During my life I have experienced the excitement of starting a new job, of moving hundreds of miles to a new home, and of leaving bachelorhood for the joys of marriage. All of these changes resulted in an improvement of my life. More importantly these changes were under my control, demonstrating clearly to me that a combination of hard work and intelligent decisions will yield good results.
I consider myself quite fortunate. I enjoy my profession and am still happily married after over a quarter century. I sit here typing this in a comfortable home reassured by the knowledge that I have enough in my savings to survive the kind of economic upheavals I am most likely to confront. Would I change anything? Mostly not, but why waste time speculating on what might have been different. Life is not over yet and I still have time to both learn and to achieve something meaningful. So why am I writing all this in a blog that no one reads?
I haven’t bothered to check the statistics on how many blogs currently exist but I am sure the number exceeds the number of volumes to be found in most libraries. Given that, what is the probability that someone will stumble upon my little piece of cyberspace? I am sure the odds are against it. Observation reveals that most bloggers form little cyber-communities and read one another’s blogs. Joining a cyber-community is simply surrendering to the premise that people will read your blog if you read theirs. The odds are against me finding a cyber-community that shares my interests and values; but I might get lucky. Still, there is the hope that someone will enter the right combination of words in their search engine and stumble upon my blog.
I confess I have no idea why I continue to write here. As I have previously alluded to maybe I think I am good at writing and need an outlet for my creativity. I suppose I just want to put my two cents in even if my opinion represents only one part per billion in the vast ocean of pointless opinions polluting the internet. I fear that most of us on the internet never rise above the noise.
If you are reading this, thank you. If you can find anything positive amongst my ramblings feel free to leave a comment even if it is nothing more than a note indicating that you visited. Don’t be shy about disagreeing with me. As President Johnson once said, “If everyone in a room is in agreement, one person must be doing all the thinking.” That may not be the exact quote but it certainly reflects the spirit of what he said. If you only hang around people with whom you agree you will develop a very narrow view of the world around you.
Whether anyone reads this or not is irrelevant. I do this for me. When I write something I question it. Sometimes I spend hours thinking about what I have written only to find out that I changed my mind. Thinking can do that. Thinking can also keep you out of trouble. I think I will have more to say about this the next time.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Monday, May 26, 2008
The Global Warming Kerfuffle
I have been following the global warming debate for a long time even if until recently it has been rather one sided. In the 1990s I believed that the potential for global warming as a result of the greenhouse effect was a real concern. The science seemed to make sense and it was evident that eventually it would become a problem. I must confess I am no longer so sure; therefore I thought it might be fun to look at global warming from all angles and see what we find.
Working through this topic is not going to be easy. The amount of information and data is not trivial. Consider for a moment the concept of measuring global temperatures. How many data points do you need and where do you take your measurements. Since you can not take measurements everywhere all the time you are forced to take a sample. Suppose you decide to take temperature measurements every hour at a thousand different stations. Would that be representative of the entire planet? Most of the earth’s surface is ocean so should most of our temperature measurements be made above the oceans? What I am leading up to is that before you can make any statements about your measurements, you have to prove that the method you use to make the measurements is valid. Then you have to prove that those measurements are representative of the entire planet within a margin of error small enough to detect significant differences over time with some degree of confidence. There is also bias to consider but I think we can let that go for another day.
The alarmists like to point to anecdotal evidence such as melting polar ice and destructive storms like Katrina to support their position. They predicted a horrific Atlantic hurricane season last year that never materialized. It would be very convenient to state that the melting ice proves global warming is occurring and equally convenient to state that the failure to correctly predict the hurricane season last year proves otherwise.
However, this is science and not politics. You can’t pick and choose the data you like or dismiss predictions that fail to happen. Science is a tough game and saying that the issue is settled because you have more people on your side is ludicrous. In the late 1800s the idea that the atoms in compounds like sodium chloride would dissociate into ions when dissolved in water was considered absurd. And yet, the 1884 thesis making this statement won its author Svante August Arrhenius a Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1903.
I generally admire a person who supports their position with passion even if I disagree with them. Do I disagree with the idea of global warming? No. Do I disagree with global warming alarmists like Al Gore? Absolutely yes. When these zealots covered their ears with their hands and went, “La la la la…” to drown out those who disagreed with them I changed sides. What Al Gore and his followers is selling is not science. Some have called it socialism hidden in a cloak of environmentalism and maybe that is true. But that is not the issue here. What we need to sort out is the science part of global warming with neither the politics nor the religious fervor of the global warming activists.
If it turns out there is a problem then we think it through and try to find a solution that is both effective and affordable.
At the end of this exercise I may find myself doing a 180ยบ turn on this issue provided the numbers shake out that way. As Richard Feynman once said, “Nature can not be fooled”.
Working through this topic is not going to be easy. The amount of information and data is not trivial. Consider for a moment the concept of measuring global temperatures. How many data points do you need and where do you take your measurements. Since you can not take measurements everywhere all the time you are forced to take a sample. Suppose you decide to take temperature measurements every hour at a thousand different stations. Would that be representative of the entire planet? Most of the earth’s surface is ocean so should most of our temperature measurements be made above the oceans? What I am leading up to is that before you can make any statements about your measurements, you have to prove that the method you use to make the measurements is valid. Then you have to prove that those measurements are representative of the entire planet within a margin of error small enough to detect significant differences over time with some degree of confidence. There is also bias to consider but I think we can let that go for another day.
The alarmists like to point to anecdotal evidence such as melting polar ice and destructive storms like Katrina to support their position. They predicted a horrific Atlantic hurricane season last year that never materialized. It would be very convenient to state that the melting ice proves global warming is occurring and equally convenient to state that the failure to correctly predict the hurricane season last year proves otherwise.
However, this is science and not politics. You can’t pick and choose the data you like or dismiss predictions that fail to happen. Science is a tough game and saying that the issue is settled because you have more people on your side is ludicrous. In the late 1800s the idea that the atoms in compounds like sodium chloride would dissociate into ions when dissolved in water was considered absurd. And yet, the 1884 thesis making this statement won its author Svante August Arrhenius a Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1903.
I generally admire a person who supports their position with passion even if I disagree with them. Do I disagree with the idea of global warming? No. Do I disagree with global warming alarmists like Al Gore? Absolutely yes. When these zealots covered their ears with their hands and went, “La la la la…” to drown out those who disagreed with them I changed sides. What Al Gore and his followers is selling is not science. Some have called it socialism hidden in a cloak of environmentalism and maybe that is true. But that is not the issue here. What we need to sort out is the science part of global warming with neither the politics nor the religious fervor of the global warming activists.
If it turns out there is a problem then we think it through and try to find a solution that is both effective and affordable.
At the end of this exercise I may find myself doing a 180ยบ turn on this issue provided the numbers shake out that way. As Richard Feynman once said, “Nature can not be fooled”.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
First Amendment Rights
During a recent visit to our public library I was treated to a remarkable spectacle that illustrates how one can remain illiterate while surrounded by books. While navigating amongst the bookshelves in the library I observed three boys, perhaps 13 to 15 years old, huddled around a library supplied laptop computer in the reference section.
Curious about what could render three adolescent boys motionless for so long I walked over until I could clearly see that they were watching a video showing a woman performing oral sex on some guy. Cartoons and comics always depict boys watching pornographic images with a wide eyed stare; and I am here to tell you it is real. They were truly spellbound by the visual candy in front of them and oblivious to the rest of the world. The slack jaw on the youngest boy suggests that his more experienced and learned friends were providing him with an important part of his education. When he starts dating we certainly know what will be on his mind all evening.
When I mentioned this to the librarian while checking out my books she reacted as if I had told her that no one had dusted the windowsills recently. She said something about it being the parents’ responsibility, that there wasn’t anything they could really do, and besides, and here it comes, it is protected by the first amendment. Can you imagine James Madison, pen in hand, facing Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin and asking, “Do you think we need a new amendment to protect pornography or do you think the first amendment pretty much covers it?”
You can’t help but wonder how adult men sworn to uphold the Constitution can give their seal of approval to McCain-Feingold, the type of law the first amendment was specifically designed to prevent, and still maintain a straight face as they justify their ruling that pornography, including virtual child pornography, deserves protection under the first amendment. If I sat on the Supreme Court and faced a case involving pornography I would point to the tenth amendment and throw the lawyers out of my court room.
As an aside even though I find flag burning to be far more offensive than pornography, I believe it is protected by the first amendment since it is a political statement. If someone is so passionate in their hatred of America that they feel a need to desecrate its flag they may do so without government interference. This can be a topic for another day; so let me get back to the original subject.
Within a week of this event the local newspaper carried a story about a teenage girl being inappropriately touched by a boy in the library. Now where do boys get such ideas? Parents would be wise to take note of how their children improve their minds in public libraries that give unlimited access to the internet. Most parents would probably agree that this is not the best utilization of library resources.
Given that pornography websites are notorious for carrying malware, it doesn't seem unreasonable for the library to block such sites since ultimately the taxpayer will be responsible for the cost of restoring a compromised system. If anyone feels the need for entertaining themselves with pornography they should do it on their own system and not a publicly funded one.
Curious about what could render three adolescent boys motionless for so long I walked over until I could clearly see that they were watching a video showing a woman performing oral sex on some guy. Cartoons and comics always depict boys watching pornographic images with a wide eyed stare; and I am here to tell you it is real. They were truly spellbound by the visual candy in front of them and oblivious to the rest of the world. The slack jaw on the youngest boy suggests that his more experienced and learned friends were providing him with an important part of his education. When he starts dating we certainly know what will be on his mind all evening.
When I mentioned this to the librarian while checking out my books she reacted as if I had told her that no one had dusted the windowsills recently. She said something about it being the parents’ responsibility, that there wasn’t anything they could really do, and besides, and here it comes, it is protected by the first amendment. Can you imagine James Madison, pen in hand, facing Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin and asking, “Do you think we need a new amendment to protect pornography or do you think the first amendment pretty much covers it?”
You can’t help but wonder how adult men sworn to uphold the Constitution can give their seal of approval to McCain-Feingold, the type of law the first amendment was specifically designed to prevent, and still maintain a straight face as they justify their ruling that pornography, including virtual child pornography, deserves protection under the first amendment. If I sat on the Supreme Court and faced a case involving pornography I would point to the tenth amendment and throw the lawyers out of my court room.
As an aside even though I find flag burning to be far more offensive than pornography, I believe it is protected by the first amendment since it is a political statement. If someone is so passionate in their hatred of America that they feel a need to desecrate its flag they may do so without government interference. This can be a topic for another day; so let me get back to the original subject.
Within a week of this event the local newspaper carried a story about a teenage girl being inappropriately touched by a boy in the library. Now where do boys get such ideas? Parents would be wise to take note of how their children improve their minds in public libraries that give unlimited access to the internet. Most parents would probably agree that this is not the best utilization of library resources.
Given that pornography websites are notorious for carrying malware, it doesn't seem unreasonable for the library to block such sites since ultimately the taxpayer will be responsible for the cost of restoring a compromised system. If anyone feels the need for entertaining themselves with pornography they should do it on their own system and not a publicly funded one.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Live Educated or Die
Months having gone by since my last post, I am inclined to again blame a lack of inspiration. This however would be dishonest. The truth is that I spend too much effort trying to write about neutral topics. I try to stick to positive events in my life and keep things light. Unfortunately this is not working for me. I realize now that I am not cut out to write about what I did on my summer vacation. So let me draw my inspiration from the things that interest me.
In my last blog entry I expressed my appreciation to Norman W. Edmund for starting a business intended for people like me. I have since learned that Mr. Edmund advocates teaching the scientific method in our schools and believes our educational system has failed in this duty. I have a recollection that the scientific method was discussed in school at some point but I may have learned it on my own. In any event I agree that it is extremely important to teach students the scientific method and pound it into their tiny little minds over and over again every time they take a science course.
When I taught introductory chemistry in college I always spent one lecture talking about the scientific method and tried to show how it could be applied to familiar topics. By discussing the importance of verifiable facts and the power of experimentation I hoped that they would get some sense of how science works.
I am sorry to report that the experience was seldom rewarding though I did have a few students who exceeded my expectations. In general I suspect that Mr. Edmund is corrrect in his assessment of our educational system except that I think his indictment of the system is too narrow. I dream of a world where the ignorance is limited to the scientific method. If my experiences are representative of how prepared our students are when they enter college we are in big trouble. The word clueless comes to mind.
It really bothers me that our young people can’t do simple arithmetic, can’t find India or the Pacific Ocean on a globe, and have no idea who fought on either side during World War II. Worse yet, I get the impression that many students simply don’t care. This is troubling. Not knowing something is called ignorance. Being comfortable with that ignorance is called stupidity.
During a discussion once with some of my demented colleagues someone suggested a system guaranteed to motivate all students to work to their full potential. In any given class the student with the lowest year end grade is given a one year sentence at a Soviet style labor camp. What better reason is there for studying hard and acquiring knowledge than one’s freedom? Joseph Stalin could hardly improve on such a system.
Naturally we live in a country where this would be totally unacceptable. Still it makes you consider the role of motivation in today's schools. Those who constantly disrupt class could probably benefit from a short stint in a Stalinist gulag to appreciate the opportunities they are ignoring for themselves and ruining for others. If any of these people are reading this I know what they are probably thinking right now, “Who is Joseph Stalin?”
In my last blog entry I expressed my appreciation to Norman W. Edmund for starting a business intended for people like me. I have since learned that Mr. Edmund advocates teaching the scientific method in our schools and believes our educational system has failed in this duty. I have a recollection that the scientific method was discussed in school at some point but I may have learned it on my own. In any event I agree that it is extremely important to teach students the scientific method and pound it into their tiny little minds over and over again every time they take a science course.
When I taught introductory chemistry in college I always spent one lecture talking about the scientific method and tried to show how it could be applied to familiar topics. By discussing the importance of verifiable facts and the power of experimentation I hoped that they would get some sense of how science works.
I am sorry to report that the experience was seldom rewarding though I did have a few students who exceeded my expectations. In general I suspect that Mr. Edmund is corrrect in his assessment of our educational system except that I think his indictment of the system is too narrow. I dream of a world where the ignorance is limited to the scientific method. If my experiences are representative of how prepared our students are when they enter college we are in big trouble. The word clueless comes to mind.
It really bothers me that our young people can’t do simple arithmetic, can’t find India or the Pacific Ocean on a globe, and have no idea who fought on either side during World War II. Worse yet, I get the impression that many students simply don’t care. This is troubling. Not knowing something is called ignorance. Being comfortable with that ignorance is called stupidity.
During a discussion once with some of my demented colleagues someone suggested a system guaranteed to motivate all students to work to their full potential. In any given class the student with the lowest year end grade is given a one year sentence at a Soviet style labor camp. What better reason is there for studying hard and acquiring knowledge than one’s freedom? Joseph Stalin could hardly improve on such a system.
Naturally we live in a country where this would be totally unacceptable. Still it makes you consider the role of motivation in today's schools. Those who constantly disrupt class could probably benefit from a short stint in a Stalinist gulag to appreciate the opportunities they are ignoring for themselves and ruining for others. If any of these people are reading this I know what they are probably thinking right now, “Who is Joseph Stalin?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)