I Would Have Been Proud...

I Would Have Been Proud...

To die like this. But then, I'm 64. Anthony Huber was only 26.

Some background:

Recently a 17 year old man went to the protests in Kenosha. He had an assault rifle with him. Not hidden in any way; but instead right out in the open, in his hands.

The police saw him. They were there to keep the peace I guess. So you would think they would have told him to leave maybe, or check his ID (17 isn't old enough to carry a weapon) or maybe even arrest him. After all, he had a military style weapon in a region where they are worried about violence.

But they didn't do any of those things. Instead, they thanked him, and gave him a bottle of water.

A few minutes later, he shot 3 people. Two of them died.

One of those killed was Anthony Huber. Anthony was 26, and he was at the protest with his skateboard. When the shooter started shooting, Anthony didn't run. Instead he charged the shooter, armed only with his skateboard. He was trying to prevent the shooter from killing even more people. However, the shooter got a shot off, hitting Anthony in the chest. Anthony died.

Yes, I'm angry at the police for what they did and didn't do in this situation. However, that's not the point of this article.

My point is this: I don't know if I would have had the courage to do what Anthony did. I'm guessing, sadly, that I wouldn't have. But if I were in that situation, I hope I would have that courage. Even if I died from it. 

I'm 64, and I've had a full, good life. So if I would have done that, and been killed, I could accept that. It would be an honorable death. And honestly, I can think of worse ways to die.

But Anthony was 26. He leaves behind a girlfriend and a child. He HASN'T lived a full good life. He should still be here. But he's not.

It would have been better if it had been me. But honestly, it shouldn't have been anyone. This was just wrong. And Anthony showed incredible courage.

He paid for it with his life. Sadly.

Liberation?

I have no problem with protesting. It's an American tradition. Protest, march, chant, whatever you need to do. As long as you don't hurt anyone else. That's fine.

And I even understand, to a point, these people protesting for "Liberation" of their states. I mean, I understand the danger of giving up freedoms for safety. It IS a slippery slope. We gave up some freedoms after 9/11 for the sake of safety, and I'm not sure I agree with them. So I understand.

However, the problem I have with these protests is that these people want to be able to come and go freely, even though it endangers others. And in their protests they're doing exactly that. But that's dangerous. And not just to themselves.

What if someone in that group is an asymptomatic carrier? Chances are very good that there's more than one or two in that group. So if these protesters infect each other, then go to Kroger's or Walmart, or the Pharmacy, they can transfer the coronavirus to these workers. The workers who HAVE to be there, and who are taking chances every time they go to work.

So honestly, if a protester gets the virus and dies, that's of his own doing.

But going to the protest, then infecting an innocent store worker? Then that innocent worker could die?

That's just wrong. I"m sorry that these people can't make the  sacrifice we're asking for-to stay home. We're not asking anything superhuman-just stay home. I saw a post about a WW2 vet talking about the sacrifices his generation made. Yet these protesters don't want to sacrifice at all. And in the process, they may be (probably are) killing innocent people.

I'm not sure these protesters have thought it all the way through. At least I hope they haven't. Otherwise, that means they don't care who they injure. Or kill.

Which Fictitious Person Would You Choose to be Real?

I’m warning you up front, that this post probably has limited appeal. I’m answering a question I’ve wondered about for a while.

I think the question is actually pretty good: If you could have one fictitious person be real, who would it be?

But my answer(s) are all based on science fiction I have read or watched. So if you’re not a sci-fi geek, my feelings won’t be hurt if you quit reading right now.

Anyway, I can’t come up with just one. I have four.  Here is the first, and probably the one I’d pick if I had to pick just one:

Hari Seldon

Never heard of him? Not surprising. Well let me tell you.

Hari is a character from Isaac Asimov’s Foundation trilogy, set many years in the future, when the entire Galaxy is one big empire. Hari invented a science called Psychohistory. It’s not a real science, at least not yet. But I think it could be. And it sure would be helpful, which is why I wish he were around.

For the truly geeky, follow along while I explain it.

Imagine you have a container of gas, like air. There’s a zillion molecules of that gas in there, all zooming around at different speeds, like so many bumper cars, except much smaller, much faster, and in 3 dimensions.

It is impossible to predict exactly how any one molecule will behave. It’s completely random. Yet, with simple gas laws I used to teach to sophomores, we can with a high degree of accuracy, predict how the entire container of gas will behave. If we heat it, squeeze it, pressurize it, let some out, etc., we can tell exactly how it will respond.

Psychohistory treats our civilization like the gas container, where each person is like a molecule. While nobody can predict how any one person’s life will play out, with psychohistory, we can predict how society, in broad terms, will progress. This is kinda what sociologists do today (I think) except in psychohistory it is treated mathematically, like we do the gas laws. In The Foundation, Hari predicted the Galactic Empire would come to an end, and that it would degenerate into a bunch of warring Kingdoms. Then he set about making the conditions right so that the “warring Kingdoms” phase would last a minimum of time. You’ll have to read the books to see how he did. And by the way, they are in the very top of my favorite books list. (They’re short, easy to read, and actually pretty simple--and I reread them every other year or so.)

But psychohistory only works if the people don’t really know about it. They have to be ignorant of its workings, so they respond naturally in all situations--not trying to “out-think” it. But if Hari were alive today, and if psychohistory were a thing, he could predict how our civilization is going to change. Not in the short term necessarily, but overall in the long term.

But he could also possibly effect enough change to push it in a different, hopefully better, direction. Just as he did in the trilogy. In fact, throughout the trilogy, and the sequels which came later, they always refer to the guidance of “the dead hand of Hari Seldon.” Luckily, Hari Seldon was wise, kind, and altruistic. Psychohistory in the hands of an evil genius would be deadly for all.

Which is why Hari was the perfect man to use Psychohistory.

And why the world could really use Hari Seldon today.

Mistakes, Mistakes, Mistakes

I was told recently that, as a former teacher, I should try to educate, not finger-point. But the same person also asked me, about Trump’s handling of the Coronavirus: “What did he not do to help combat this problem? Did you want him to drop the "A" bomb on China to kill it and everyone there.”

This person is a good, honest, intelligent person. But he has no idea about Trump’s response to this crisis.

So here I’m going to answer his question. And if it sounds like finger-pointing, I’m sorry. But if a public servant, especially the President, is not telling the truth to us, we should know about it. And pointing that out, assuming we are honest about it and not spinning our own falsehoods, should be not only acceptable, but mandatory. So while being as unbiased as I can be, here are a few of Trump’s mistakes on this topic.

(By the way, if you think I’m just being strictly partisan, I have praised Governor DeWine extensively for his handling of this crisis. I didn’t vote for DeWine, I am not a fan of DeWine. But I can be honest and give credit when it’s due. And also today, for the first time, Trump at least had some honest answers in his press conference. I’ll happily admit that.)

Here’s just a partial list of what Trump “did not do.”

1) After the Ebola scare, Obama established an office of Pandemic Response. The Trump administration got rid of it. Trump says it’s not his fault, maybe someone in his administration did it, that he knows nothing about. But Senator Sherrod Brown just showed a letter he sent to Trump about this very thing. Regardless, it left us completely unable to react when this virus hit.

2) We have not had nearly enough test kits. Although nobody will take responsibility for this, instead of using the WHO test kits, the CDC decided to make their own. But they didn’t work, and there weren’t enough of them. Consequently, when South Korea is testing 10,000 people per day, we are testing more like a few hundred. Just recently testing has started to increase. That’s good, but way too late. Also, if we had known from the beginning actually how many people were infected, it is possible we would not have had to resort to the drastic measures we are taking now.

3) Trump said early on he banned travel from China. That’s a stretch, at least. Even though we knew about this on January 8, he didn’t act until January 31, and even then the “ban” was more of a band-aid. Many people from China could still get in the country.

4) He imposed a travel ban on Europe just recently. That sounds good, but the virus was already in the country. Banning travel at this point actually might have made it worse. He gave the first order in a national speech, and within the next few hours, the White House had to “correct” what he said 3 times. Nobody really understood. So all Americans in Europe came home at once, flooding the airports, making huge crowds. Exactly what we DON’T need.

5) Trump downplayed the crisis from the beginning, because it would hurt his election chances. This was reported by multiple sites, but feel free to disbelieve it if you’re a Trump supporter. I can’t prove it. But the story was that he was more worried about the election and the stock market than our health.

6) In his travel ban from Europe, he didn’t include England, even though it was heavily infected. I have my guesses as to why, but he didn’t change it until the discrepancy was shown to him at a press conference.

Finally) He has lied about this from the beginning. On February 25, he said “We’re very close to a vaccine.” (A vaccine is at least a year away). On February 26, he said “The 15 cases within a couple of days is going to be down close to zero.” (At this point, we have over 4000.) He also has said "Nobody could have known." That's not true; we all knew. My own opinion, and it’s just an opinion, is that he just makes up whatever sounds good.

I”m sorry if I’m bashing the President. But in this situation, every single health official, epidemiologist, or anyone with knowledge of the situation has been critical of his handling of this. The only ones who have not, it seems, are certain conservative media outlets.

A Heart of Gold. Or Stone.

I think it goes without saying, but I’ll say it anyway. Most of us are not very good at judging other people. Let me explain with some examples from my teaching days. They are mostly true, with just a bit of exaggeration to make a point.

I once knew a guy (we’ll call him Mr. Smith) who was not a nice person. We all knew it. I have no idea why, but he was nasty to everyone. He was selfish, arrogant, critical of others, and never took the blame for anything (because of course HE was never wrong). While he was no genius himself, he tended to put everyone else down. You know the type. Well, one day a kid was stuck at school with no ride home after all the practices were done. Mr. Smith actually went out of his way to give the kid a ride home (which others of us did routinely). The next day some people were saying “I always though Mr. Smith was a jerk. But he gave that kid a ride home. He even went out of his way to do it. Deep down inside, he’s really a nice guy.

That’s fair enough I guess. During crunch time, Mr. Smith did the right thing.

Then there’s Mr. Jones. He’s almost always good to other people, doesn’t criticize, always does his best to be fair and decent. He’s humble and caring. You know the type. One day his temper got the better of him and he was really nasty to a kid. He dressed the kid down in front of his class, when he really shouldn’t have. So what were some of these same people saying now? “You know Mr. Jones always comes across as a nice guy. But he treated that kid really bad. Deep down inside, he’s really a jerk. He just hides it well most of the time.”

I’m exaggerating a bit, but not too much. I see this happen all the time. A lot of it has to do with timing, (What have you done for me lately?) We tend to remember the most recent thing about a person.

But it also depends on what we WANT to think about someone. Mr. Smith had a small group of influential kids who liked him, so everyone else WANTED to like him. This gave them a (very bad) reason to do that. But it shouldn't have. We shouldn't let insignificant things define our opinion of someone.

We do this in family, career, and politics. And it costs us. We can't choose our family, so of course we do our best to see the good in them. But for others, we owe it to ourselves to judge fairly.

Yet for many of us, even when almost every single thing we see tells us a particular person is a bad person, we allow ourselves to believe that "deep down inside, he or she is a good person." Because for some reason we want to believe that. I understand about "seeing the best in a person." I really do. But we also have to be realistic.

We should know better. But many don't.

I’m a Republican. Just like Ike.

The first time I voted, I voted for Gerald Ford over Jimmy Carter. While I thought they were both decent men, I really liked Ford’s idea of smaller government, and letting the market sort out our economic problems. That made sense to me. Four years later, though, I didn’t see this working out like I thought it would, so I voted for Carter over Reagan (My guy lost both elections!) Although Reagan was a decent man, who was very good at inspiring people.as time went on I came to wonder about his policies.

And now, looking back from 40 years in the future, it seems to me that the Reagan administration was the beginning of a very hard shift to the right in this country. (I’m not the first to say this; I believe it’s pretty well documented.)

This shift is in contrast to the policies of Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, a Republican President in the late 1950’s. Look at some of his beliefs:

• Against big military spending
• For equal pay for women
• For protecting Social Security
• For accepting refugees
• For raising the minimum wage
• For strong unions
• For taxing the wealthy at a much higher rate (the top marginal tax rate was 91%)

He was also responsible for the Interstate Highways (one of the single costliest government projects ever).

Today, that’s very similar to what the Democrats are asking for. But where Eisenhower was considered centrist, Democrats today are called “leftist” or “socialist” or quite often “libtards” or sometimes just “idiots.” And many even say that Democrats want these things to "control the masses." (I'm not exactly sure how that would work.) But instead, maybe Democrats are just trying to help out the less fortunate among us.

This is one time that I think looking to the past can help in forming the future. Because I would like policies similar to the 1950’s to 1960’s. Yes, I realize the world is different, so the policies can’t be exactly the same. But the ideas behind them can:

• A minimum wage that is actually a living wage.
• Less military spending
• Equal pay for women
• Protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid
• Strong unions
• Wealthy people paying their fair share in taxes

In addition, how about these? ( I think Eisenhower would embrace these.)

• I’d like college to be affordable again, like it was when I went to college.
• I’d like the government to tackle another huge project, not Interstates, but healthcare.
• I’d like policies to help the environment, including but not limited to addressing climate change (EPA was started during Nixon’s administration. Nixon of course was a Republican.)

If I had these views during the 1950’s or 1960’s, they would fit in perfectly with those of the Republican party at the time. From everything I can find, none of those things differ significantly from what Republicans stood for in the 1950’s and 1960’s.

But now when I have these ideas, I'm called a “leftist” or “socialist” or “libtard.” Of course, I’m none of those things. But that’s what I'm being told.

I wonder what they’d call “Ike” today?

I stand with Ike.

A Generational Rx

This GrayShift was published at Smerconish.com. I can't post it here, but I can link to it here.    Go HERE.

I Never Understood Propaganda, Until Now

This GrayShift was published at Smerconish.com. I can't post it here, but I can link to it here.    Go HERE.

The Myth of the Left Wing Press

This GrayShift was published at Smerconish.com. I can't post it here, but I can link to it here.

Go HERE.

What If Trump...?

Let’s pretend that in the next few weeks, Trump does something completely unethical, immoral, and illegal. Let’s say he gives Russia some classified military information in exchange for Putin helping him build a Trump Tower in Moscow.

First of all, can we all agree that that is wrong on just about every level? If you don’t agree with that, then go read something else, because you’re not going to like this. (And also, don’t call yourself a patriot.)

My question is: If he does this, how will he be held accountable? Here are the normal possibilities.

1) The Department of Justice investigates him. Doubtful. The DOJ is supposed to be independent of the president, and as far as I know, always has been. But that is not the case here. Attorney General William Barr has gone on the record over and over defending the president, as if the president is his client. Barr is also implicated in the Ukraine situation. I think we can be pretty sure that Barr would let it go.

2) Local Judicial Districts, such as SDNY, or the FBI, could investigate. Nope, Barr just issued an order, that from now until the election, nobody can initiate an investigation of any political candidate without his approval. That’s not normal.

(Besides, the DOJ ruling is that a sitting president cannot be indicted, or even investigated, for crimes.)

3) The Senate could investigate. Well, that’s not going to happen. They’ve made it clear they will not cross Trump, no matter what. That’s a given.

4) Maybe the House. And they might. But no Trump supporter is going to believe them, because they would yell things like “All you do is investigate, just because you hate Trump.”

5) That leaves the press/news media. And that could happen. But Trump has that covered as well. Most Trump supporters believe that anyone except Fox is fake news. So no matter how much evidence is uncovered on Trump, Fox will not cover it. So his supporters will not believe it, if they even know about it. They will portray it as “enough already” and even independents might say “let’s move on.”

So if Trump does something horrible? As far as I can see, there is no possible vehicle to make Trump supporters believe it. The Justice Department, Congress, or the media either won’t cover it, or won’t be believed by them.

So the best that could happen is that the non-Trump supporters will go all in. Nobody else will. But since Republicans control most of the power structure, he won’t be prosecuted. He won’t be impeached. There will be no real consequences.

Realistically, Trump can do whatever he wants. Without any real worries. Sadly, this isn’t just a hypothetical. Something like this could happen.

And probably will.

Here, right matters. Truth matters.

I’m retired, at least in the winter. So I have time. And I’ve been watching the Senate impeachment trial, off and on. I admit that I have followed the Ukraine story more closely than most, so not much has surprised me.

I was surprised, however, at how much detail the House managers used to make their case, and how complete and ironclad their argument seems to be.

To me, it’s very clear that what President Trump did was wrong. I’m not really sure at this point how anyone can argue otherwise, and I don't think the President's lawyers really will. Whether you think what he has done rises to impeachment level is, of course, a judgement call.

But, I just heard Adam Schiff give final remarks for Thursday’s session. While the last 10 minutes was spell-binding, at least to me, this part here was just so powerful. (The link is here.)

Here's what Mr. Schiff said:

Colonel Vindman said "Here right matters. Here right matters." Well let me tell you something. If right doesn't matter, if right doesn't matter, it doesn't matter how good the constitution is, it doesn't matter how brilliant the framers were, it doesn't matter how good or bad our advocacy in this trial is.  It doesn't matter how well written the oath of impartiality is. If right doesn't matter, we're lost. If the truth doesn't matter, we're lost...It's what's made us the greatest nation on earth. No constitution can protect us, if right doesn't matter anymore. And you know you can't trust this president to do what's right for this country; you can trust he will do what's right for Donald Trump. He'll do it now, he's done it before, he'll do it for the next several months, he'll do it in the election if he's allowed to. This is why, if you find him guilty, you must find that he should be removed. Because right matters. Because right matters. And the truth matters. Otherwise we are lost.

Damn!

I stayed in my lane. I shouldn't have.

I was a teacher for 35 years. And I think I was pretty good. At least I did my best.

One of the things I really tried to get across to my students was to think critically and independently. To not just accept what is easiest, or what is popular. Of course, I didn’t tell them I was doing it; I tried to be somewhat subtle about it. I taught many “life lessons” that were not necessarily related to science. Again, I didn’t call them “life lessons” but that’s what they were.

As a chemistry and physics teacher, I stuck to those subjects. Sure, my life lessons got off the subject quite a bit (which my students loved--anything was better to many of them than science!) But I was careful, always careful, to never show MY own opinions. And stay away from real controversial subjects.  I didn’t want to unfairly influence them in things where I really had no right.

And while that seemed right, looking back I'm just not sure.

I have a lot of former students who are Facebook friends now. And I sometimes don't understand what I see. It’s not that they have different opinions from me, which I have no problem with. Instead, it’s that some don’t use any critical thinking skills. They seem to accept whatever story fits what they already think. Even when I jump into a thread and give facts, data, graphs, quotes, etc., most of them just pretend I never said it and keep on commenting as they were before. Even when I’ve proved that what they’re saying is non-factual, or incorrect.

I'm not sure I should have stayed out of controversial subjects when I was teaching. But I “stayed in my lane” and didn’t venture there. And I'm not sure I was right.

Because while I tried to teach my students critical thinking, it was difficult when just dealing with scientific topics. If I had tackled things like climate change and other "political" topics more directly, I think I would have been more effective. And I'm sure I could have done it without “preaching” or standing for any “side,” other than the side of truth.

For many, if something reinforces their own assumptions, they believe it. If it doesn’t, they don’t. That bothers me. They are lacking critical thinking skills, unable to differentiate truth from fiction, fact from propaganda, good from bad. And yes, I tried to teach them this from a science perspective--if an experiment doesn’t come out as you expect it to, that doesn’t mean the experiment is wrong, but maybe you're expectations were. It means you repeat it, many times if necessary, until you KNOW what is right.

But I think I would have been more effective teaching critical thinking if I had applied it to things that really mattered in their lives, rather than just science. But for the most part, I didn’t.

And I think I should have.

Don't Get Fooled Again

I remember in 2003. It was after 9/11, and we had already invaded Afghanistan. Even for those of us who don’t like war, we could understand that. Afghanistan had been home to Al Qaeda, who was responsible for the attacks.

But then Bush wanted to attack Iraq. We all knew they had nothing to do with the attacks. But our president told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. As good, patriotic Americans, most of us believed him. I know I did. And although I didn’t like war, I was all for this one. I remember thinking "The Iraqis better be scared. The USA is coming after them."

Also about that time, there were lots of protests against this upcoming possible war. I remember watching a march by a bunch of uber-liberal idiotic actors, who told us that if we got into an Iraq war, it would be a mistake, and we would be in there for a long time. And there were other protests by other idiots--hippies and libtards and pacifists and people like that.

The people I trusted told me they were all wrong. This would be a quick war; of course it would be. We had the military might of the entire USA armed forces. We’d be in and out. Quick, easy. We KNEW that.

Now, with over a half-million deaths later, we’re still there. The smart people I trusted were wrong. I was wrong. Our president had either lied, or made very grave errors, depending on who you believe.

The liberal actors and all the other libtards--they were right.

Now, 17 years later, the same “smart people” are telling us that our attacks on Iran make a lot of sense. And if Iran responds, we should bomb the crap out of them. They say “Don’t mess with the US” and “Iran should be very scared” and cool testosterone shit like that.

Nope, not this time. We have no reason to go to war. We've done too much already, let's not do more. There is such a thing as diplomacy.

I won't support a war this time. I won’t get fooled again.