Tuesday, March 6, 2018

The Tree

Published in Science in 2003, "The Tree" is the most elegant visual representation of data I've ever seen. The information density of this figure is extraordinary. It's a phylogenetic tree of all Earth life with a time dimension. The center of the figure is the formation of the Earth and the inner circle is the emergence of life. As you move further away from the center you move closer to the present. The curve segments on the perimeter represent kingdoms, and within them phylum, etc.
What's more impressive still is that even while being as efficient with space as it is, the purpose of this diagram is also to be beautiful. It inspires awe and the diversity of life while simultaneously emphasizing its oneness. It appears both like the Earth itself and like a human iris, suggesting discovery, insight, and identity. The seamless weaving of hard geometric lines and smooth curves suggests the technological and the organic. Like a fractal, the Tree portrays complexity at every level of magnification. This more than a diagram of life on Earth, it's a portrait.

(See Science, 2003, 300:1692-1697).

Sunday, July 9, 2017

The tragedy of US-Russian relations

On a serious note, I really do think better US-Russia relations are a good thing for both countries and for the world. Yet I'm not hopeful that will happen in a meaningful and enduring way until all the Cold Warriors on both sides are dead. One of our most important and somewhat moderate statesmen, Sen. John McCain, asserts on national television that the Russia is "a gas station masquerading as a country." Sure, Russia's economy is overly dependent on oil and gas products, but have we any thought to what a shitty, casually insensitive thing that is to say? They hear that, of course, and all that from a country that doesn't even have its own language. Russia is an ancient culture with a complex history. It's contribution to the arts, humanities, and sciences are immeasurable. They sacrificed more for the sake of defeating the Nazis in Europe than the rest of the world combined. Very real horrors have to Russia from Western Europe--far worse than anything the United States has ever experienced in its brief history. Do you remember the time 1 in 10 Americans died in a war for national survival? Of course you don't, but the Russians do because it happened within their living memory. Yet we regard their security concerns as paranoia to be to teased, while we are waging "preemptive wars" with middle-sized countries because they may someday be a threat also in the name of security. Better relations between states, as between people, begins with respect--and to get it you have to give it. We don't. They don't. If they are nothing but a "gas station masquerading as a country", then we are Walmart doing the same. And so the tragedy of great nations continues.
Here is the Kuban Cossak Choir singing a song about the Turko-Russian wars that began long before the "United States of America" was even a dream. Enjoy.

Monday, February 6, 2017

On the nature of intellect and delusion



The author writes, "

I am weary of lectures about what values I should have and how insensitive I am. I am tired of being "guilted" for having a job, finding a way to live comfortably and having a practical sense of priority on global warming. I make choices and decisions based on what can be done and what I can pay for, not on what is said or promised. I don't carry signs, chant, dress up in clever costumes, vandalize or wear pink hats.

But all that doesn't matter. My grandchildren should make these choices themselves, not the current collection of Washington and state government politicos who use my taxes to make empty speeches and buy votes in the next election. Balance the budgets and pay off state and federal debt first. And then we can have all the empty values-centered debates about which cause du jour we want to throw money at.

It seems that the outcome of the last election is understood only by people like me. Frankly, I don't like Donald Trump either. He is arrogant, careless with what he says, overly competitive and insensitive.

I voted for Trump because he was the alternative to letting a collection of free spenders, organizers, race-baiters, intellectuals, tree huggers and professional value arbitrators continue to spend our grandchildren's money."


This kind of thinking is common, contemptuous, and dangerous. It's dangerous because there is more than a kernel of sense in what the author is saying, but this only serves to give a broader delusion credibility. There are legitimate criticisms of the institutions that person thought they were opposing when they voted for Trump. What makes it dangerous is the seamless mix of reason and unreason. The claim you bolded is begging the question, assuming that the daily, practical contexts wherein this individually must choose to deprioritize global warming are not shaped by national-level policies, some of which may actually be efficacious in shifting the home economy. The author subtly assumes with justification the primacy of debt repayment as the determinant their grandchildren's' quality of life. I hate this crap because it shows the horrifying extent to which humans utilize their intellect not to apprehend truth by questioning what is believed, but to defend what is believed. This person, for whatever reason--perhaps because debt management has been an ongoing challenge for them personally, perhaps because a black man was president when they were told the debt was a problem--believes debt is the most important thing and for some reason we can only speculate upon doesn't believe global warming is a problem. Everything else is just an elaborate fancy spun around those beliefs to make them appear more reasonable. They didn't vote for Trump, they voted for the guy with an R by his name, just like they always do.

Friday, November 11, 2016

The DNC must be dismantled or reconstituted

The scope of the DNC's failure is catastrophic. Yet not a single mea culpa. Nobody accountable. The party itself should be dismantled or reconstituted, beginning with a grassroots movement. I will no longer accept that it it's good enough for the Democratic Party to just "be right". They have to win, too. And when was the last time they did that? Certain individuals who are Democrats occasionally win, but it's because of their own talents (i.e., Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Obama, Jerry Brown, Sanders). They win despite the Democratic Party, not because of it. The Republicans control everything--not because they're right--but because they're good at winning. We need a party that wins. The cronyism, corruption, and arrogance of the DNC leadership cannot win.

I mean christ... I won't even start on their willful ignorance of a nationwide, not-necessarily partisan, popular movement against the very establishment their candidate represented (rightly or wrongly), but what in heaven's name were they doing campaigning in Arpaioland Arizona while Democratic strongholds like Wisconsin and Michigan are slipping? No, "of course they'll vote Democrat!. We're the party of the working class!" Really? When was the last time the Democratic Party was the party of the working class? The Carter Administration? They have completely taken their base for granted for long that they aren't even a part of the conversation anymore, except as an adversary, to such an extent that a billionaire real estate mogul took it from them and beat them with it.

And then how did HRC and the DNC react to their base having slipped away? She called them "deplorable", casting them to racists and sexists, and thereby dismissing their often valid criticisms and real economic hardships underlying. On the left, critics presenting real concerns for her viability as a candidate were silenced with terms like "Bernie Bros", containing the non-so-subtly veiled suggestion of sexism. So what happens? An actual racist, sexist bigot who at least pretends to be listening to those hurt most by the transformation of the global economy, at least pretends to listen to them, offering at least some vehicle through which to express their grievances, picks them up. If only there had been another candidate who could have offered these people a political language based on socioeconomic class instead of race, enabling broad-based mobilization against their true, neoliberal oppressors! (Hint: there was). Oh, but that wouldn't please the real beneficiaries of the establishment politics HRC respresnts. The DNC deserved this loss. We didn't. The people of color getting harassed and beaten in the streets don't deserve this. The hapless and misguided Trump voters who think something good is going to come of a right-wing proto-fascist movement don't deserve this. But the DNC does, for their shocking incompetence, for their arrogance, for rigging the primary for a fundamentally flawed and out-of-touch candidate. They must be dismantled.

Monday, October 10, 2016

Clinton V. Trump debate "Round 2", as billed by the media.

Watching debate last night, I asked myself "How did we get here?" And I think this an important question we shouldn't just forget about after Hillary Clinton wins. Because we're still "here". Donald Trump is a symptom, not a cause. A Hillary Clinton victory doesn't mean we're cured, only that we're not dead yet. We will still be a fractious, superficial, unsympathetic, and fear-ridden society of dubious temperament for democracy. For example, right now you can't get over my using the world 'temperament'. It's like that cell of meaning in the body of our culture has died, fallen to our disease. It's yet another casualty on the ever-growing lists of thoughts we can no longer have. Soon, I fear, a language of understanding this question--or any question--may be beyond our capacity, inevitably the world of our minds decaying quickly into the primordial confusion from which we (the constitutional 'We') have sprung.

Saturday, November 14, 2015

Responding to the attacks in Paris 11/13


As many of you know there has been a series of coordinated in Paris. For the next week or so the media coverage of the events will be pervasive. Here are several objectives to keep in mind.

1. Don't panic. You are safe. Some of you may have friends or family in Europe and they are safe, too. Remember that terrorism works by exploiting the natural human responses to 'terrifying' events, meaning that the psychological effect is the goal, not the physical effect. The purpose is to induce people into acting and thinking irrationally. When you keep your wits about you, you take away their power.

2. Be reflective. We are all experiencing a variety of emotions in response to this. No matter how many world politics courses we've taken, we are all human. Take time to reflect and recognize the emotions acting upon you, the good and the bad, the empathy and the anger. Emotions can influence our decisions and these events are designed to manipulate our emotions. However, by identifying these emotions, we can recover some of our own agency.  

3. Don't believe everything you read or see on TV. This doesn't mean believe nothing. These are the sorts of events that separate the real, hard news organizations from the chaff, the sensationalizing tabloids seeking only to maximize ratings. High quality news organizations will in most cases wait until facts have been double or in some cases triple verified by reliable sources, such as eye-witnesses, emergency personnel, or government officials. While we all hunger for the latest information, we must be patient. As we hunger for the latest details, the less ethical news outlets are more than happy to serve up rumors and unverified information to keep you tuned in. Such rumors are often meant to appeal to our instinctual fears and prejudices. Be patient and the facts will come out.

4. You are students of world politics, not randos off the street. Use your knowledge and skills to analyze the situation coolly and methodically. As the facts become known, consider the attacker's objectives, who the target population is (i.e. whom this event was supposed to terrorize), anticipate reactions and counter-reactions. How do the attackers expect us to respond? Who will we act upon and how will they respond to that? Play this out step-by-step, several steps ahead. As more facts become known, continually adjust your explanations to be consistent with and to incorporate those new facts. Discard explanations that are inconsistent with the facts, retain only those (and there may be more than one) which are. Do not become emotionally attached or invested in your initial ideas; be intellectually flexible.

Good luck.

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

Nothing is true. Everything is suspect. Even our own feelings.

“Believe in yourself.” What does this really mean? People often use it in reference to some personal or professional objective, which we believe we could accomplish. But could this also be another way of saying ‘trust your feelings’? Perhaps it would be beneficial to think of it this way. This statement, of course, implies that our feelings are somehow suspect, possibly misleading, or otherwise unworthy of trust. I think that if anyone ever explicitly told you this proposition was true you would be incredulous. If, however, this proposition is implicitly suggested we may carelessly heed it. Pause and reflect a moment and ask yourself “have I ever been made to feel like my feelings are invalid?” A romantic partner might have done this. Maybe a parent or an authority figure. I’m suggesting it might go deeper than this. For example, consider the notion presently prevailing in the academy the doctrine of subjectivism. Subjectivism is the idea that there is no absolute, “big tee”, Truth. Everybody’s internal apprehension of truth is equally valid.  At first consideration we might receive this as implying “All of our truths are valid”, yet clearly this is impossible, for there countless cases where two propositions are logically precluded from bother being true at the same time. Elvis cannot be both alive and dead. Either one of these is possible and may be true at different times, but not at once. The only remaining way to reconcile the notion that two individuals beliefs, even if mutually exclusive, with the restriction that they are equally valid is to say that they are both equal in their invalidity;. Elvis is neither dead nor alive. In other words, the only we our truths are equally valid is if they’re equally untrue.  These days we typically apply this principle to our respective Gods, now demoted to mere gods at best. At worst, they’re all banished to the realm of mythology. We often apply them to our political beliefs, ideologies and moral values. Indeed, moral subjectivism is probably inevitable after our Gods are gone. So what about our beliefs concerning our feelings? If consider the proposition I am sad, how can be sure this is the case?  Well someone else may very well believe I am happy. If I feel angry, I should act out on that feeling if justice is to be had. Acting out might include behaviors like yelling or acting aggressively toward someone. But perhaps my anger is invalid? If that’s so then acting out on it would be unjust. In the interest of justice, we then swallow our anger, our sadness, and even our happiness.