Your SUV Is Helping to Destroy the Planet

Transportation in the US--that includes all our cars plus, of course, trucks, buses, and so forth--is responsible for 20% of greenhouse-gas production. (And, as nearly all scientists will tell you, greenhouse gases produced by burning fossil fuels contribute to climate change.)

And people do not realize that, when they buy a big SUV that is thirsty for gas, they may be producing more than their share of CO₂.

The equation is very simple: More gasoline consumed equals more greenhouse gases out the tailpipe.

So, please, to avoid doing your share to destroy the planet, please think twice when purchasing that SUV. Ask yourself whether you really need such a big one, and look at the gas mileage of any model you're considering.

Copyright © 2018.

The Nomination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court

There was a post here about then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh; but I've deleted it because there's been so much water over the dam since I wrote that. (So this displays with an incorrect date and was actually posted on 10/11/2018.)

There was a complex and emotional story leading up to Kavanaugh's eventual (last Saturday) confirmation to the Supreme Court by the US Senate Judiciary Committee and then the whole Senate--as required by the US Constitution.

Since the story was well reported, even in international news, I will recap it briefly: Kavanaugh was accused of sexually attacking a woman, going back more than 30  years. Both Kavanaugh and his accuser, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, testified in a special Senate hearing. Kavanaugh got very emotional, particularly in relating how the accusations have taken a toll on him and his family--and this probably earned him a good deal of sympathy.

However, he segued into a rant in which he claimed that the whole business was a plot by Democrats to exact revenge for Trump's defeat of Hilary Clinton in the presidential election of 2016. (Had he been coached in this by Trump? Because it sure sounds like one of Trump's paranoid hoax/conspiracy claims.)

Anyway, an FBI investigation was ordered. However, the problem with that is that Trump ordered the investigation and thereby was able to set the parameters and limits of the investigation, and limited it such that the FBI was allowed only a week for the investigation and interviewed only nine people. Probably it was a foregone conclusion that the bottom line to the FBI report contained nothing earth-shaking and was in fact entirely trivial.

(In the Senate vote, Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine widely regarded as a moderate who frequently did not follow Republican or Trump ideology; and Democratic Sen. Manchin from Tennessee, both voted to confirm. This was a surprise (a disappointment, if you were on one side of the issue). So the vote was 50 Yea, 48 No. If one of those two had voted No, there would have been a 49-49 tie; and then Vice President Pence, acting as Senate President Pro Tempore, would have cast the deciding Yea vote--again, all according to the Constitution.)

So Mr. Trump in the end got his extremely conservative nominee confirmed and now, we are told, we have the most conservative Supreme Court in many decades, one which may well reverse such landmark Supreme Court decisions as Rowe v. Wade (which legalized abortion) and Obergefell (which legalized same-sex marriage). The only hope that these decisions will be left alone is if the Court keeps in mind a judicial principle called stare decisis ('let the decision stand').

Copyright © 2018.

A Scholarly Disquisition on "Three Blind Mice"

Three blind mice, three blind mice,/See how they run, see how they run, /They all ran after the farmer's wife,/ She cut off their tales with a carving knife, /Did you ever see such a sight in your life/ As three blind mice?

 --Nursery rhyme/song

This text provokes an astonishing number of questions.

First, how common is blindness among common field mice, genus Mus? Amazingly, rather scant data exists on this important question. And then, since the poem may be ultimately European in origin (as witnessed by a German version, Drei Blinden Mäuse¹), is blindness more common in the common European mouse genus Apodemus? One majorly flawed study of this question suggests that blindness may in fact be approximately 17% more common in the  European mouse.²

Second, why are three blind mice found in association? Is there an advantage to this behavior? Perhaps their pooled sensory capabilities (assuming they can be somehow shared) compensates, to a degree, for their visual deficit.

Next, why are they running? This seems quite inexplicable in an animal that cannot perceive any obstacles that may lie in its path. One would logically expect only slow, tentative exploratory behavior, using smell and/or the feeling capability of their whiskers.

Next, evidently they are chasing the farmer's wife.  Now, even everyday experience tells us that smaller creatures seldom chase larger ones. And a mouse, having an average weight of 118 grams, while an adult human male is presumed to weigh 70 kg (154 lb)³--with, of course, the average adult human female weighing somewhat less--results in a ratio, by weight, of human to mouse of approximately 593.2 to 1.

However, the literature does in fact yield eye-witness accounts of a mouse or mice chasing a human. The earliest of these is by Marco Polo in his Diary.⁴

Now, the matter that, as we are told, a farmer's wife cuts off their tails. What is the function of this caudalectomy? Is it pure animal cruelty? What reasons could the farmer's wife have for preferring that the mice (presumably found about her homestead and/or farm) be tailless?

Next, the reasons for her choice of implement: Why might a carving knife be the instrument of choice for de-tailing a mouse? And, still more puzzling, do the mice stand still for this operation? Would not the squeals of pain of the first mouse to suffer this surgery serve as an effective warning to the other two mice and cause them to get the hell out of there?

Finally, we are asked whether we have ever seen such a sight as three blind mice. However, I do not believe any of the major or recognized polling organizations have ever attempted to gather any data on how many people have in fact seen three blind mice.

1. Gesta Romanorum, III, iv.

2. Podgorny, A., Blindness in European vs. North American Mouse Species, J. A. A., 9. 427.

3. These figures are from JANAF, Some Weights of Common Creatures (New York, UN Fund for Useless Statistics, 1937).

4. Polo, M, Diario, Venice, 1368.

Copyright © 2018.

Critique of Conservative Philosophy

Conservatives believe that less government is better. They want to leave much to private industry, rather than having government involved in it (financing it, etc.) because they believe government is inefficient, wasteful, and even corrupt.

They also believe in lessening government regulation of business. This is a major conservative tenet. Rather than government ensuring that business takes measures to protect its workers (e.g., from factory injuries), protect consumers from unsafe products, and avoid polluting the environment--the air we breathe and the water we all must drink--conservatives believe that if you just leave businesses alone, they will do the right thing. This ignores the innumerable times that businesses have put their own profit and other business objectives before the health and welfare of their workers, customers, and the public.

Conservative economics have given us "trickle-down" economics under President Ronald Reagan (when it did not work) and now again under Donald Trump. This idea holds that if you cut taxes to the wealthy and to big corporations, they can invest the money they save on taxes and use it to expand their businesses; this creates new jobs--or so the theory goes. As I said, this theory did not work in Reagan's day, and today this same economic theory is being urged on Trump by an economic advisor of his who has been wrong over and over and over again.

Conservative individuals sometimes go so far as to say that they feel they should not have to pay taxes, that the income which they have legitimately earned (through hard work, or being enterprising, or being rapacious) should not be taken from them and given to the poor and needy who, they believe--usually with definite racist implications--simply do not want to work. The recent incident (caught on video and gone viral on social media) involving New York lawyer Aaron Schlossberg shows Schlossberg saying that his taxes go to support these immigrant, Spanish-speaking restaurant workers whom he is complaining about through "welfare". This makes little sense, because if they were on welfare they would not be there, working in the restaurant. And if they are there, working in the restaurant, they are not on welfare. But this is typical conservative thinking: Reagan and Trump both got elected by implying that these lazy people (African-Americans and/or Hispanics) don't want to work and simply take money away from the good, noble, hard-working (white) guy who pays taxes.

To go back to some of our earlier points: Public health has been one of the major successes of government. Government entities identify epidemic diseases (food-borne illnesses, diseases, and so forth), identify the sources, and put public-health countermeasures in place.

Also, as I have said, government (except to the extent that Trump is doing his best to undermine and even stop these functions) helps keep our food and medicine safe, our air and water clean, pure, and safe, and nearly every aspect of life in our country as  many of us would like it to be.

Update: A conservative (unfortunately I can't tell you who it was) appearing, I believe, on Fox News, said of the children detained at the US border and wrenched from their parents, "Well, they're not our kids. This exemplifies what I believe to be a very common characteristic of conservative people: no empathy--that is, the  ability to imagine themselves in someone else's shoes.
One time, while I was on a business trip and pleasantly enjoying dinner in Lake Tahoe, I quoted a US Supreme Court justice (I think it was Justice Frankfurter, and I don't recall what the topic of conversation was or what prompted me to come out with this) as saying something to the effect, "Better nine guilty men should go free than that one innocent man should be unjustly punished." To this my colleague said, "See, I don't agree with that!"
But what if the innocent, unjustly accused person had been his spouse, or child, or parent, or sister or brother? I think that, were the matter to touch home in that way, he might feel differently.

Copyright © 2018.

What to Do about All the Shootings

Today there was news of two school shootings. How many people are tired--no, beyond tired--of hearing of these things? And how long will they go on? What will it take to stop the murder of our children? Some people would say, Well, no one really knows how to solve this problem.

Well, how's this for one thought? Contrary to what the NRA (National Rifle Association) wants America to believe, more guns do not make us all safer. If anyone thinks that is logical, rather than the contrary--that is, the fewer guns out there, the fewer shootings--just look at the experience of Australia. Australia banned guns, a few years ago, after a rash of shootings worthy of America. People were given inducements--monetary, I believe--to turn in their guns. And--guess what? Homicides by gunshot dropped dramatically.

Yes, it's that simple.

Or it should be. I'd be a whopping big fool if I believed it really was simple. The fact--the problem--is that Americans love their guns and aren't going to give them up without a fight--maybe literally. Guns are macho, and dearly loved by all those well endowed with testosterone. I have long believed that guns, and shooting people with guns, were glamorized by western (cowboy) movies. So, when people in other countries think America is still the Wild West, in a sense they are right.

Copyright © 2018.

Not Again!? Yes, More on Guns and School Shootings

I have said I am tired of blogging about guns, mass shootings, and school shootings. But they keep happening and I for one can't ignore them or keep silent (nor should anyone be able to).

After student survivors of the Parkland, FL, school shooting met with President Donald Trump, he was pledging action. But anything he has done has been completely ineffective. What happened is that, after his meetings with the Parkland students, Trump had a late-night meeting with representatives from the NRA (National Rifle Association)--and it's well-known that Trump is persuaded by whomever he last spoke to.

There have been over 150 school shootings in 30 years. What is it going to take to stop this ridiculous and intolerable phenomenon? We need widespread public outrage, and we need that to translate to people ceasing to vote for pro-gun legislators--those who accept money from the NRA and any and all other pro-gun lawmakers (which pretty much means Republicans).

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens recently said that we might need to think about repealing the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment to the Constitution states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The Founding Fathers who wrote and approved the Second Amendment were thinking in terms of muskets that could do a limited amount of damage. They did not foresee such progress in weapons that we would one day have semi-automatic and automatic assault rifles that could kill many people in literally a matter of seconds--let alone that any Tom, Dick, or Harry could easily buy and even stockpile six or 10 or 14 of these weapons.

Copyright © 2018.

Truth and The Right

Lying is not a new phenomenon in public discourse (read, "politics"), any more than it is new to our human species. In fact, one of my professors told our class, by way of discussing the origins of human language, that one theory is that language was invented to allow lying.

And I have sometimes imagined, as a "thought experiment" (a term used by physicists), that perhaps, if mankind were to make contact with another intelligent species, that species might turn out to have no concept of lying and to be in fact incapable of it. Or, imagine what our world would be like if there were no lying. We are lied to not only by politicians and the like but, sadly, by our preachers and teachers (let's hope that they are not knowingly lying to us but that they believe what they are saying).

And the problem is not simply that mankind is capable of lying, but that those on the audience end believe what that hear and read. A good education--evidently a rare thing--teaches people to be critical. It's a lesson that badly needs to be learned but is seldom or not easily learned. I used to berate my (college) students for being uncritical. I would say, "I could stand up here and say 'Black is white' and it would just go mechanically into your ears, down your arms, through your pens and onto your paper."

I have blogged before about the fact that the Right disseminates a lot of misinformation (or, as I guess the new word is, dysinformation). Just as a couple examples, in a recent PBS (public television) program on John McCain (a very prominent US politician, long-serving US Senator from Arizona and opponent to Barack Obama in our presidential elections), there were scenes where a McCain supporter held a sign about his willingness to personally and physically protect his grandparents. What was that about? I believe it referred to the idea--eventually proved false--that so-called Obamacare (more formally called the Affordable Care Act) was going to promote the euthanasia of sick old people. Another lie in the same TV program was when McCain was speaking one-on-one with a woman who said, of Obama, "He's a--a--Arab," meaning, I'll assume, a Muslim. This was another lie spread by the Right (and McCain, being truly a very decent and principled man, told the woman that that was false).

Who spreads these lies? I think a main channel is conservative radio and TV commentators, but nowadays dysinformation is being spread on the Internet, on web sites, and--as we have recently learned, in a bit of a scandal--via social media such as Facebook.

There is also email. A high school classmate of mine, at one point, was forwarding to me Right-wing propaganda.  I call it propaganda because it was false and I could pretty easily learn that it was false--yet these emails had been forwarded many, many times before reaching me. And how many times were they received and read and believed?

And in the 2016 presidential election, as we know, there was wrong information being spread via Facebook, so-called "alt-right" media, and by candidates.

I am thinking mainly of Donald Trump here.  The New York Times reported that, in the course of calendar year 2017 (and thus not even during the presidential campaign), they caught Trump lying 1300 times. That's about four lies per day, right?

Is Trump an evil man who is coldly and calculatingly trying to deceive his audience (which, these days, must be taken to be the whole world)? That's not clear. Sometimes he may be voicing what is simply an incorrect statistic or other incorrect information (how that might happen might itself be a question to think about).

I'm someone who pretty generally tries to give the Devil his due. So I'm willing to say this: It may very well be that Trump genuinely believes he's doing what is best for the country. However--and there has to be a very big "however"--we must think about what Trump sees as "the country." I have to think that, in Trump's eyes, "the country" is pretty much equivalent to what we've come to call "the one percent"--that is, Trump's rich friends, those who own and control business (and politics) in the United States.

Thus, Trump talks about "getting the EPA off our backs." By this he means relieving or alleviating the "burden" of regulation on businesses under, for example, The Clean Water Act, which Trump has nullified. This means businesses can operate with less care (and cost) due to regulations on, for example, their pouring pollutants into our rivers and streams. Yes, better for Business--but not better for America's children who might be made ill, stunted, deformed by drinking water contaminated with harmful chemicals.

Copyright © 2018 by Richard Stein