Category Archives: Current Events

Outlaw Capitalism in Chicago, How People Survive

Posted on by

Gang LeaderYou’ve probably heard of Freakonomics, a book that has expanded to an empire that looks at how economics drives human behavior in unexpected and sometimes troubling ways. One of their most memorable topics was Chicago drug gangs. Most gang members earn less than minimum wage and stand a good chance of being killed or severely injured, all for a slim chance to become one of the few rich upper-level bosses. They’d be better off with a “legit” job and a lottery ticket.

The man behind the gang data is Sudhir Venkatesh. His book Gang Leader for a Day, A Rogue Sociologist Takes to the Streets, tells the story of six years at Robert Taylor Homes, which in 1962 became “the largest public housing project in the United States” with thirty-thousand residents. By the 1980s when Venkatesh began work, it was “the epitome of an ‘underclass’ urban neighborhood, with the poor living hard and virtually separate lives from the mainstream” and over 90% of the residents receiving government welfare.

He began his study carrying ridiculous survey forms into the projects for his sociology professors and quickly discovered statistics could not describe life there. But this readable book is not his dissertation; it if full of very real personalities and experiences.

The best-known part of the book covers his time with the drug gang. Venkatesh states that he found it “thrilling” to be “observing the thug life.” A few times he was frightened for his own safety, but Venkatesh must be brave – I would have never gone back. Continue reading →

War, Progress, and a Challenge for America

Posted on by

worth of warWikipedia identifies Benjamin Ginsberg as a libertarian political scientist, professor at Johns Hopkins University, and the author of twenty books. I read his new book, The Worth of War, because I hate the thesis: “Although war is terrible and brutal, history shows that it has been a great driver of human progress.”

No, I thought. War is a terrible destroyer. But there’s more.

“War selects for and promotes certain features of societies that are generally held to represent progress. These include rationality, technological and economic development, and liberal forms of government.”

“Preparation for war often spurs on economic development.”

This is a short book – 175 pages in the body of my Epub version, mostly focused on Europe and America since the 17th century.

Ginsberg uses some terms idiosyncratically. He is fond of “ensorcelled”, which I think is a neat word. But his odd use of “Lamarckian” to mean lessons learned and taught to the next generation may befuddle biologists.

There is much discussion of military techniques and organization – does it really matter if brigades are divided into regiments commanded by colonels, further subdivided into…

But I did learn some interesting tidbits. Between WWI and WWII the US had color coded war plans – ranging from War Plan Black for Germany to War Plan Crimson for Canada; that Rome preferred its legionaries to be at least 5′ 10″ tall; and that modern training techniques have resulted in 90% of soldiers firing their guns in battle versus 15% in WWII.

Via the “curriculum of war” winners learn rationality and develop skills in planning, organizing, and engineering that “spillover” beyond the military. Errors in judgment can be corrected, but countries committed to magical thinking disregard facts and become losers.

Ginsberg presents examples from ancient Greece and Rome [1],China, the European Crusades, Aztecs, and the Soviet Union, but Nazis receive considerable analysis.

The bizarre Nazis ideology of racism led them to believe “mongrel” Americans could pose no military threat, that Slavic peoples were “subhumans,” and that Jews should be exterminated. They diverted war materiel to exterminating the Jews and turned Slavs who initially welcomed them as liberators from Stalin into enemies. The Nazi rejection of “Jewish science” and Jewish professionals created an “enormous transfer of intellectual capital” to their enemies. Thus their adherence to ideology led to their defeat. Continue reading →

Rocky Flats Controlled Burn Delayed

Posted on by

There was a commentary posted a couple of weeks ago about the proposal to perform a controlled burn in an area of the wildlife refuge in the vicinity of the closed Rocky Flats Plant. Activists who have developed a career of protesting anything about the Plant that produced nuclear weapons parts, including plutonium parts, have done their usual fine job of exaggeration risks to the point the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has announced the burn will be postponed. The article by Bruce Finely of the Denver Post announcing the decision also manages to repeat the inflammatory statement that Rocky Flats “…became an environmental disaster.”

The agency managing the refuge said they “…still favor the long-planned 701 acre burn—based on science—as the best way to convert Rocky Flats into a healthy wildlife refuge and protect a massive new housing development in the area.” However, they bowed to ominous warnings and said, “…we have heard concerns from the public and we want to take time to further engage in dialogue on these issues.” The burn has been issued the necessary permits, including one from the Colorado Department of Health and Environment. All agency reports had pointed out that the burn would not present a safety problem. The levels of plutonium in the area the burn was proposed are virtually the same as levels throughout the Front Range that have existed since the era of atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons.

An official of the Fish and Wildlife explains, “…we have heard concerns from the public and we want to engage in further dialogue on these issues…As good neighbors, we want to assure the public that safety is our absolute priority.”

I mentioned in my previous commentary that I didn’t care much about the decision about the burn. I was wrong. I find myself discouraged. Once again public opinion and the actions of government agencies have been manipulated by inflammatory and inaccurate comments that succeeded in creating unwarranted fear. Science and reason are once again losing to fear mongering.

I have a prediction. There will be sampling and analysis of smoke from the burn if it is eventually approved and performed. It will be ominously reported that plutonium was found in the smoke. It won’t be mentioned that there would be equivalent amounts of plutonium found in smoke from a grass fire near Grand Junction, Limon, or anywhere in the world.

Does an Objective Universe Exist?

Posted on by

Grand DesignThe Grand Design is a physics book that leads from antiquity to today, when a group of overlapping models called M-theory may be the unified theory of everything – though not as easy to write down as E=mc^2. “If the theory is confirmed by observation, it will be the successful conclusion of a search going back more than 3,000 years. We will have found the grand design.”

Stephen Hawking is, of course, a famous professor of mathematics and physics. His co-author Leonard Mlodinow is also a theoretical physicist who has written for Star Trek: The Next Generation. This happy combination produced a book that is casual in tone, with helpful diagrams and nerdy cartoons. I don’t think Mlodinow is the sole source of the book’s approach, since Hawking has appeared in many popular TV shows, including recently on The Big Bang where his sense of self-deprecating humor is evident.

The history of physics is well known and you may wonder if yet another book will add to public understanding. Remember that Richard Feynman once wrote “nobody understands quantum mechanics.” This is because quantum effects are beyond most of our daily experiences. I know intuitively that if I drop a glass it will fall and that if I leave something in a locked room it will be there when I return because of my experience. But cosmic relativity and infinitesimal quantum actions seem unfathomable. Repeated exposure to physics helps and this book, in particular, I enjoyed. Continue reading →

Controlled Burn Proposal for Rocky Flats

Posted on by

Rocky Flats has made it back into the news because of a proposed controlled burn near where the plant produced plutonium and other parts for nuclear weapons. An article by Bruce Finley states that west Metro leaders oppose the burn “…where plutonium contamination created an environmental disaster.” My book, “An Insider’s View of Rocky Flats:  Urban Myths Debunked,” puts the plutonium releases from Rocky Flats into context compared to the amount of plutonium added to the environment by atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. A 1974 State of Colorado report estimated total world releases of plutonium from testing of nuclear weapons to be between 9,000 and 15,000 pounds of plutonium that contaminated the entire world everything that lives on it. The total released from all routine operations and accidents from Rocky Flats was estimated to be between 2 and 25 ounces. I can’t be certain of Mr. Finley’s definition of what would constitute an “environmental disaster,” but I’d choose atmospheric testing to have been worse than Rocky Flats.

One critic who has a lengthy career of providing inflammatory comments about of Rocky Flats was quoted in Finley’s article as saying, “If plutonium is released, it would be in the form of tiny particles suspended in the air. These could be inhaled. Even a single particle could destroy someone’s health.” I’ll respond with quotes from my book. “Is it true that a tiny particle of plutonium will kill people? Sadly, it’s too late to avoid that outcome it that is true.” “All humans have billions or trillions of atoms of plutonium in their bodies.” Is it surprising that people are living longer despite the plutonium we’ve all inhaled? Continue reading →

Changing Your Mind is Hard

Posted on by

It’s hard for people – any of us – to admit being wrong. The more stridently you take a position in public, the harder it is to recant. Science is one field where changing your mind when the evidence requires it is applauded.

As Carl Sagan once said:
“In science it often happens that scientists say, ‘You know that’s a really good argument; my position is mistaken,’ and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn’t happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day.”

A few significant changes have occurred in my lifetime: plate tectonics replaced continental drift, an asteroid impact was accepted as finishing off most dinosaurs while birds were accepted as the last of the “avian dinosaurs”, and the Big Bang theory of cosmology replaced Steady State. There are many other examples.

It’s hard enough to admit to error in front of like-minded colleagues, so when you tackle a topic that is highly emotional, changing your mind may lose you a lot of friends. Because of this I want to commend Mark Lynas.

Lynas is a British author whose current focus is climate change. But in the 1990s he helped start the anti-GMO (genetically modified organisms) movement. In 2008, he was still “penning screeds” (his words) attacking the use of GMOs.

In 2013, he addressed the Oxford Farming Conference with a change of mind:
“I want to start with some apologies. For the record, here and upfront, I apologize for having spent several years ripping up GM crops. I am also sorry that I helped to start the anti-GM movement back in the mid 1990s, and that I thereby assisted in demonizing an important technological option which can be used to benefit the environment.
As an environmentalist, and someone who believes that everyone in this world has a right to a healthy and nutritious diet of their choosing, I could not have chosen a more counter-productive path. I now regret it completely.” See the full text of his talk here where he details why he changed his mind. (Updated url: http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lecture-to-oxford-farming-conference-3-january-2013/ I wonder why it changed?)

Lynas has a new book out and many older titles still on Amazon, so a cynic might say controversy sells books. But – unless I find evidence to the contrary – I say, congratulations Mark Lynas. I hope that someday when I need it (and no doubt I will) I find in myself the integrity you’ve shown.

This blog has more posts about GMOs.