EclectEcon

Plastic in the Ocean: North America is NOT the problem

We are constantly being lectured about how we need to cut down on our use of plastics so we can save the oceans.

It's like lecturing everyone who shows up at a meeting on time about how horrible it is to be late all the time.

To all my friends who use plastics, let me quote Robin Williams from Good Will Hunting: "It's not your fault."

From the Trono Globe and Mail:

[I]n the developed world, most of the waste is properly disposed of, thanks to waste management systems few of us think about or even notice. North America is the source of just 0.9 per cent of the world’s “mismanaged” plastic, meaning plastic that could wind up in the ocean. Almost all our junk ends up in landfills (or incinerators). There are many good reasons to rue this but the state of the oceans isn’t one.

So where does the plastic that is choking the oceans come from? Mostly, the developing world. ...

By far the worst sources of plastic pollution are rivers whose basins are heavily populated with poor people who lack access to proper waste disposal. A recent study estimated 90 per cent of all river-borne plastic pollution comes from just 10 rivers: eight in Asia, two in Africa. ...

But a reasonable person wouldn’t fault developing countries for lacking a capacity that we in the wealthy world only developed relatively recently and at an expense they can’t afford. A reasonable person would say we’re rich, they’re not, so let’s fund them to develop the waste disposal systems needed to make their lives better and clean up the oceans we all share. (Of course, China is now wealthy enough to develop its own waste disposal, and happily for the world the government has started to aggressively tackle the problem.)

Less charitably, the critical role of the developing world is being ignored because no one in this country stands to gain – in votes, eyeballs, or donations – by talking about waste disposal in the developing world.

Whatever the explanation, it is a weird sort of narcissism to look at a global problem and assume it is all about us. If we are to make a difference, we must get over ourselves.

Why I Went to Seminary....and Why I Left

My sister recently decided to embark on a programme of studies for a divinity degree, beginning with a course on the Old Testament. She wrote to ask me why I decided to go to theological seminary in 1965. Here is what I answered (only slightly edited):

This is somewhat embarrassing. Oh well, here goes:

 

As an undergraduate in the early 1960s, I was a student radical (of sorts). I decided I wanted to help change the world, especially in the realm of civil rights. I figured people went to church because of social pressure and while they were in church I'd have a captive audience and could set them all straight about how the world should work. Yes, I was that arrogant. 

 

Also, seminaries had financial aid available, and that certainly helped. I was accepted at both McCormick and Chicago Theological Seminary [CTS] but CTS was VERY active in civil rights (Jesse Jackson was a year ahead of me there, and the seminary became Martin Luther King's headquarters in the summer on 1966). They recruited me very actively despite my awful undergrad record, so I went there. I'm glad I did. It was a valuable part of my continuing emotional and intellectual growth. 

Old Testament. I never took the courses! It was winter term my second year at CTS that the dean said I had to take the Old Testament courses, and I explained to him that actually I had decided I didn't want to stay in seminary. He was a kind man. I offered to relinquish my scholarship, but he said I could keep it; and he let me register through the seminary for more math and economics courses at the University of Chicago.

 

Why did I leave seminary? I realized I didn't belong there. 

 

In the summer after my first year, I started rereading economics and realized how much I liked it. I also started reading Milton Friedman (famous economist who had been criticized by all the east coast liberal elitist interventionist profs at Carleton College) and realized how much of what he said seemed right. But the crunch came one weekend when I was supposed to give a sermon at a small church on the near SW side of Chicago. I had the sermon written by Thursday and then started reading Elmer Gantry by Sinclair Lewis. I don't know why; maybe I knew where I was and just needed a push. 

 

By Saturday night I had finished the book. I set it down and said something like. "That's me. I'm just a hypocrite. I don't believe any of this stuff, at least not the way the people in that church will think I mean it. I've been using Rudolf Bultmann's notion of demythologizing to come to grips with everything I've been studying, but I've been demythologizing everyone else's demythologizations. I don't believe this stuff. I know it. I can't do this."

 

Somehow, I got through the sermon and church service the next day, but that was it. 

 

   

 

   

Confrontation, Responses, and (Bayesian) Priors

We all have reasonably strong views about the world, how it operates, and how we think it should operate. These strong views, or priors, affect how we interpret events.

So let me ask readers to pick an issue about which you have strong views. What would it take to get you to change your views?

Example:

One of my all-time favourite economics professors, the late nobel laureate Robert Fogel, was once a communist organizer. He became a Chicago-school near libertarian type economist because communism was wrong about the failures of capitalism.

Counterexample:

I have friends who are so strongly opposed to abortion, nothing would ever change their minds.

The former is a more scholarly approach; the latter is a more religious or moral approach.

So what would it take to get you to change your mind about ________?

For me:

• Minimum wages. I think they're wrong; I don't think that on average they help all the people they're intended to help; I think that in general gubmnt intrusion into markets inhibits economic growth and makes future generations of poor people much worse off than they would be if we had more economic growth. I'm nearly religious on this. I'm not sure I could be convinced to change my views (informed by the study of economics and the studies I've read about minimum wages).
• Global warming. I was skeptical about how much we're experiencing, but I'm beginning to shed that skepticism in the light of increasing data and information from some people I tend to trust. I'm still somewhat skeptical about how much is caused by humans. I'm not qualified to even try to understand the studies. I doubt that much we might do in Canada or possibly in North America will change things much. I do think we should prepare and help prepare to deal with it if, as, and to the extent we experience it.
• Coventry School and the the confrontation at the Lincoln Memorial. This incident is what prompted this post. What would prompt you to change your take on the situation? What if the boys had been from a secular school and carrying copies of Michelle Obama's book?

Seriously, for each contentious issue, I think it would be a good idea for us to ask ourselves, "Is it possible that I can be convinced otherwise?" If not, we're debating religion, which I'm willing to do in some settings [do we have a multi-verse with 11 dimensions? what caused the big bang? etc.]

and as I wrote [edited here] in a comment on my Facebook page earlier today:

I shouldn't do this, I know, but my views:
1. I'm anti-Trump, as I hope most of you know. But I'm probably anti-Trump for reasons different from those that many of you have. At the same time I know some very smart and caring people who are pro-Trump. My point? Don't use your or anyone else's views about Trump to judge a particular situation. Please.
2. I'm not anti-abortion, but I'm pro-adoption (my daughter was adopted). Colour me woefully ambivalent on the topic. My point: please don't use my or anyone else's views on abortion to judge a particular situation.
3. From what I've read and seen, the school the boys were from teaches stuff I strongly disagree with. That doesn't mean I hate these boys; that doesn't mean they were in the wrong at this confrontation.
4. I am not a fan of MAGA (I actually had to google it when the incident was first written about).
5. In this incident, no matter what you might think about the boys and their school and their hats, what did they do wrong in this confrontation? Especially I don't know what the one student did who was confronted by Phillips. He smiled or smirked, as we were taught to do in the Civil Rights movement; he reacted non-violently. 
6. If you condemn the boys for their behaviour in this instance because of their school, their hats, their parents, their politics, their views on abortion, etc. you've missed the point I was trying to make.
7. Like the writer of this Atlantic piece, I've held some wildly different, and (many would say) hateful or objectionable views over my lifetime. I have done some pretty uncaring things in my lifetime. But I hope people will not use those views or actions to judge me in any given situation. I know some do and some have, but please keep this in mind when writing about this particular situation. 

I'm sure I could write more. I probably will. I'm feeling so despondent though because of the comments I've read, both yesterday and today.😕

Addendum: Many of us can, and do, change our views on religious-type topics as well. I was once a conscientious objector to war. I think I may have been drifting away from that moral position but 9-11 sealed it for me. I was no longer a conscientious objector after that event. Also, I was once an atheist but cosmological questions turned me into a devout agnostic.

O Tannenbaum

I had to wait for the snow to stop and the wind to die down a bit. The surface was a crusty, icy cover over a bunch of snow.

Links to most of my previous snow-stomp art (in reverse chronological order):

      O Tannenbaum (this post)

      Nativity Scene

Special Weather Statement

Think Tropics

Qubix

Valentine, 2016

Paisley'd Circles

Happy New Year, 2016

The House of the Rising Sun

Easter Eggs

A weak pattern in the blowing snow.

The same pattern after some melting

New Year's Champagne

Tiptoe Through the Tulips

Happy Valentine's Day

Cabaret

A Christmas Tree (my first effort)

Palestinian Christians

Quoted from the Elder of Ziyon [EE: emphasis added]:

Khaled Abu Toameh: Palestinians: Erasing Christian History

For Palestinian Christians, the destruction of the ancient Byzantine church ruins is yet a further attempt by Palestinian Muslim leaders to efface both Christian history and signs of any Christian presence in the West Bank and Gaza, under the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas. A growing number of Christians feel they are being systematically targeted by both the PA and Hamas for being Christians.
Bulldozers were used to destroy some of the church artifacts; some Palestinian Christians accused both Hamas and the PA of copying ISIS tactics to demolish historic sites.
"Where are the heads of the churches in Jerusalem and the world?... Where are the Vatican and UNESCO? Where are the leaders and politicians who talk, talk, talk about national unity and the preservation of holy sites? Or is this a collective conspiracy to end our existence and history in the East?" — Sami Khalil, a Christian from the West Bank city of Nablus.
The plight of Palestinian Christians does not interest the international community. That is because Israel cannot be blamed for demolishing the antiquities. If the current policy against Christians persists, the day will come when no Christians will be left in Bethlehem.

I Hope Everyone Supporting "Multi-Culturalism" Understands This

From Foreign Affairs,

Woman accused of adultery stoned to death by Taliban

On Wednesday, an Afghan official confirmed the Oct. 24 murder of a 22-year-old Afghan woman accused of adultery (Post, Guardian). The woman, identified only as Rokhshana, was forced to stand in a deep hole in the ground while being stoned in Ghor province, according to governor spokesman Abdul Hai Khateby. The stoning occurred after the Taliban’s local tribal council found her guilty of having pre-marital sex with her fiancé, and the fiancé was lashed (Aljazeera). A video of the stoning appeared online late on Monday and has been widely discussed on social media in Afghanistan.

"Under God"? Gimme a break

I have been thinking about posting about this for some time, but have been reluctant. I may lose some FB friends over this, but here goes:

For those who don't know, I was born and raised in the USA.

When the US changed its pledge of allegiance to the flag in 1954 to add the prepositional phrase "under God", as a very young student I was confused and I think more than a bit disappointed. I saw no reason to add that phrase. I was, at the time, being raised in a solid Christian family, but it was in the Congregational church, which had a somewhat liberal (?) view of theology. I had no idea what I believed or didn't believe theologically, but believe me I revealed these doubts very rarely.

I saw then, and I see now, absolutely no reason for that phrase ("Under God") to have been added to the Pledge of Allegiance. I had a somewhat negative reaction when it was added, even at the tender age I was (grade school?) at the time. My feeling then, as I recall, somewhat vaguely, was "Why add that? It doesn't matter, and (believe it or not, I think I had this thought) I thought we had separation of church and state in the United States.

And only recently did I realize the US had replaced "E pluribus unum" on its coins. Good grief. "E pluribus unum" is a wonderful statement about the history of the USA. The replacement "In God we trust" seems so different. It denies the history of the US (albeit indirectly) and borders on turning the US into a theocracy (heaven forbid! [incongruity intended]).

What prompted this post? Earlier today I read yet another Facebook posting about the pledge of allegiance to the US flag (which strikes me as idolatry that Moses would have discouraged). Here it is:

My reaction? Yea Pepsi! If this is correct, I may have to switch from Coke Zero to whatever Pepsi sells.

The Universe is Dying

According to this article, the universe as we know it is dying [h/t Jack]. Stars are burning out and energy is being dispersed.

New data further confirms [sic] that our 13.8 billion-year-old universe is well past its prime, and is slowly fading out.

The Australian-led project known as Galaxy And Mass Assembly (GAMA) has been measuring the energy output of stars for the last few years, and the team of 100 scientists discovered that the output is only half what it was 2 billion years ago.

“The universe has basically sat down on the sofa, pulled up a blanket and is about to nod off for an eternal doze,” said Simon Driver,  a leader of the GAMA project ... and a professor at the University of Western Australia, in a press release.

When Jack sent me this link, he added,

But for those of us who believe our personal ‘100 years’ is all there is, it’s a yawn ……..

My response, somewhat expanded here:

Like you, I believe that our personal "100 years" or so is all there is. I guess that means I can probably accept my own mortality with at least some equanimity.

 

But you know what? For some dumb (?) and inexplicable reason it saddens me that the earth will likely be demolished in the next 5b years, if not sooner. 

 

I seem able to accept my own mortality, but  to accept the mortality of all human life on earth and, what's more, of the universe as we know it??? I understand the silliness of this, but it creates a sense of loss for me.

 

Why do I find this so frickn difficult, even infuriating? If the universe is going to end, why "on earth" was the universe (as we know it) even created? Are we just some game or toy for something/someone else in a multi-verse?

 

 Or is this all some randomness in which time and space are both non-Euclidean and non-linear?

 

And this question leads to one of Ms Eclectic's favourite questions, "Why is there anything?"

 JR (my favourite drug dealer) added (with less whimsy than it might initially seem),

[Our] universe is expanding, communicating with other universes ([via] black holes), and who knows, it might even procreate by fission or budding or by exchanging universal fluids with another universe one day:  this sounds like living more than dying.

 

What would Jonathan Livingston Seagull do?

Speculation and THE Bomb

My guess is that Iran will have working nuclear weapons and missiles capable of "delivering" them within the next five or fewer years. (somehow using the verb "deliver" with launching a nuclear weapon cries for the use of quotation marks in my mind.)

My guess, also, is that the US and the West will do nothing more to impede this process, other than issue very strong and very meaningless proclamations and rhetoric.

I also am guessing that Israel would love to stop this but will be pressured by the West not to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.

As a result, I expect two things from Israel:

1. They will (continue to?) have bombers with nuclear warheads in the air and at the ready 24/7, prepared to annihilate Iran, or portions thereof, should Iran send any nuclear weapons to attack Israel. Iran's leaders will assume this. The only question then, is how much their religious fanaticism and hatred of Israel will overcome the presumed deterrent effect of Israel's potential retaliation. [Former students will recognize this as part of my exposition of game theory and the prisoners' dilemma. See this].
2. At the same time, with heavy assistance from the US, Israel will continue to work on its missile defense shield. The shield has been at best only partially successful against incoming rockets from Gaza, and it must be perfected to protect Israel from the possibility of incoming nuclear missiles from Iran (or elsewhere?).

What if bombers in the air and a missile shield don't deter Iran?

• In anticipation of this possibility, Israel could launch a pre-emptive strike [a la 1967]. It worked against Iraq later, too. For some reason I expect Israel would be VERY reluctant to do this, but I wouldn't rule it out.
• Alternatively, Israel could have a good enough missile shield system in place that they could intercept the missile over Iran (or Iraq or Syria). Despite fairly compelling evidence to the contrary, Iran (and others surely) would claim that Israel launched the weapon. Sadly this lie would be believed by too many Israelphobes.

My major hope is that the threat of mutual annihilation will deter the outbreak of a nuclear war in the middle east. I'm not entirely optimistic, though. Sometimes information is imperfect, sometimes errors in reasoning are made, and sometimes determination and beliefs affect decisions in unbelievable ways.

This Is What Freedom of Religion Should Mean

I love this statement, quoted in part by Steve Horwitz on Facebook with his introductory sentence:

Hey other traditionalist religious groups, this is how you do it in a pluralist liberal democracy (it's also why I'd never be an Orthodox Jew, but...):

"“In response to the decisions announced today by the United States Supreme Court with reference to the issue of legal recognition of same sex marriage, we reiterate the historical position of the Jewish faith, enunciated unequivocally in our Bible, Talmud and Codes, which forbids homosexual relationships and condemns the institutionalization of such relationships as marriages. Our religion is emphatic in defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. Our beliefs in this regard are unalterable. At the same time, we note that Judaism teaches respect for others and we condemn discrimination against individuals.

We are grateful that we live in a democratic society, in which all religions are free to express their opinions about social issues and to advocate vigorously for those opinions. The reason we opt to express our viewpoint in a public forum is because we believe that our Divine system of law not only dictates our beliefs and behaviors, but also represents a system of universal morality, and therefore can stake a claim in the national discourse. That morality, expressed in what has broadly been labeled Judeo-Christian ethics, has long had a place in American law and jurisprudence.

We also recognize that no religion has the right to dictate its beliefs to the entire body politic and we do not expect that secular law will always align with our viewpoint. Ultimately, decisions on social policy remain with the democratic process, and today the process has spoken and we accord the process and its result the utmost respect." [EE: emphasis added]

Now let's hope the processes they have given so much respect to give that respect back and allow them to have, in their words "appropriate accommodations and exemptions for institutions and individuals who abide by religious teachings that limit their ability to support same-sex relationships."

I do have some difficulties with the last paragraph, however. If a religious organization had discrimination against blacks or Jews as one of its tenets, on the one hand I would argue the state should dominate; on the other I would favour freedom of association. And that leaves me in a state of limbo. I expect the same might well be true in the case of religions that discriminate against LGBTs, or religious orders that admit only one sex into membership, etc.

More Wisdom from Bjørn Lomborg

Lomborg understands that in a world of scarcity, choices involve costs and that trade-offs must be made.

Pope Francis's concern for the poor is clear, so it is understandable that climate change is the topic of his forthcoming Encyclical — a Papal letter that is sent out to the world. Climate change will hit the most destitute people first and worst.

But the climate policies of today will do little for the poor. This doesn’t mean that we should ignore climate change. There are two compelling actions that should be part of the Pope’s prescription. Phasing out subsidies for fossil fuels would not only help the planet, it would free money to spend on education and health. And the rich world needs to increase investments in green energy research, to speed the day when renewable energy sources can outcompete fossil fuels

But we also need to recognize that the actions that would most help the world's poor are not climate policies. Ensuring freer trade, greater access to family planning, and nutritional interventions cost a fraction of expensive, inefficient climate policies. When helping the world's poorest is the goal, these are the investments that would truly make the biggest difference.

The above is what Lomborg posted on Facebook with this link to a recent op-ed piece he wrote.

The Sanctity of Marriage

Another Low-Carb, High-Fat Diet

How about buttered coffee? Sounds good to me, but even before reading this article, I had developed a taste for having my coffee with whipping cream (unwhipped) in it.

It's a lengthy article, and so here are a couple of snippets:

[Asprey] completely dismantled the food pyramid—the 1992 chart that advised people to eat a carbohydrate-rich diet and very few fats—and argues that the proper diet should consist of as much as 70 percent fat. It’s similar to the paleo diet, the regimen that forbids any food not available to prehistoric man, with some modifications, like allowing white rice. “Your hormones are made of saturated fat, your brain is made of fat, and the membrane of every cell in your body is made of fat,” Asprey says. “When you go on a low-fat diet, you limit the performance of so many key systems in your body that it’s no wonder you have cravings and feel tired.” ...

“I used to weigh 300 pounds,” Asprey tells Gotzler. “I worked out six days a week, and I cut my calories to around 1,800 calories per day for almost two years. And I was still fat. I’m eating salads and my friends are eating onion rings, and they’re still thin. I said, ‘This isn’t working.’” ...

Asprey found some low-mold beans from Guatemala and blended them with the coconut oil and grass-fed butter, which is higher in omega-3 fatty acid than regular butter or cream. It was delicious. Bulletproof coffee was born. Asprey envisioned the beverage as a 450-calorie breakfast alternative that would suppress hunger and provide mental clarity.

Sounds like a lot of the evidence we read that convinced us to move toward Atkins-type low-carb, high-fat diets. If only I could stop eating the cheap-carb, refined wheat, refined sugar things I find so tasty.

BEDMAS -- misleading mnemonic

There's a math problem raging on Facebook that depends on the order of operations.

Too many smart people have memorized the mnemonic BEDMAS and misapply it.

From Wikipaedia,

These mnemonics may be misleading when written this way, especially if the user is not aware that multiplication and division are of equal precedence, as are addition and subtraction. Using any of the above rules in the order "addition first, subtraction afterward" would also give the wrong answer to the problem:

.

The correct answer is 9 (and not 5, which we get when we do the addition first and then the subtraction). The best way to understand a combination of addition and subtraction is to think of the subtraction as addition of a negative number. In this case, we see the problem as the sum of positive ten, negative three, and positive two:

A different perspective that might help clear things up: Within the multiplication and division groups, start at the left and work right. Similarly, within the addition and subtraction groups, start at the left and work to the right.

But I doubt if this will stop or slow the battles on Facebook.

If only people would Google things and look at Wikipaedia...

More on Earth Day

The inestimable Steve Horwitz writes on his FB page,

Ronald Bailey's prediction 15 years ago about what Earth Day will be like in 30 years continues to be on target. The world has never been cleaner and healthier, yet we are, according to the professional purveyors of doom, always on the edge of catastrophe. Or at least so says this screaming CNN Headline. http://www.cnn.com/…/…/sutter-climate-two-degrees/index.html

Instead, celebrate Earth Day by going to Cato's Human Progress website and get the real state of the planet.

humanprogress.org

 

Related articles

The Political Economy of Envy

18 spectacularly wrong apocalyptic predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year

Ronald Bailey Reviews the Big Coffee Table Book of Doom to Celebrate Earth Day 45

Prizes for Being Wrong about the Environment?

Steve Horwitz posted this on Facebook. It is a wonderful suggestion:

[W]hen our environmentalist friends DO make predictions that can be falsified, they are often very wrong. I still maintain that Reason or some other libertarian organization should give an annual Paul Ehrlich Award to scholars whose predictions have turned out to be spectacularly wrong. (Ehrlich is ineligible as he'd win it every year.)

"Finally, think about this question, posed by Ronald Bailey in 2000: What will Earth look like when Earth Day 60 rolls around in 2030? Bailey predicts a much cleaner, and much richer future world, with less hunger and malnutrition, less poverty, and longer life expectancy, and with lower mineral and metal prices. But he makes one final prediction about Earth Day 2030: “There will be a disproportionately influential group of doomsters predicting that the future–and the present–never looked so bleak.” In other words, the hype, hysteria and spectacularly wrong apocalyptic predictions will continue, promoted by the “environmental grievance hustlers.”"

We are halfway there and Ron's predictions, unlike those of the doomsayers, have largely come to pass.

Steve then linked to this article.

18 spectacularly wrong apocalyptic predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year

The Armenian Genocide

As I mentioned earlier, I'm delighted that the Pope declared the massacre of 1.5 million Armenians to be a genocide. The evidence certainly suggests that it was.

Was it also a Jihad?

Jeff Jacoby suggests it had some pretty strong similarities to modern-day jihads.

Speaking at the Vatican during a Sunday Mass to mark the centenary of the slaughter, the pope said it is “widely considered the first genocide of the 20th century” — a quote from Pope John Paul II, who used nearly the same words in 2001. But Francis went further, equating the destruction of the Armenians to the Nazi Holocaust and the Soviet bloodbaths under Stalin. And he linked the genocidal Ottoman assault on Armenia, the world’s oldest Christian nation, with the epidemic of violence against Christians today, especially by such radical Islamist terror groups as ISIS, Boko Haram, and Al Shabab. ...

Talaat Pasha, the powerful Ottoman interior minister during World War I, certainly didn’t disguise his objective. “The Government . . . has decided to destroy completely all the indicated [Armenians] persons living in Turkey,” he brusquely reminded officials in Aleppo in a September 1915 dispatch. “An end must be put to their existence . . . and no regard must be paid to either age or sex, or to conscientious scruples.” ...

That key fact is one the pope, to his credit, refuses to downplay: Armenians were victims not only of genocide, but also of jihad. In imploring his listeners on Sunday to hear the “muffled and forgotten cry” of endangered Christians who today are “ruthlessly put to death — decapitated, crucified, burned alive — or forced to leave their homeland,” Francis was reminding the world that the price of irresolution in the face of determined Islamist violence is as steep as ever.

The jihadists of 1915 murdered “bishops and priests, religious women and men, the elderly, and even defenseless children and the infirm.” The world knew what was happening; the grisly details were extensively reported at the time. Just as they are now, and with as little effect.

However, see this from today's NYTimes, which agrees the conflict was between Muslims and Armenians, but which also highlights the political (more than the religious) nature of the genocide:

“They threw them in that hole, all the men,” said Vahit Sahin, 78, sitting at a cafe in the center of the village, reciting the stories that have passed through generations.

Mr. Sahin turned in his chair and pointed toward the monastery. “That side was Armenian.” He turned back. “This side was Muslim. At first, they were really friendly with each other.”

A hundred years ago, amid the upheaval of World War I, this village and countless others across eastern Anatolia became killing fields as the desperate leadership of the Ottoman Empire, having lost the Balkans and facing the prospect of losing its Arab territories as well, saw a threat closer to home.

Worried that the Christian Armenian population was planning to align with Russia, a primary enemy of the Ottoman Turks, officials embarked on what historians have called the first genocide of the 20th century: Nearly 1.5 million Armenians were killed, some in massacres like the one here, others in forced marches to the Syrian desert that left them starved to death.

The genocide was the greatest atrocity of the Great War.

The Arch of Anonymous Losers

Over a decade ago, my older son (aka David Ricardo Palmer) and I constructed this arch. It was displayed that spring at both the Bright's Grove and the Blyth art galleries.

Our artists' statement is a reflection of the existentialism inherent in the Myth of Sisyphus.

L' Arc des Perdants Anonymes

(The Arch of the Anonymous Losers):

A Celebration of the Existential Quest

by

John Palmer and Matthew Palmer

Like many triumphal arches, this sculpture is a celebration. In this work, we celebrate the process of continued search and quest despite not reaching a specific goal or prize.

Constructed entirely of losing cups from the 2004 Tim Hortons "Roll Up the Rim to Win" contest, our work is rooted in the ontological search for meaning. People who search for meaning in life are often frustrated, feeling lost when they are unable to arrive at some clear and definitive sense of purpose. The existential answer lies in the joy and value of the search activity itself.

We see the experience of playing the Tim Horton lottery as a reflection of this search. People buy cups of coffee hoping to win a big prize. They lose. They go back for more. And the process makes people smile. This simple, day-to-day process is a symbolic representation of the joie de vivre that is evinced in the human experiential quest for meaning.

L' Arc des Perdants Anonymes is constructed with nearly 3000 used, losing cups from the Tim Hortons 2004 contest. The artists used approximately 10 pounds of glue sticks to construct the sections of the structure. These sections are held together in places with 3M hook and loop material. The artists gratefully acknowledge the assistance of their families and persons at their respective workplaces for their assistance.

For more photos and information, see this.

Parallel Multiverses?

Ever since I read about the possibility of multiverses, I have been intrigued. Since then, I had imagined that the multiverses would exist because of the possibility that there are really 11 dimensions in the universe, but this article [via Jack] presents a different possibility: there are multiverses out there all within our given 3- or 4-dimensional universe but we don't see them because they are so far away their light could not have gotten to us yet.

Our definition of "the universe" has been changing since the invention of the first telescope when we peered out into the cosmos and learned that the Earth is not the totality of existence.    

But the universe is a lot bigger than what we could ever see with a telescope.... Our universe is just the spherical amount of light that has had time to reach us. If we wait another billion years for more light to reach us, our definition of the universe would change... [emphasis added].

Someone standing on a planet trillions of lightyears away would have a completely different picture of "the universe" based on how much light has reached their planet.

By definition there's no way to get to these other bubble universes because we'd have to travel faster than the speed of light. [emphasis in the original].

What a neat perspective!

 

Crusades and the Jews

Most of us knew that the Crusades were undertaken to capture Jerusalem and Israel from the Muslims and that many, many Muslims were killed during those wars. What is less well-known is that the first major victims of the first Crusade were Europe's Jews.

This history is told eloquently here in the New York Times Sunday Review.

THE first victims of the First Crusade, inspired in 1096 by the supposedly sacred mission of retaking Jerusalem from Muslims, were European Jews. Anyone who considers it religiously and politically transgressive to compare the behavior of medieval Christian soldiers to modern Islamic terrorism might find it enlightening to read this bloody story, as told in both Hebrew and Christian chronicles. ...

Just as the Crusades were integrally linked to Roman Catholicism in the Middle Ages, terrorist movements today are immersed in a particular anti-modern interpretation of Islam. This does not imply that a majority of Muslims agree with violent religious ideology. It does mean that the terrorists’ brand of belief plays a critical role in their savage assault on human rights.

Cultural ignoramuses portrayed President Obama’s references to the Crusades and the Inquisition at the recent National Prayer Breakfast as an excuse for Islamic terrorism, but the president’s allusions could and should have been used as an opportunity to reflect on the special damage inflicted in many historical contexts by warriors seeking conquest in the name of their god.

The details set out there are appalling: Jews were forced to pay protection money, forcibly converted to Christianity, or exiled. Thousands were killed even after having paid extortionate protection money.

A similar account appears here.

The Crusades turned into campaigns of slaughter, rape, and pillage, and woe to the poor Jews in the way. Indeed, the Crusades mark the first large-scale European mob violence directed against Jews which is going to become, unfortunately, the pattern for the next hundreds of years. The later pogroms are just going to be a repeat of this idea.

The Jews were not the only ― and in fact, not the primary ― victims of the Crusaders. Muslims were.  ...

[A]bout 30%-50% of the Jewish community of Europe met its end. Some 10,000 Jews of an estimated population of about 20,000-30,000 were slaughtered by Crusaders mobs.

And the conclusion from the Sunday Review article:

What we actually see today is a standard of medieval behavior upheld by modern fanatics who, like the crusaders, seek both religious and political power through violent means. They offer a ghastly and ghostly reminder of what the Western world might look like had there never been religious reformations, the Enlightenment and, above all, the separation of church and state.

"...A Song of Great Social and Political Importance..."

Janis Joplin's, "Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz" lampoons the misuses of religion and prayer, focusing on human greed. I thought it was great when I first heard it, and I still like it.

Cartoonists React: Je Suis Charlie

Numerous cartoonists have reacted to Islamic terrorist murder of the staff at a French publication that wrote satire, criticizing Islamic extremists. Many are summarized in the Washington Post.

My favourite captures the essence of the attacks on "Freedom of Expression".

The Importance of Freedom of Expression

Since I began blogging nearly a decade ago, I have argued that freedom of expression must take precedence when it conflicts with freedom of (or from) religion. Perhaps it is because I'm an academic; perhaps it is because I am mostly non-religious. But whenever I see any religious group try to stifle expression, including satire of their religion or their leader, I am upset and concerned.

The latest incident involves murders of at least 12 people in France because of  cartoons like this and the proposed issue making fun of sharia law:

"100 lashes if you don't die of laughter" is what some people say is the proper translation.

From the CBC site:

Hooded gunmen shot dead at least 12 people at the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical publication firebombed in the past after publishing images lampooning Muslim leaders, in the worst militant attack on French soil in recent decades.

Another 20 people were injured, including five critically, in the incident. Police union official Rocco Contento described the scene inside the offices as "carnage."

 

Why is Obama's Approval Rating So High?

Conor Friedersdorf, writing in the Atlantic, marvels not that Obama's approval rating is "only" 42%; he says it should not be even that high [via Ralph]:

[H]ere's what I find alarming: Confronted with a president who 1) spied on every American; 2) covered up torture; 3) continued a War on Drugs ruinous to minorities and whole foreign nations; 4) killed hundreds of innocents in drone strikes; 5) waged war illegally and killed an American citizen without due process (while suppressing the legal reasoning used to do so); 6) let high-ranking national-security officials break the law with impunity; and 7) persecuted whistleblowers—confronted with all of those transgressions, more than four in 10 Americans still approve of the job Obama is doing. And most of them are loyal Democrats. Partisanship and tribalism are overriding the moral compass of too many liberals, who ought to be furious with Obama. National-security policies he unilaterally pursued will be harming the U.S., its moral standing, and its most vulnerable citizens for years if not decades to come, especially since Democrats are poised to make civil illibertarian Hillary Clinton their party's next leader.

And these points do not include his cozying up with Muslim fanatics, Benghazi, the devastation of health care for so many people now reduced to part-time jobs, and the cronyism with Goldman Sachs and others on Wall Street.

Holy Cosmology! Laniakea

Fifty years ago I was content with the concept of an infinite universe --- infinite in time and space. Then I started learning about expansion, deflation, the big bang, string theory, parallel universes, 11 dimensions, criticisms of string theory, etc.

I was shaken from my contentedness by the turmoil and uncertainty of it all. Ms Eclectic and I began reading more and watching more PBS-type television programmes about cosmology. I cannot even pretend to understand the mathematics and all the physics of cosmology [mired, as I am, in my basic Newtonian world outlook which struggles for even/especially/only an intuitive grasp of relativity and quantum physics], but I love trying to understand cosmology.

And so it is with pleasure and delight that I read this article [via RalphK]. It doesn't really help me understand cosmology any better, but it is a fascinating expansion of human knowledge about the earth, the Milky Way, and the universe.

[O]ur galaxy is a mere speck in a larger structure, which was just revealed for the first time by a group of scientists who created a map of more than 8,000 galaxies in an effort to understand where they fit in the universe.

The team placed the Milky Way on the outskirts of a massive, previously unknown galaxy super-cluster scientists have named Laniakea, from the Hawaiian words for "immeasurable heaven."

The finding, reported in this week's issue of the journal Nature, stems from a new mapping technique that combines not only the distances between more than 8,000 nearby galaxies, but also their motion as the universe expands and galaxies are pulled through space by gravity.

It sort of looks as if we're in suburbs of Laniakea:

Note that this is a two-dimensional map of what is surely 3 or 4 (or more?) dimensions. Where were these galaxies and other clusters 5 billion years ago? and is this a map of where astronomers think they are now or where they were when they emitted the light we see now?

"Immeasurable Heaven", Laniakea,  is a good term. I like it. And I'm thrilled with the increased understanding of the universe even if this understanding means little or nothing to our lives and struggles on earth.

 

 

Related articles

Laniakea - Our Supercluster Home

Philosophic Issues in Cosmology VIII: Foundational Propositions - Guest Post by Bob Kurland

Quantum Physics and the Supernatural

40 Things Every Self-Respecting Person

New Map Shows Where The Milky Way Galaxy Is Inside Its Supercluster

Earth's new galactic address: Laniakea supercluster

Penis-Shaped Church?

Jack sent me this article from Weird News (in Huffington Press). I know I'm being juvenile but I loved the writing and the comments.

Here is the church:

And some excerpts from the article:

This erection has church officials hot and bothered.

"We didn’t design it to be seen from above," Scott Shepherd told SaukValley.com last week. Local architect John McLane, who did not design the church, told the site he believes it's "a little bit of a stretch" to claim that the aerial view of the structure looks like a penis.  ...

The church, which is located in the town of Dixon (indeed), was designed by an architect who McLane guesses "probably" designed it that way by accident, according to SaukValley.com. ...

In any case, the church has maintained a great sense of humor about the whole thing, posting a Facebook message late last month stating, "Fig leaf coming soon."

The church's slogan is "Rising up."

Some of the comments are pretty funny.

Note to US Foreign Policy Advisors: Egypt is not Chile

I wonder if the US is just hoping that after the Egyptian military takes power, they'll become nice guys (eventually), stop killing the opposition, and (eventually) hold free elections, and (eventually) with proper guidance from smart economists, the economy will grow and people will be much better off.

After all, isn't that what happened in Chile? Pinochet and military had the socialists ousted from office and, in the process, many were killed. But eventually with help from many bright economists the economy grew much faster than it possibly could have under Allende and the socialists, and eventually democracy was restored.

But the Muslim Brotherhood is not the socialists of Chile. Its members are not nearly so likely to give in, be swallowed up, and become part of the mainstream. I hope the US is not being myopic in its strategic planning about what to do and how to react to the recent military coup and the killings of people from just about every group by members of just about every other group.

It's Sunday. Here Is JR's Version of the 23rd Psalm

(from JR, my favourite drug dealer)

 

The government is my shepherd, I shall not want.

They maketh me to lie down in green legislatures:

    They leadeth me beside the one percenters.

They restoreth my goal:  

    They leadeth me in the wrath of rightwingness for their games sake.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of markets,

I will fear no weasel, for They art with me;

Their cattle prod and Their gaffs they comfort me.

They preparest a fable for me in the presence of my frenemies:  

They anointest my Fed with toil, my taxes runneth over.

Surely debt-forgiveness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life,

and I will do swell in the house of the Gored for ever.

 

Environmentally Friendly Vatican Smoke?

From the BBC: (via Jack)

The smoke comes partly from the burning of ballot papers in a special stove in the chapel. But to colour it white or black, this smoke is mixed with that from chemical additives burnt in a second stove. Traditionally the Vatican produced the different colours by burning wet straw for white and tarry pitch for black.

Anyone who has ever made a bonfire knows that damp grass will work for the former; the less responsible of you will know that chucking old tyres or roofing felt into the flames will turn the smoke black – and what’s more, noxious, because it is then full of sooty carbon particles that can clog the lungs and are potentially carcinogenic.

It’s not concern for the environment that has led the Vatican to change its ways, however. Rather, the smoke in some previous elections came out an ambiguous grey, prompting the decision for the last conclave in 2005 to use a more reliable method based on chemical ingredients.

The Vatican has now revealed what these are. For black, it uses a mixture of potassium perchlorate, anthracene and sulphur; white comes from potassium chlorate, lactose and the conifer resin called rosin, which is often rubbed on violin bows to increase friction.

 

 

Geert Wilders Visited London, Ontario, Yesterday: some quotes and photos

Geert Wilders, outspoken Dutch critic of Islam and producer of the (in)famous film, Fitna, spoke in London, Ontario, last evening, under a cloak of secrecy and surrounded by a wall of security. 

Wilders is a well-known public figure who sees Islam as more of an ideology than a religion. During his talk, he lambasted multiculturalism. Two quotes:

Multiculturalism is the biggest disease in Europe today.

And the reason for that?

Multiculturalism would not have been such a catastrophe if it weren't for Islam.

Because of his views, his public statements, his film, and his policy proposals, Wilders' life is constantly in danger. The organizers of the evening event, the International Free Press Society, refused to advertise the dates and locations of his talks while he is in Canada. Instead, we found out about them through word-of-mouth and then had to register before receiving the information [he does have two more talks planned while he is in Canada, in case you are interested; the information is available at the IFPS website]. 

Accompanying Wilders were about 10 security personnel from The Netherlands; also the RCMP had a large security contingent on hand. We all went through a security check before being admitted to the place where he spoke.

This is just plain wrong. People speaking about religion and ideology should not live in fear for their lives and the lives of their friends and families. 

Geert Wilders:

The warm-up act for Wilders was a dialogue between Ezra Levant (of human rights and freedom of the press fame in Canada) and Sam Solomon, a noted scholar of Islam and Sharia Law; it was mostly an interview of Solomon by Levant. During that interview, Solomon (who converted to Christianity and was at times quite coy about his past) proclaimed,

If you do not hate, you cannot be a complete Muslim.

Both Wilders and Solomon are very outspoken critics of Islam.

Here is a photo I took of Solomon and Levant ( all my photos from the event: twelve-times optical zoom, no flash, from about 50 feet away):

The session was introduced by Bjorn Larsen, who recently filmed a documentary about Caledonia, freedom, and property rights and who heads up the IFPS:

One more photo of Wilders, who was extremely engaging and compelling as a speaker: