Notes for the “Occupy” Movement

Hello,

Just wanted to put my two cents in, though I’m sure you really won’t care…

Firstly: I’m glad you’re calling this an “occupation,” since many of you are getting paid by your unions to be out there, and others of you are professional protesters. That this is what you do for a living is clearly evident. Of course, there are some out there that are not getting paid, but every movement needs dupes.

Secondly: That you purport to speak for the “99%”  of us out here that are not in the upper income bracket is a joke. In fact, I find it offensive that you claim to speak for anyone other than yourselves. Please stop with the “We are the 99%” garbage. I’d wager, after listening to a few of your leaders spout their rhetoric, you might represent 1% of the fringe of the far left.

Thirdly: Most hardworking Americans want to get money from the rich the old fashioned way, by providing them a product or service that they are willing to pay good money to get.

Fourthly: You are protesting the wrong group. The present financial crisis was created by Washington bureaucrats who were trying to gain the system to get more people into home ownership. A laudable goal, to be sure, but when the means to this end consists of making it possible for anyone above room temperature to get a 110% mortgage at the height of a real estate bubble, seems to me somewhat problematic. When the inevitable defaults on these loans began, and all the devices that were backed by them failed, instead of blaming the perpetrators of the error (the politicians and “activists” who pushed for the rule changes), you march on Wall Street.  Of course, you don’t really care about the truth, you just hate capitalism.

Fifthly: Every political or economic system is unfair. Even in your cute little “General Assembly” consensus there are people who disagree with the consensus. Is it “fair” that the individual has to bow to the tyranny of the mob? Consensus is more often about who can bully everyone else into agreeing with them than it is about finding agreement.

Lastly: Well, I could go on and on, but…for the sake of brevity, I, and many many others out here in the community, are going back to work today. That is in essence our way of saying, “no, we don’t’ agree with your occupation.” At some point or another you are going to realize that most people think you are sad and pathetic. At that point you are going to have to make a decision. See, the only way you can really make your neo-Marxist dream come true, is by holding a gun to everyone’s head and saying, “You’re either with us, or against us.” Thousands of people stream across the southern border of this great nation looking for opportunity. I suppose one way to get them to stop would be to turn it into the kind of  thug-ocracy they are trying to escape.

Oh look, it’s snowing!

At the End of the Day

I can’t stand that everyone uses this awful phrase. I hear it everywhere, from Obama on down to the everyday person, and especially in discussions of news people types. It is one of the worst cliche lines in circulation presently, and it is just lazy speech that grates on the ears of anyone with half a mind on the way information is presented.

It seems to me, on balance, taking all things into account, when all is said and done, it’s as plain as the nose on your face that using that phrase is as useful as a lead balloon, and is just the tip of the iceberg to show that person’s  lack of originality, from my perspective, for what it’s worth.

Politics and Science

Science is by its nature prone to radical changes in outlook. “Based on the evidence, we conclude…” But, when confronted with new evidence that may alter the understanding, even completely reversing previously held positions, scientists have no problem flipping around to a new understanding of reality. One need only look at the long running debate over eggs, or the new conflicting studies about salt in our diet, to see that concrete knowledge about how science understands things is actually tenuous at best.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/health/research/04salt.html

In the late 1950s the fundamental driving theory of mountain building was called the Geosynclinal model. I won’t bore you with the details, since it has been proven outdated, and replaced with the Plate Tectonic model. Back then, as related by one of my geology professors, there was, however, quite a push-back against this new theory that challenged the dogma of the day. So much so that students were warned against going to lectures promoting this new theory. Of course, they went anyhow, I mean, what do college students do when they are told, “don’t do this!” ? Soon the Geosynclinal model was laid on the ash-heaps of history, and I’d wager most of you reading this have never even heard of it.

An interesting thing to note is that even with this new and improved model, no one is sure how the whole thing is driven. What forces inside the earth are driving these huge plates all around the globe? Lots of ideas out there, but nothing has been “proven.”  The more we know, the more we know we don’t know.

Take also the latest fad in physics: darkness. Dark matter and dark energy are the headlines coming from our buddies with the formulas. We can’t see it, we can’t detect it, but it “has” to be there, our calculations won’t work without it. Or, rather, our calculations don’t work as we think they ought to, so there must be something out there influencing things that we can’t get hold of right now. I’m sure I’ve got it all wrong, and some physics person would shake their head, “You poor civilian.”

What is interesting to me, though, is how science is perceived in the public sphere. It seems to me, scientists are seen as the ones who “know.” If we have a problem with our bodies we go to the doctor, a scientist. If there is a question about how to construct something, we go to an engineer, a scientist. If we have  questions about the weather, we go to a meteorologist, another scientist. On and on it goes. These are the folks who study and test, who observe and catalog,  who confer with one another in the ivory towers, and occasionally deign to come down to us mortals to try explain to our feeble minds the nuances of the more potent reality they know.

And tell us not to pay attention to what they said yesterday, because the new study came out, the new observation was made, the new calculation was done, and so there is a new way to look at things that, uh oh, just completely contradicts what we told you yesterday.

Of course, this doesn’t apply to “natural laws”, like gravity, or physical constants,  like say, the speed of light…oh wait,  wasn’t there just some finding about neutrinos? Never mind.

Science does work, though. All we need do is look around our rooms at night to see the many LED’s (light emitting diodes) to remind us that our world today is filled with scientific improvements to our lives. And we are grateful.

Politics is the playing out of societal interactions. As we are presently so keenly aware it is also how the money is spent. Our money. Quite a bit of this is founded upon the insights science gives us into the nature of reality. Hence, since salt is bad for us, we need to have a notice put onto the packaging of the product telling us the sodium content. We also need to have laboratories set up for the company to send their product to to get tested to see how much sodium (and saturated fat, and, and, and…) is in there so we can make “informed” decisions about all that. Oh wait, but is salt bad for us now? And if it isn’t, what about all that wasted time and effort that went into determining how much was in there? What about all that marketing that was wasted on promoting “low sodium” foods? What about all those wasted doctor visits where the scientist calmly explained that, yes Mrs. McGillicuddy, you really need to watch your salt intake, since studies have shown that salt in your diet increases hypertension, and if you have salted french fries your heart will probably explode right there in McDonalds? I’m sure the FDA will blithely change all the rules, and come up with some great new graphic to explain how salt is improving our lives, while latching onto the latest news from science to warn us about the next dreaded ingredient to manage.

For me the problem is there is no accounting for this. Whole industries are forced at gunpoint to change the way they do business, spend tons of money coming up with ways to address some issue that politicians have learned about from scientists. And then, as science is oft seen to do, the data changes, the understanding is more nuanced, another factor is identified, and, oh, well, that wasn’t really what the deal was, so here is the new way to look at it. Meanwhile, all that effort was completely wasted.

I just wonder what effect a low salt diet had on people who religiously followed one? Were they harmed by this? Would they have been better off with a “moderate sodium intake?”  And if there is a danger to that, and people were harmed, who should bear the responsibility for it? Not the scientists, of course, since they were only going off what the data showed. Not the politicians and bureaucrats, they were only following what the scientists were telling them. Not the food companies, they were only complying with the regulations imposed on them at gunpoint by the bureaucrats who were just following what the scientists were telling them.

There are some areas where we can be sure about what science can tell us. We shouldn’t put belladonna in breakfast cereal. When political power uses science to impose strictures on personal liberty, there ought to be some kind of accounting, in case, oopsie, our study didn’t factor in for the positive feedback effect of  exposure to the sun (or, whatever), so just ignore that last little missive about how this can kill you.

Have a day!