

  

I foresee hard times for America and the world.

Catching one's breath after the American electoral disaster

It does little good to argue that Clinton, as measured by actual vote counts, won the election.  By the outdated rules of the US Constitution she lost and the worst possible candidate won.  Still, this point needs making -- that he was not, by democratic rules, legitimately elected.  The problem is the US is an approximation of democracy.

The Democrats, led by Obama, have behaved properly, and not questioned the results and wished Trump the best.

Now, what happened?  Well the polls showed Clinton winning, so we have to assume it was the FBI behavior, both the "finding" of new tapes that weren't new and then the quick "decision" that there was nothing there to prosecute (which of course there wasn't) that flipped enough voters in key states.
That the FBI could not defend what it did was plain, so what happened next was a neat trick, overwhelmed by the seeming political decision to back off.   I see Putin is delighted, and thinks it was his activity (I think this is not likely but he probably did what he could to help).

I think we can also attach some blame to Sanders.  His behavior during the primaries forced Clinton to go further to the left than a lot of more centrist voters (such as myself) were comfortable with.  Then he took his good sweet time coming around -- it is plain the man has too much ego to be a leader and that his policy prescriptions are not acceptable to the American people.  Look at how Colorado voted for Clinton but rejected Sander's ballot proposition.

In the end, "big lie" propaganda worked, overcoming the fear and distaste for the boorish behavior and obvious incompetence.  The idea that the Clintons are "criminals" (an absurdity or they would long ago have been brought to task, in spite of repeated Republican efforts to do this) was repeated over and over and over, with the flimsiest evidence but lots of loud repeating.

Being turned off by God

It has been said that the reason many are atheists is the horrible picture believers pain about God and his history.  This is probably the case with a lot of people, but I think most atheists have a more favorable impression of what God, if he existed, would be like.

What the churches say is, of course, all over the place, but there are churches that have elevated and ethical ideas.  The simple problem with God is there is no good reason to say he exists, except various emotional and psychological reasons ("feelings").  I am skeptical enough about myself to realize that this sort of thing is not credible.

Belief vs. Opinion

The English language is ambiguous on any difference between "belief," and "opinion."  The former is often taken as just "strong opinion." 

I would argue that in reality there is a psychological difference.  Beliefs are obtained mainly from indoctrination, opinions from investigation and education.  Beliefs tend to be defended "no matter what," opinions are alterable, with difficulty but without emotional trauma.  There are meditative techniques that can inculcate a belief, none that merely make opinions (which is a reason meditation under the wrong or a misguided teacher can be dangerous).  Mostly, our beliefs derive from what we were taught as children before we had mature skeptical minds.  That is why most Egyptians are Muslims, most Italians Catholic, most Cambodians Buddhist.

It behooves a person who would truly know themselves and truly understand things to root out beliefs, study them objectively, and either keep them as opinions or reject them.

Obstructionist Republicans

It does seem to look as though the Republicans are going to go obstructionist, keeping the country from being governed except by executive decree and causing the count of judges in the Supreme Court to steadily drop, and maybe the whole Federal Judiciary.  The only thing they seem to have on their minds is investigative power.

I would hope more adult minds would prevail, as this is a recipe for steadily losing more and more of the American public until all they have left are the racists.  (Look at how California went after the Republicans behaved similarly there a decade ago -- and what is now happening in Colorado).

There is a problem with saying things like, "There is no evidence of God," or, "There is no evidence of an afterlife," or even, "There is no evidence of things like ghosts or angels or whatever someone is claiming they have experienced or thought up or imagined." It is not true; there is evidence.

Vietnam is somewhat ghost-ridden, and the people are afraid of them: now I am in Cambodia and I hear nothing about them and when I ask, I get a smile and a comment I must be Vietnamese.  (Vietnamese rebirth theory says how successful you are at getting reborn tend to be associated with your karma level and therefore evil people become ghosts and are to be feared; the Cambodians I guess are less judgmental and think everyone is reborn within hours of death and therefore ghosts don't exist -- much).

Now all this is evidence.  It is not proof, but it is evidence.  Were I to take surveys about rebirth, almost everyone has a notion of what their past life was like, and many have rather clear memories or experiences of deja vu that they attribute to past lives.  In the West you also get a lot of this sort of testimony, even though, the religious expectations being different, one would not expect it.
I think the problem is the milk is sour -- in fact putrid -- because of religion.  Dogmatism ("My notions are right and yours are evil") has turned anyone with a skeptical or even curious mind off -- and no scientist would risk his career studying such things.  All you get are professional scam artists milking the ideas for money and professional debunkers pointing out the tricks of the scam artists (and it ain't hard to do).

Nor is it necessary to be a hard rock-ribbed "materialist" to disbelieve, or at least strongly doubt, that there is any reality behind all this.  I have I think developed a two-tiered personal level of belief -- a highly agnostic one teetering on disbelief when it comes to what I will defend publicly and a series of what I guess is more likely the reality but for which it is impossible to gather reliable evidence, the milk being so sour.

Nor, of course, is the ultimate retreat of the agnostic ("I don't think it's possible to know") an honest position -- it is a cop out -- we should at least make speculation and then test the speculation and I wish the environment were such that this were possible.  Maybe in a few hundred years, when the dogmatic religions have disappeared (not that is optimistic -- it may be that dogmatists will always be with us) it will be possible to explore these subjects more objectively.  Could  I only live so long.

Trump and internet message boards

I think I see why rational discussion has largely disappeared from the internet discussion boards.  The irrational, unthinking Trump types have taken over and the rational participants see there is no reasoning with them, so they give up, having better things to do.

The fact that you drive rational voices away doesn't mean you have persuaded them.  Indeed, quite the opposite.

Over the last century or so America has become a country where people can age in relative financial safety, can go to college regardless of finances if they have the brains, are not subject to military draft, where blacks and whites can intermarry and live in the same neighborhoods and blacks actually have some chance at economic success, where gays can actually marry each other, and where the economy is supported in large part by a significant although not overwhelming flow of immigrants.  Even porn, so long as it is kept from children, is generally legal.

Sounds to me like a country actually beginning to fulfill its original promises.

Clearly, though, from what I read above, there are a lot of people who don't like it -- who want to keep control in the hands of white males where police have arbitrary authority and women stay in the kitchen to make babies -- and, of course, where foreigners -- those slant-eyed odd skinned types with strange religions and primitive notions -- are kept out.  What is more, they appear more and more willing to resort to violence to get their way.

The excuse is used of economic competition, but the evidence is now clear that those who support these nativist, bigoted notions are not doing so badly economically.  I will admit such people are found everywhere, and everywhere they are bigoted against whatever they are not.  My experience with Americans had always been with educated ("liberal") types, and I must admit my admiration for America was based on something of an illusion.  This political season has been a disappointment.

hearing voices

A little skepticism about things one hears and sees is in order (it is not necessary to believe it).  I hear my name pronounced loudly and clearly behind my ear a few times a year, and sometimes something else.  It always makes me jump, and of course there is no one around.

We need to remember that the qualia of sound and color and so on are produced by the brain, not by the external world.  The external world is usually the stimulus that leads the brain to this, but not always.  "Sounds" and so on do not exist outside our brains -- they are just vibrations of air.  It is the brain that makes it into "sound" and other qualia, and sometimes the brain makes mistakes.

It does not mean one is insane, although it can lead there if one takes it too seriously.

Likelihood of God

I've met a few "psychics" who seemed to know thing they shouldn't have been able to know, and I've also been conned a few times out of money by tricks.  These things happen.  The magician knows the trick, you don't, and assuming reality when it is just a trick is a good way to get horns waggled.

Much the same applies to the mysteries of the universe.  Assuming magic or supernaturalism for things we don't understand (and can't even see a way to possibly understand it) is know as "the god of the gaps" and is not just unscientific but plain outright foolish.  Worse, it is hubris personified, as we don't have to have an answer for everything and in fact are stupid if we think we do.

That doesn't prove there is no God, but it does make it less likely.  The fact that the only gods our culture has were derived from ancient superstitious times makes it even more unlikely.  There is no good reason today to think a god exists, and a lot of philosophical (suffering) and historical (history's horrors) and biological (the undirected nature of the fossil history) and cosmological (the absence of any divine signals) reason to think he does not.

Division by zero

If we agree that zero is a number, then there is no rational reason you can't divide by it.  The result you get is not infinity.  The axiom is that any arithmetic operation performed on a number always yields another number, and infinity is not a number, so infinity can't be the "answer."

The situation is a gaping fault in the structure of number theory and arithmetic that is quietly ignored by most.

I would suggest you wait until you are fully tenured before you submit papers where you divide by zero, and be sure to point out that you are aware of it.

Soul and spirit

Here is my guess as to what our spirit or soul might be.

With introspection we can realize that our mind is not a thing but a process -- constantly going from place to place, bringing up memories, responding or at least noting sensory stimuli, and sometimes experiencing thoughts (both welcome and unwelcome) arising from what we commonly call our sub-conscious mind.

When we die or suffer serious brain injury, the surface evidence leads one to conclude the spirit dies too.

However, the "deep questions" of neurology and psychology, what is sentience and what is consciousness, seem immaterial (obviously influenced heavily by brain, but still doing things of an immaterial, "spiritual" sort.

A wave of light is also a process, and can be compared to our mind.  It propagates itself in vacuum without any aether to propagate in (technically, it is an electrical wave generating a magnetic wave generating an electrical wave, and so on as it moves along).

So it is not necessary to conclude mind needs brain any more than light needs a medium.  However, there does not seem to be any credible evidence, so I guess it is better to just speculate and avoid the trap of belief.

While voter fraud does occur, it is not done by individual voters (or at any rate when they do the effect is minuscule).  The real frauds occur while the ballots are being counted.

That being the case, one has to wonder at the motivations of people who want to impose rules keeping the poor and similar people from being able to vote.  Remember voting is a fundamental right, and cannot (or at least should not) ever be taken away.  The motives, however, are fairly obvious -- to give the racist, xenophobic political party an advantage.  Such things are undemocratic and those who push for them are hypocrites.

Putin and Trump

Putin is working for himself.

I must say, though, that Trump seems so friendly about him and that all the "leaks" against Clinton seem to be cherry picked to make her look bad (although I notice, in spite of all the noise, nothing significant seems to have been emailed).

That Putin wants Trump to win and that Trump is favorable to Putin are both obvious enough, and should give any patriotic American serious reason to stop and think hard.

Still, I don't know that they are in collusion, and doubt it.  More likely they are just kindred spirits -- autocratic egoists.

Vote fraud

The amount of vote rigging and other frauds connected with elections in the US is not all that bad.  Over the years, I have noticed that when there is a really close vote, and recalls are done, that the party that controls the election bureaucracy almost always wins.

It is hard to be too upset about this, although it is plainly wrong.  The thing is both parties do it and it only happens in tight races where a coin flip would work as well as all the recounts and so on (there is an inevitable built-in error).

One thing I find disgusting is the Republican tendency to always try to make it difficult for the poor and minorities to vote, using the lie of vote fraud as their excuse.  To be sure a few people who aren't qualified probably get through, but this is far less a harm to society than denying valid voters their right.  Elections are the American way of cleaning house, and it is far better to give people this outlet than to force them to resort to violence.

Reforming Americas undemocratic elections

A simple primary where all the qualified candidates from both parties are listed on a single ballot, each voter having one vote, and, if no one gets a majority, then a series of runoffs, dropping those who get less than certain (increasing) percentages of the votes until someone emerges with a majority.

It might be that voters also be allowed to cast a negative vote once they have cast an affirmative vote, so that seriously unpopular candidates, even if they have strong followings, would tend to not do well.

The gerrymandering and other devices incumbents use to create safe seats for themselves is, of course, morally bankrupt and contrary to the democracy these same politicians say the support so much.  Having independent institutions to draw the lines rather than the politicians themselves would be an improvement, but it would still be subject to politics.  Even having judges do it would have similar problems.  I think the best that could be done would be a set of rules saying that districts must have at least one point in them from which it is possible to draw a straight line to every other point in the district without crossing the territory of another district.

California, and, I think, Washington, now have primary votes for state officials, state legislature and Congressional seats much like what I described in my first paragraph.  It seems to be working to push politics to the center and thereby decrease the influence of demagogues and ideologues and other extremists.  It looks that California is getting much better governance, as a consequence, although time will tell.

Term limits are problematic, since "institutional memory" is valuable.  Still, the incumbent has such huge advantages (the ability to use the office to do favors, name recognition, prestige, corn, the ability to apply pressure to get donations to campaigns) that measures ought to be taken to balance the scales.  Term limits would be one of these, although not too short.  Limits on the time and nature of campaigns and the amounts of money that can be spent would also help, although there are serious free speech issues here.

Witch doctoring

I am put in mind of a lecture I heard while in college from a prominent anthropologist.  His formula for being a successful witch doctor:

1.  Prescribe ointments and medicines, including those effective in Western medicine if you can.

2.  Prescribe detailed rituals and prayers and so on (sleep orientation, abstinence from sex, avoiding certain foods -- that sort of thing.

3.  Generally the patient will get better, probably because they would have anyway, maybe because of placebo effects (there is significant documentation that this effect is quite real.

4.  If the patient dies anyway, blame the patient for not doing things correctly or for not believing strongly enough.

Runaway greenhouses and doomsday

It is scary, and plainly scientific views must be listened to by politicians and measures taken.  This is not (hopefully), the end of humanity.  Conceivably a run-away greenhouse could develop, dooming us, but the best opinion says this is unlikely (no excuse though for ignoring the potential).

Absent some runaway situation we can imagine but don't expect, the harm is going to be expensive but controllable.  Relocation will cause political and economic disruption.  Crops will have problems.  Some cities may have to be abandoned.

We do need, though, to take political action to accelerate as much as practicably feasible, the transition of the world from dependence on green house gas emitting technologies to more sustainable, non-polluting technologies.  First, the oil and coal and similar industries need to be aggressively prevented from getting in the way.  The same applies to electric utilities and their handling of people who go solar and so on.  Existing subsidies for oil companies and so on need to be scrutinized for their effect on these things.

To an extent, subsidies and special rules should be considered to accelerate technological advances and their application.   The paranoia about nuclear energy should be re-examined, especially with the standards of modern as opposed to old plants.

We could also, as individuals, inform ourselves and change our lives, such as by reducing meat consumption, energy-proofing our homes, recycling, and so on.

Human Life Expectancy

Every species seems to have a certain "maximum" lifetime range.  This is the life expectancy of animals in optimal circumstances, such as the top of the hill predator or an animal (like the elephant) that is mostly invulnerable as adults or an animal kept as a pet or in a good zoo.

Most animals have a "typical" life expectancy much shorter than that, among adults, and this is a function of predation pressure.

Now enter natural selection, whose goal is not so much to preserve the animal (although this is usually the story) as it is to optimize the genes that get passed on down the generations.  When there is heavy predation, there is no point in having genes that enhance life beyond.  Further, when there is heavy predation, natural selection has a small interest in clearing the decks for the next generation.

Compared to other mammals of our size range, human beings live far longer than most.  This seems to have been steadily getting longer through prehistory and even a little through history.  As predation and disease and accidents continue to take lives early, while the maximum life span is getting longer, further natural lengthening would require even less early death.  (There is also a "grandmother theory" that is seen by many as helping explain the longer maximum lifespans in human beings).

All this indicates that there is an inherited genetic component in aging rates and maximum life spans.  Probably a number of genes involved, but, regardless, over time we should be able to identify those genes and do something about them.

I've heard about my quick post that said that it is judgmental to think someone is judgmental.  Ah -- this is a self-referential maxim on the general maxim to not be judgmental, and self-referential pronouncements often lead to trouble.

Obviously we must make judgments, about everything, as we as we skip through life, picking safe stones to step on and keeping out of the cold water.  We think, oh that stone looks slippery and that one is not stable, and so on.

This illustrates the difference between judging and being judgmental.  I judge the stones, but not on a moral basis, but just on how well they suit the purpose.

Seeking revenge, striving to enhance personal honor, hating, having a grudge, are all extreme manifestations of being judgmental.  It involves assigning value judgments ("good" and "bad") to behavior and people and things (of course we know things cannot be good or bad, so when we do this we are personifying them unrealistically).

Christians have the Biblical command to not be judgmental, that judgment belongs to God.  This would imply that such views of someone (that they are lazy, or dishonest, or whatever) should not be held and that doing so is something of a sin.  The reason given though is not very good.  Because God is the final judge doesn't mean we shouldn't make our personal decisions about people.

No I don't think there is much evil about being judgmental.  What is wrong with it is that it is unhealthy.  It makes us unhappy and disappointed and so on.  It has little effect on the person we are judging.

Retirement purpose in Battambang

I might comment a little about my life here, what I want, and what is probable.  I long ago (when I think I realized all my education and certificates and so on was pretty much just to make money, and that while money is helpful, one needs more, and I look back on it as pretty much a wasted life.  None of what I did has lasted -- even the company I worked for has disappeared.

That is the problem with trying to find purpose and so on in one's life -- nothing lasts, all is change, but it takes a lifetime to realize this.  

So now I want peace -- at least an absence of major stress.  Of course events conspire to deny this, but I do have (and have always had) hermit-ish qualities.  I do like staying home, listening to music, reading books, watching a few films, and of course the social discussions with others on the internet and what my blog generates.  My education did provide me with understandings of history, philosophy, mathematics, and science that enable me to appreciate these things, although I long ago realized I had nothing original to contribute.

We have made a difference in the lives of the people here, and they seem to appreciate it, at least as indicated by their behavior.  Several children are in school who otherwise wouldn't be, needed medicine can be bought that otherwise wouldn't, the diets are better, and we provide a security blanket.  Of course I don't talk about these things much with them, as I do not want to patronize.  The same things happened with our families in Vietnam, although there we had a learning curve to go through and in the end the political system messed it all up.

I am, of course, a beneficiary here, too, as I get food and laundry and housekeeping and so on largely done for me, although to be sure there are lots of things one can only do for oneself..

Judgmentalism

It is judgmental to think others are being judgmental.

Assessing Trump

That Trump takes racist, sexist, jingoist (hate of foreigners) and so on positions is plain enough.  He says what the racists, sexists, and jingoists want to hear, so his audiences tend to be less educated white folk from rural areas.

However, Trump supporters say he isn't those things.  Personally I don't think Trump has any solidly formed views (he seems to not think very clearly -- "mushy brain syndrome").  He has sexist attitudes, that is plain from his history of demeaning wives and other women, but the rest of him is hypocritical, dishonest manipulation, saying whatever keeps his voters happy, but not necessarily carrying them out.  He will betray a lot of people. 

What makes him dangerous is that he is basically a con artist, narcissist and sociopath (no real conscience).  It is his ego, not his desire to do things for the country, that moves him.

Of course these sorts of things can be said about any politician -- but some are worse than others, and he is just about the worst to have appeared in a very long time.

Population management

I think efforts to control population via law are counterproductive and are surrounded by biological and ethical problems.  The real "secret" to controlling the population is a combination of personal freedom, and woman equality in marriage, and widely available and legal birth control, and low infant death rates.  Any look around the world and where the population is growing rapidly and where it is barely growing, or even shrinking, shows this.

Plank space-time and motion

Some time ago, speculating on what makes motion (changes in distance between objects over time) possible, I realized that if space/time is as continuous, as, say, the mathematicians' number line (where between any two points, no matter how close, there is always an unlimited or infinite number of points between them), then motion would not be possible.

 At some point there has to be a unit of un-divisibility (I wouldn't say "indivisibility"), where space-time is quantized, meaning that there are no "points" between two points that are only separated by this unit -- "travel" between units at this level would be a matter of one unit of time and units of space being movement -- in jumps where there is no jump involved (confusing, I know -- just ceasing to exist in one spot and beginning to exist in another).

It seems likely that this unit would be the Plank space-time.  In true nothingness, where there is no space-time, there would be no motion, no distance, no time (so saying such a thing "exists" is incorrect -- the concept of before and between would be meaningless).  There was no "before" space-time," nothing "outside" space time (even if space-time is finite), and nothingness between the units of space-time.

Experiencing the paranormal

Beliefs depend a lot on how we have been taught to think, and if we grew up in a superstitious environment, we will probably be superstitious.

When things go bump in the night (that is, I hear or see or feel things I can't explain), the first choice is just to say, "I don''t know" rather than jump to unwarranted conclusions.    It is better, even, to conclude hallucination than be so arrogant as to think one's brain always tells the truth.

I know personally that hallucinations can be convincing and scary, as I have had them from time to time throughout my life.  I have come to see them as a quirk that doesn't quite work right in my mind, often internal talking to oneself that gets misidentified as incoming sounds and converted by the brain into the experience (qualia) of hearing voices.

Just remember that it is not necessary to believe everything one hears.

Minimum Wage Laws

I think the minimum wage issue is just politics.  Wages are set by the laws of economics (mainly supply and demand) just as are all other prices, and when you price your product too high people don't buy (they go elsewhere, find substitutes, or do without).

That said, they have on occasion been found useful to deal with situations of exploitation (such as modern manifestations of slavery -- where the law doesn't have to prove abuses when all it has to do is enforce a minimum wage.  This, however, is a rare application and there are always other ways to handle it.

The idea of enforcing a "living wage" by this means is likely to be self-defeating, unless the minimum is set lower than what would have been payed anyway, as jobs are lost, automation is encouraged, businesses move elsewhere or lose out to competition not subject to the law, and the community as a whole becomes a little less economically sound.  The problem is, this sort of thing, as with rent control, usually takes years to do its damage  Frankly, I think most politicians understand all this, but they are politicians and tend to be more interested in votes than reality.

If I could afford it I would live in Vancouver, and Toronto, in spite of the bleak winters, ain't too bad either (certainly better than Buffalo or Detroit).

I once had Toronto explained to me as the most "American" city in North America, in spite of all the pictures of the Queen.  It has ethnic neighborhoods, lots of immigrants and second and third generation types, subways (pretty good ones too), skyscrapers, condos, billboards, freeways, lots of cars, American English (I can't tell the difference), and largely American labor and business cultures.  Canada doesn't seem to have as all the guns, including Toronto.

I think the problem of God and suffering goes deeper than just our ignorance of God's purposes.  Regardless of God's purposes, when you are an ethical God, the end never justifies the means, and if you are all powerful, then this God can accomplish his ends regardless, and does not need to resort to unethical things such as permitting suffering.

Rebirth (the Buddhist and Hindu word for what in the West is often called "reincarnation") would not, it seems to me, provide a way to grow unless there is good memory of past lives, which manifestly there is not.  Both Hindus and Buddhists agree it is a manifestation of the immortality of the life spirit, but they disagree on whether it is a form of immortality of the person.  Hindus, if I understand correctly, do, but Buddhists do not.  The process of Samsara (birth, life, death, rebirth, over and over) is seen by Buddhists as at best a trap wherein one is condemned by the natural force known as karma combined with our instinctual desire to live (animal grasping onto life), to be born over and over in one life after another, sometimes for the better, sometimes not, but all including large dollops of suffering.

The idea in Theravada Buddhism, though, is that the new baby is not the person who died, but just the life spirit, with few if any past memories, just the karmic status.  The new baby has its own genes and its own life experiences and is in fact a new person.  When one dies one is dead, nothing lasts forever.

I don't know and don't venture to guess whether this view reflects reality or not (at best any such picture could only be a reflection).  Instead, while I can see where evolution fits within such a picture much better than the Wester theist ideas, I can also see where it is more likely these ideas of afterlife derive from wishful thinking and the reality is much more bleak and we live in a universe that happened entirely by natural processes without any purpose.  The first goal of wisdom is to learn to accept the universe as we find it, not as we would like it to be.

Did God use evolution to create?

No one can deny this as a possibility, but to be an acceptable scientific theory one need to apply a little more rigor -- like by thinking through the logical implications of what we should see in the fossil record is 

God used natural processes such as those of evolution to do his creation.

First, though, let me point out that the idea that God used evolution removes the need for God, and makes him an unnecessary complication in evolutionary theory, and therefore a violation of the scientific rule of avoiding the addition of unnecessary complications.

How could we tell the difference between a fully "natural" process and one that happens under divine direction?  

One might be with the demonstration of something that happened in the history of life that could not possibly have happened naturally.  Many possible such events suggest themselves, but there is always the problem that simply because we don't know exactly what happened does not mean it did not happen naturally.   The evolution of flight or of the eye have been in the past mentioned as such events, but now the evolution of these things is well understood.  In other words, such an approach raises the danger of resort to the "God of the gaps," resorting to God when all that really can be said is, "We don't know." It is like those who resort to alien visits to "explain" UFOs.  

More important, there is the problem that the history of life looks for all the world like a sequence of chance events that after many slips and falls finally resulted in us.  (This is looking at it from the normal creationist anthro-chauvinist perspective.)  Life is a history of extinctions, mainly, with few species having living progeny.  Such imperfection does not fit well with God's perfection, although of  course the problem can be rationalized.

The biggest problem I have is that involving God achieves nothing to help the biologist, and is in fact merely a sop to traditional ideas that date from pre-scientific times.

Nausea.  That's the word, nausea.
Trump, Putin, Syria, nausea.

Contaminating Mars

Should we find traces of life on Mars of a significantly different sort from what we have here, that will be the really important thing, because two occurrences of independent life origination would indicate life is common everywhere.  The coincidence would otherwise be huge.

However, if what we find uses DNA or even the RNA code or is otherwise like us, then we will have issues to sort out  before reaching conclusions.

It is entirely possible that life evolved first on Mars, as Mars would have reached inhabitable status sooner than the earth, being smaller and cooler, and then got transported to the earth via meteors.

I think that unlikely and that it is more likely that there never was life on Mars and life originated on Earth.

Still, if we find traces of life on Mars, we want to be able to say which was the case.  If the life is very much like the life on Earth, does that tell us the first scenario (above) is true or that we managed to contaminate the traces or perhaps we can expect life everywhere to use the same chemistry?  I would think it extremely important that every precaution against contamination be taken.

Am I happy?  No.
Am I unhappy? No.
I just am, and that is enough.

How is it that mankind came to the idea of God?  I think I would like to speculate, with the understanding that whatever it was it happened in prehistory so there is no way we can really know.

I don't buy the "awe" theory nor the "seeking for explanations" theory.  I think these entered the story after the fact.

When we are in high school biology, the second or third chapter of our textbook tries to define what "life" is, and draws the distinction between life and non-life.  This is so ingrained into our culture that we take it for granted.  But it is a scientific observation, and prior to the eighteenth and nineteenth century the line was nowhere near so clear, so we had maggots appearing from non-life spontaneously, and so on.

Of course, we are also more than just "alive." We are also sentient (experience rather than just detect and measure) the outside world and our insides (sensations such as hunger), and, further, we experience feelings and desires (often driven by instincts, such as fear or anger).  Beyond being sentient, we are also conscious -- we "know" we exist and we know what we sense and we can infer all sorts of things.

We also assume pretty much automatically that everyone we know is similar to us, being alive, sentient, and conscious.  Why should we not draw a similar conclusion about the external world?  Why should we not just assume that other animals, and things like mountains and rivers and trees and forests and clouds and so on are like us?  To be sure they look different, and generally don't behave as humans do, but then each person is different too.

So, it would seem to me it behooves me, at a minimum, to try to get along with all these living, sentient, conscious things in our environment.  We have behaviors that indicate politeness, so be polite to the big tree and greet it properly, and when you kill an animal, ask its spirit for forgiveness.  Just as other humans we hurt can get revenge, the mountain may do so also (in it's mountain way) if we insult it or neglect it.  It may be slow witted, and may be very patient, but, regardless, it is in our interest to try to get along.

There is a passage in Cato's ancient book on agriculture about what to do if you have to remove a stand of trees -- it is important that the spirit or spirits of that stand be propitiated and taken care of.  For this he describes a set of rituals.

Now the Romans were not animists in the more "primitive" sort of way -- they had an organized pantheon of deities, but they also still had this assumption that there is consciousness out there other than just in ourselves.  A pantheon of deities with specialties would, with this frame of mind, arrive quite soon in human development -- things like the sky, the weather, the oceans, and so on, are universal and not local, and would naturally be seen to be far more important than the spirits of a stand of trees.

Then there would be speculation about where all this consciousness comes from, and inevitably the more introspective would consider a single "high god," not part of the world but its creator or sustainer.  In short, from the very first, human religion would be animist, "pagan," and monotheistic going in.  

My bedroom is cool, dark, and quiet
My bladder is well behaved
I do not snore or even breathe with any difficulty
I sleep well

Happiness from stupidity and delusion

Life is a prison.  Some of the bars are gravity, time (mainly aging), space, instincts, needs, sensations, past experiences, beliefs, the language we happen to be native to, our culture, our desires, brain chemicals, buzzing flies.

One does not escape most of these, and can only learn to handle and manage some of them, and even then happiness is not a reachable goal, only acceptance.  I think to be happy one must be both stupid and highly deluded.

Over a week and no rain
I can see the tops of the rocks at the bottom of the cistern
The crops are dying and the trees are stressed
Things are going to have to change

Blood and pork as food

I always kinda wondered what a herd of swine was doing in Nazareth.  I tend to see this as evidence the Gospel was written by a Greek who had only a fleeting knowledge of Palestine and its customs.  A herd of swine would have caused a riot.  Of course at that time "Nazareth" didn't exist anyway.

Religions have a tendency to make rules for the followers.  This serves a useful purpose in separating out the "true" believers from everyone else, and thereby gives the followers an excuse to feel superior to everyone else.  Food rules, what one wears, funerary customs, holidays, and on and on are of this sort.
Christians, for example, can eat pork, but cannot eat blood (two of the Jewish dietary restrictions, one of which got abandoned and the other maintained).  (Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I think for some reason the Scots do consume blood products).  Of course it is impossible to avoid eating blood if one eats any meat, but this is justified by means of some pretty slaughtering rules (and cruel ones, at least in Muslim societies).

Neither pork nor blood is terribly good for adult males and women after menopause (but, then, again, neither is beef or whole milk), as they raise cholesterol and iron levels, but excellent food for children and anyone iron deficient.   Pork is about the best natural source of B-12 in our diet, and vegetarians should consider a supplement.

I think people migrating to new countries should, "Do as the Romans do," and not try to make themselves out as different in public ways.  It just generates bad feelings and mistrust all around, and is really quite arrogant and stupid.  What one does in private is of course different, and I don't think it a good idea for politicians to get involved, nor the law, if one pretends one has a free, secular, society.

There is drought in Cambodia where I am
Even though there has been rain, not enough
The rice is yellow
The reservoirs are almost empty

Turkey has unfortunately become an autocracy, with the coup attempt used as an excuse (makes one wonder how real the attempt was, as it was put down so easily).

I hope it will become a Mubarak type of autocracy, but it seems Atatürk's secular society is no more and an Islamist (although so far a moderate one, if such an expression is not a contradiction in terms). 

We forget what a similar government did to the Armenians, and Turkey has never faced the facts about it.  The Kurds may be next.  Of course there is now a de facto Kurdistan in northern Iraq and coming to be another in Eastern Syria.  The Kurdish sections of Turkey and Iran (which may be the reason the Iranians are also helping Russia with its attacks in Syria).  Of course the lunatic regime in central Iraq and part of Syria has to be removed first.

I see the Russians are helping with the human disaster in Syria.  The regime has already destroyed the country in its attempt to hold power, when plainly the vast majority of Syrians don't want them -- mainly with Russian help -- and now are carrying out more terrors (such as the bombing of a funeral today).

Some rambling thoughts from a very discouraged person, considering.

Burqas (Burkas) and monk robes

I find wearing special clothes or doing other special things to say "I am of this or that religion" somewhat distasteful and certainly arrogant and probably hypocritical.  If it is truly a free choice (not demanded by husbands and so on as a part of suppression of women) then it should just simply be ignored.  I treat the local monks that way, and have had some acrimony with a few about it, but at least in this case the special clothes and shaved heads are for the enforcement of poverty and humility, but I still find it not unlike praying loudly in public, and I know monks on whom it has this effect (making them think themselves superior to others).

There is an itch in the small of my back
A back scratcher is nearby
But I don't scratch it; I lay there in bliss concentrating on the amazing sensation as it ebbs and falls.

On or near a planet's surface, or in an accelerating box

Up and down oppose each other

In space there is no difference

Some monks came out and blessed my house today
So did a lot of the neighbors, I think maybe as a way to get a look-see
I didn't understand any of it, but I suppose my house now is blessed.

Religion as ideology

Religions all encourage fanciful and false ways of thinking and then reinforce it through fear and guilt and indoctrination, and, when they are in control, through law.  That doesn't automatically make them evil, since all ideologies do as much, and sometimes they do good things.  I think for the most part subjective reality is better than any belief system, though it is hard in a world so superstitious and ignorant to find one's way through the weeds.  

The Buddha identified one of the four sources of suffering as delusion, and he had it right.

It's almost lunchtime
and I'm not hungry
I guess I will again frustrate my cook

Is God evil?

I suppose a solution of suffering is to say God is evil.  I am more inclined to think we suffer because natural selection unfortunately works that way, by constantly weeding out the unfit, often in unpleasant ways, since natural processes like natural selection have no sense of good and bad, but just function automatically.  The incoming tide may drown the child, but the tide and the moon causing this knows nothing about it.

I have a pillow

I have a pillow
And a soft blanket
But I must sleep on the floor
I will ache tomorrow

A plea for free trade

A country that selfishly protects itself, regardless of the welfare of others, deserves the fate it will receive, since of course others will treat it accordingly, and make its exports unafforable, destroying jobs.  This is called a trade war and hurts everyone  -- it was just the sort of thinking I see above that led to the Great Depression.

  

If I can buy a shirt of higher quality and less expensively (including the value of my time) rather than make it myself, then it is stupid for me not to buy it.  If an industry can out-source some product or service it needs cheaper and better than if it does it in house, then it is stupid for that company not to do so.

What protectionism and tariffs and trade quotas do is coddle inefficient local industries.  Capitalism that works well depends on all businesses being under constant pressure to do things cheaper, more efficiently, and better, and managers and workers who don't understand this and who are not willing to constantly reinvent themselves are soon poor or bankrupt.  Countries are the same -- high protective tariffs merely reduce the standard of living of the general population by allowing local industries to produce goods not up to international standards and prices.  In the end those countries who protect local business least are the countries that do best.

I think the real patriot is not the person waving the flag around shouting about foreign competition but the person who works hard to meet the challenges of foreign competition -- and does not stupidly insist one's country not buy from other countries those things other countries can produce better, but instead concentrates on those things one can do better locally and outsources other things.

soft air

soft air
a few white clouds
here and there butterflies

A female US President

I remember the flack Nancy Reagan got when it seemed she had opinions and dared express them.  The popular First Ladies have always been those who stuck to their knitting -- some trivial project like beautifying highways or whatnot.

Mrs. Clinton of course was like Nancy Reagan, and I think this is where the irrational hatred for her comes from, as there is no rational basis for the attacks; she has her political baggage, but it is minor, almost trivial, and blown way out of proportion.  There  are some people who demonstrate a visceral hatred for her and irrationally persist with criticisms that have no reasonable basis, such as that she didn't divorce him or that she was responsible for Benghazi.  She was not.

I don't think a lot of people, including some women, are ready for a female President.  They are still sexist that way and don't think one would do a good job,  Of course they don't realize this about themselves -- they explain it away with all the vile and negativity -- but that is where it comes from sure enough, and they need to take a good look at their motives.  

Developing political morality

We all think our views are right.  That means nothing.  What matters is how we reach our views, and if they are just seat-of-the-pants without mindful consideration of our motives and prejudices, then our views are worse than nothing.

The most important consideration, it seems to me, is morality.  Do we support or oppose someone because of our pocket book or our prejudices?  These should always be suspect as simple selfishness or bigotry, and thus immoral.  This is the message I am getting.

Another consideration, related to morals, is what is best overall, not just for us or our region or our nation but for mankind as a whole.  Do Americans give this any thought at all?  It doesn't mean being economically stupid, as Clinton's Democratic primary opponent seems have been -- thinking that one can repeal the laws of economics and human behavior (a Marxist way of thinking), but it also means being compassionate about the poor -- the truly poor around the world, compared to most of whom the poor in America are rich.

What is right and wrong is not determined by our "conscience" (which is just our childhood cultural indoctrination) nor by what we convince ourselves is good for the nation because it is good for us.  What is right and wrong must be mindfully worked out from basic principles such as compassion, fidelity, honesty, mindfulness, reasonableness, carefulness, the well-being of others regardless of who they are.

The two basic political types of person

Politically I would say roughly there are two kinds of people.  One are liberal, open, friendly to foreigners, see mankind as one entity sharing one planet, tolerant, concerned more about others than themselves, compassionate to refugees and the poor.  The other are nationalistic, somewhat selfish, tending to parochialism, thinking their people or language or culture (or all of these) superior,  seeing each nation and culture as separate and competing with the rest of humanity, and sometimes outright bigoted, although usually more polite about it, it still shows through.