Recalling my last Subjunctive TV post, based on the notion borrowed from Douglass Hofstadter’s Achilles/Tortoise dialog wherein a TV was imagined where sports replays included “what if” features. These features began with standard, “What if they had run the ball instead of passed” and devolved eventually to more outlandish suggestions like, “How would that play have gone if 13 was not a prime number.” In that vein, for a short time anyhow, longer if it catches some interest, I’m going to try more “Subjunctive TV” speculative posts. 

James Madison and a few of his friends (and some likely not-friends) gathered in the late 18th century and penned a Constitution based on the modern theories of man and government at the time. A few years have passed since then and just a few things have changed in the world since that time. So the premise shift offered for today’s viewing and consideration is what sort of government might our founders suggested if:

1. There is a non-trivial body of work on the mathematics of voting. We have the means to tally votes in ways that are judged superior in better reflecting what people want than simple plurality.
2. Modern communications internet, phones, and so on exist. High speed efficient communication between large number of people assisted by automation exists and is adaptable to new purposes. 

We’ve had our current Constitution for just over 200 years. Some things went really well. Their back of the envelope estimations of power and principle and how to balance that was darn good. Yet people are increasingly of the feeling that government is too distant and too remote. It is very powerful but their input is irrelevant. The separation of the people in power from the problems they try to address and the complexity of those same problems is an increasingly obvious flaw. In the past, I’ve pointed out that the skill set required to be successful in the election process are almost completely disjoint from the job requirements and fail to test fitness to meet the demands of the jobs for which the elected official is to fill. 

I would suggest that if Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness was the end of government … then we might be able do design a government depending on and using different ways of getting peoples input and suggestions, finding solutions, and insuring freedoms in ways that, for example, don’t require taxation with so little representation. Could Facebook (of all things) and Open source software collaboration offer any models toward a completely new way of viewing government or …

How might the Constitutional Convention have played out if it was held today by technologically savvy politically astute men. How would a convention staffed by people like a Wozniak/Madison, Hamilton/Knuth offer for the nation?

Using umbilical cord stem cells.

Mrs Leach, 76, lost her sight in February last year and was diagnosed with giant cell arteritis, an inflammatory disease of blood vessels.

She was told by doctors in the UK that nothing could be done but she found out about Qingdao Chengyang People’s Hospital which offered an alternative.

Mrs Leach, from Hardwicke, near Gloucester, and the local community managed to raise the £16,000 to pay for the cost of the treatment.

This involved stem cell fluid taken from umbilical cords of new born babies being injected twice into her right eye and six times into her hands over a six week period.

Opponents of using embryonic stem cells have never had issues with umbilical cord stem cells.  And we have yet another example of a treatment that has none of the ethical, moral and physical issues associated with embryonic cells.

Are we getting the picture, yet?

Good morning.

1. Seven guys living together. Like a rock.
2. Witches and hunters.
3. Gotta love those teachers unions. And that’s “love” as in despise.
4. Prose or prosody and … conservatism.
5. Another one of the very few economists that predicted the recession noted.
6. Biking in the storm.
7. Oh, and one more for the bikers.
8. The deficit and Mr Obama again.
9. Separation of treatment of religions.
10. Some election day humor.
11. Red and blue demographics.

In recent essays on race I’ve caught some flack. My definition of racism apparently suffers mainly from its symmetry. One man committing a crime against another on account of race is racism irrespective of whether the man committing the crime is of a oppressing or an oppressed race. To put it bluntly, Hitler and the Nazis were guilty of racism. This fact does not depend on the point that they were wrong about the Jews being in cahoots and in control of the capital and intellectual currents in Europe. If they were correct and Jews in the halls of power and the banks did in fact have plans and power would not justify Auschwitz and Dachau and so on. The hatred and racism of the white gang burning crosses and throwing stones through windows of a black family because they are black is no different than a black gang raping a white girl because she is white. Both are pure examples of racism. 

So, if you think that racism depends on positions of power and authority and class lines drawn on racial grounds ask yourself this, Do you really think that Hitler is regarded a racist only because he was wrong? 

Consequential-ism is a meta-ethical theory that judges the rightness of decisions based on an evaluation of their consequences. This in turn it seems to me reduces ethics to economics. Consequence after all is at the end of the day is about costs. Ethics however is is also called the study of beauty and the good. Ethics is about choice. And we choose that which we perceive as good and which is beautiful. So, when you turn to ethics … which way of thinking do you prefer …  cash or Beethoven? 

Who said this, after hearing that "Muhammed" was now the #1 baby name in Britain?

“Am I a racist to feel alarmed by that?  Because I am. And it’s not because of the race, it’s because of the religion. I don’t have to apologize, do I, for not wanting the Western world to be taken over by Islam in 300 years?”

No, not Juan Williams, who said something similar and got fired for it.  No, not Mark Steyn, who’s written a book on this subject.  In fact, it’s not a conservative at all.

It’s Bill Maher.

Conservative Margaret Hoover replied, "If you’re with NPR, you’d be fired."  I disagree.  Nina Totenburg has been spouting opinion for years and that hasn’t jeopardized her job. 

You’ll not hear much of this, if any at all, from the media or the left-wing bloggers because Maher is still extremely useful to them in a host of other areas.  For them it’s not about principles, it’s about politics.  If you have the right stance on the issues, a few minor indiscretions will be tolerated.  (Or even major ones; see the NOW crowd’s muted reaction to Bill Clinton). 

Just another double standard.

Good morning.

1. On the eve of the election, it’s irrational to do research.
2. Divided government and 2012.
3. I was going to link this, and point out that I’ve never had nor seen such a conversation so I doubt the claims of universality are accurate. 
4. Going up. Really.
5. Orthodoxy and those virtues that appeal to men. I think dwelling on those points is problematic but I do like the comparison of nativity hymns, comparing ‘the little Lord Jesus asleep on the hay’ … with ‘the Eternal Logos entering inexorably, silently yet heroically, into the fabric of created reality.’ … although the former is more poetic (in English).
6. Music and education.
7. Continuing that thought … “need” is not relevant. Maths (like music) are important for the same reason, see prior link.
8. Mr Gore, climate hypocrite.
9. Politics elsewhere.
10. Dirt and politics (as above) not new.
11. Lock yer doors.

I knew unions supported the Democrats, but really; getting fired for wearing a Bush hat and sweatshirt?  Even though it’s referring to the aircraft carrier the George H. W. Bush?  That your son serves on?  Really?  That’s a sign of rabid, unthinking support of the Democrats.

Andrew Fergusson, Head of Communications at Christian Medical Fellowship, writing in Christianity Today, lays out the big difference between embryonic stem cells and the adult variety.

Ron Futrell, writing at Big Journalism:

During the discussion where Williams said he gets “nervous” when he sees people on a plane in Muslim garb (that’s what got him fired).  Williams also warned O’Reilly against blaming all Muslims for “extremists,” saying Christians shouldn’t be blamed for Oklahoma City Bomber Timothy McVeigh.

Timothy McVeigh was not Christian. Love ya Juan, and sorry to hear about what happened with NPR, but Timothy McVeigh was not Christian. He was agnostic. He made the statement many times to newspapers. He also said “science is my religion.”

Political violence is an indictment against the cause that motivates it … except when Democrats do it.  If you just read liberal-leaning blogs, you haven’t heard the whole story about the Rand Paul supporter "stomping" on the MoveOn.org activist.

And finally, a scary Halloween story.  Click for a larger version.

Good morning.

1. “Pragmatism” … in a politician it seems to me pragmatism is another way of saying one’s word is not one’s bond.
2. Going down the toilet (near you coming soon?).
3. Misplacing blame.
4. Four Tea party myths held by the left analyzed from the left (HT: MP).
5. Speaking of the Tea Party … a candidate and his bike.
6. There’s a reason why a really badly edited book was on my “book of the year” list a few years back. It has a lot of important and striking ideas in it.
7. Church architecture and Romania. Romanian churches feature hand painted iconography covering the exterior of the church in the style you can see in the image shown. 
8. Really bad use of statistics.
9. Of party and politics (HT: neo-neo).
10. Of Physics envy. So … is economics a 4 (or a 5)? Do economists think they are in a 2 regime?
11. In which Mr Krugman is shown to misuse statistics as badly as the people in #8.
12. A hunger strike of which I was completely unaware. How about you?
13. The Church in India.
14. Not stopping to pee.

Good morning.

1. Virtue and Obamacare.
2. Epic aftermath.
3. Bring out the guns, pitchforks, and torches.
4. What happened to repentance?
5. Coffee grounds put to interesting uses. 
6. Judith Curry and climate.
7. The new CIA.
8. If the purpose of a organization is defined by what it does … consider the UN.
9. Now that was funny.

Jonathan Alter, in the opening line of his NY Times article last Thursday entitled "The State of Liberalism", stated this:

It’s a sign of how poorly liberals market themselves and their ideas that the word “liberal” is still in disrepute despite the election of the most genuinely liberal president that the political culture of this country will probably allow.

Chalk up anticipated failures at the ballot box to "marketing".  Right.  With such an ally in the media, the problem is marketing?

More likely, the word “liberal” is still in disrepute because of the election of the most genuinely liberal president that the political culture of this country will probably allow.  But the liberal elite in this country are completely convinced that the populace is too stupid to realize how good liberalism is, and must be drawn in with flashy marketing.

It’s insulting, and you don’t win elections by insulting the voters.

Good morning.

1. Advice to prepare for Confession.
2. Some thoughts against Obamacare.
3. What passes for “disturbing” on the left.
4. “8 Things …”  fisked.
5. Uhm, duh.
6. Not exactly helpful diet advice.
7. Meta-linking economics.
8. A job posting in the Admin.
9. Tenthers. I suspect the intersection of tenthers and liberals is low.
10. Bandwidth.

In the past I’ve tried on a number of occasions to explore hypothesis that are radically different from our (and mine) own assumptions. One of the very popular books in the collegiate circles in which I ran in my early college years (I matriculated in 1980) was Hofstadter’s Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. One of the highlights of this book are short dialogs mostly between Achilles and the Tortoise borrowed from the famous race/paradox exploring in somewhat eclectic and fascinating conversations connections about Bach, Godel, and Escher. In one of these dialogs sports replays came up as a discussion topic. There we were introduced a better type of replay … made available subjunctive TV, that is “how would that play have gone .. if instead of X, Y was the case.” If memory serves, Achilles was tried the TV with standard suggestions, like “if they had run the ball instead, or tried different personnel and so on. The Tortoise tossed some more imaginative suggestions like “How would that play have looked if it was played by intelligent life forms on/from Jupiter or if the number 13 was not prime.” Exploring radical hypothesis and following their logical consequences is, for me, a vital part of the intellectual life. Subjunctive exploration is a valuable thing, e.g., the gedankenexperiment. Read the rest of this entry

Good morning.

1. The cling of sin.
2. Obama and those running in the mid-terms.
3. Econ meta-linking. Hmm, that didn’t come out right … I think I should have written “Meta-linking economics”.
4. I first misread that as Morgan Freeman, which really would be, uhm, not quite the best.
5. Philosophy and belief in God.
6. Advert preference.
7. When reading this, it occurred to me those progressives who fear the Tea Party is racist … do they also think of it is primarily a women’s movement? And if, for a moment, they did would that change their evaluation regarding racism?
8. Inflation predicted.
9. So, facing charges. Justified or not?
10. Two Bibles.

This weekend the WSJ had an odd headline which read something like (yah, I’m too lazy to look it up verbatim), “CIA to expand secret war in Pakistan.” What do they think “secret” means in this context?

The problem with the progressive/left using “right racism and bigotry” to fix perceived racism and bigotry in society is that it enforces bad behavior (HT: here). Bigotry as a method, once accepted becomes a pattern. Is that explanation correct? Or is there another?

Good morning.

1. The anti-catholics around like to point to Pope Benedict’s Hitler youth membership, this will go unremarked, although I’d have to say it’s likely that both allegations are quite strained.
2. One problem with this post is that Mr Williams was trying to make the opposite point, i.e., that anti-Muslim (esp. American) bias is to be resisted.
3. More on that topic here.
4. Orthodoxy noted.
5. Woo hoo.
6. Liberals and their delusions.
7. Ouch.
8. A skill to learn?