The Sherlock Holmes Test

The Key Is Prejudice

What's at the root of our downward spiraling politics?  Looking for an answer in reality that you decide on ahead of time.

Sherlock Holmes famously derided the constables at Scotland Yard for trying to fit evidence into a theory of what happened.  Holmes tried to instead let the evidence speak for itself.

An opinion columnist I happened to read recently in the local newspaper referenced the story from several years ago about how the I.R.S. during the Obama administration was caught harassing conservative political movements.  Which got me thinking..., wasn't that a phony story?  And, if so, shouldn't a respectable newspaper refuse to publish, simply because it isn't true?

And then just today I read about that phony story again, this time with a breakdown of what happened.

Republicans first asked the Inspector General to look into IRS audits of conservative organizations.  This turns up a "smoking gun", or so it seems.  ...Until the Democrats ask the Inspector General to look into all IRS audits of political organizations.  This unmasks what had been "other" organizations (those that were not conservative) as being mainly progressive.  The final tally is 115 conservative and 110 progressive, as well as a handful of non-partisan outfits.

The story about how the IRS harassed conservative groups is debunked.  The problem, of course, is that nitwits in the Republican party wanted to fit evidence to their politics, and then looked the other way when all the evidence was set forth.  So, for them, the story is still true.

Since the I.R.S. is bad, so the nitwit narrative went, we'll only ask about conservative groups, which, we hope, will produce the storyline we want.

Healing the country's politics won't happen until everyone, in searching for the truth, takes the Sherlock Holmes approach.

Is Science Always Right?

When Should We Be Sure We're Right?

I overheard a conversation the other day in which GMO food (genetically modified organisms) were challenged by one party, while the other said: "But you'll listen to the science about Global Warming!"

There've been several opinion pieces written recently about how GMOs are an open and shut case--absolutely no cause for alarm, plus they'll allow us to feed everybody.   Meanwhile, the science behind climate change is, in fact, unquestionably certain.  And yet plenty of people like me are uncomfortable with the former, but not the latter.  Why?

The answer is simple: there's value in what's worked in the past.  And I don't mean just the past year or two, I mean human experience through the years, and the world before that.

Science is a process wherein ideas are fighting for supremacy as we test them; this is how the natural world, and human history--until recently, worked too.  And just as the ablest lion should be the dominant lion, any new theory that claims that it's the new champ can't be elevated to ablest theory status without proof that it is, indeed, best.  And the benefit of the doubt goes to the current champ, not the challenger.

Which is why the idea that humans are scrambling genes in the things we eat, and so upending the gradual (evolution) and sudden (breeding for selected characteristics) process of life-better-suiting-its-environment is troubling.  Sure, initial experiments may show that there's no danger in GMO food, but the stakes are too big to get wrong.  For example, we're already contending with invasive species running amok in parts of the world where they don't belong, do we really need to mess with the interior makeup of species, too?

Meanwhile, Climate Change, like GMO food, is the challenger to the status quo.  Even if only half, instead of 99%, of our scientists said it was a dire emergency, why take a 50/50 chance with a loaded gun to the head?  And the case for disaster can easily be made: try googling 'melting permafrost' + 'global warming'; the numbers are, frankly, scary.

All of which is a peculiarly conservative perspective to have.  And I'll freely admit that when the stakes aren't high, I'm almost always willing to entertain alternatives.  For example, did humans really live in the Americas 130,000 years ago, rather than no more than around 13,000 years ago?  Here's a fascinating article that follows the evidence for 130,000 as it unfolded, and the pushback that it met.

Will #MeToo Really Make A Difference?

What Should The Rules Be, Anyway?

Among The Washington Post's Thursday opinion columns is one written by Donna Lenhoff, titled The #MeToo Movement Will Be In Vain If We Don't Make These Changes.  After presenting an outline of her proposal, I offer a few brief thoughts:

#1 Increase the $$ caps for damages, so that corporations have to get serious.  Currently, large firms are subject to a maximum $300,000 fine.

#2 End the confidentiality of settlements reached between accuser and accused.

#3 Provide investigators with sufficient funds.

#4 Measurement, reporting and investigation should all be enhanced.  Possibly corporations should be required to conduct anonymous surveys and report results on their websites.  Also, more research on where the problem is occurring and what works in addressing it.

What do I think?  I read through the Comments section, and feel there may be a few tweaks to be made, but otherwise, you'd think this would generate a fair amount of consensus among lawmakers.

#1 Just multiply that $300,000 by a large enough number and large corporations would get on it.  The maximum for smaller firms is currently $50,000.

#2  Ending confidentiality when settlements are reached does have its drawbacks, as those in Comments have pointed out (What about the embarrassing details made public?).  The comeback is that without an end to confidentiality, abusers can remain in place and find other victims.

#3  Having sufficient funds to look into serious allegations seems like a way to tell how much politicians really want the problem to end.

#4  The other area some in Comments found fault with was the anonymous survey idea that would require corporations to report results on company websites.  The problem here being that relations between 'management' and 'employees' is not always good.  This doesn't seem to me to be a big deal if surveys are conducted among employees only, and not open to just anyone.  There's a jobs site company called Glassdoor that encourages employees to rate their bosses, for example.  See this article in the New Yorker.

So, overall, I'm on board, and look forward to a bi-partisan push in Congress.  As for confidentiality, I'd need more information.

What's To Be Done About Facebook

Social Media Monopolies?

Roger McNamee, an early investor in Facebook, and mentor to Mark Zuckerberg when FB reportedly received a $1 billion buyout offer, has written up the case for dealing with FB's and other social media's monopolistic tendencies.

Here's my very brief characterization of his 8-point case (the full article is available at the link, above):

1.  Have FB contact every recipient of hacker fake news, with an explanation of what was fake and why we know this.  Twitter has just announced steps in that direction.

2.  Call social media bigwigs (Zuckerberg, and the heads of Google, Twitter, etc.) to testify in person before Congress.  Also, ban digital bots that impersonate people.  And no additional acquisitions for FB, Google, etc.,  until these matters have been addressed.

3.  Social media platforms must be transparent about who pays for quasi-political issue ads (aggrieved voice: "Don't let the dogs get away with stealing the cat chow."), as well as overtly political campaign ads (upbeat voice: "I'm the best doggie you'll ever vote for.")

4.  There must be transparency regarding the algorithms used to decide what ads you see; possibly even third party audits.  ("You liked 'The Catacombs of Rome', so we're showing you this ad for 'Dungeon Bikers'")

5.  Relationships between social media corporations and users should be more equitable.  For example, you should be able to opt out of a 'new' version of a platform that you don't want.

6.  A limit on commercial exploitation of your personal data.  Why did Google just buy a huge trove of credit card information?

7.  Consumers, not corporations, should own creative content (writing, photos) and be able to move it to another site if they wish.

8  Discouraging monopolies, on principle, unleashes innovation.

What do I think?  These proposals would probably have half the senate sponsoring them if this was 50 years ago.

My opinion, in more detail:

1.  Since Twitter is notifying victims of fake news, this doesn't sound like too much to ask of FB.  Being shown evidence could be the first inkling some social media users have that they're in an unreal bubble.

2.  If we could ban digital bots, that would be great.  Can it be easily done?  As for limiting acquisitions, that's likely one way to get social media platforms to comply.

3.  This makes sense.  If we could click to see who's behind a weird ad we see, that would be interesting, and might stop some of the worst of it.

4.  This doesn't seem necessary to me, but I'm restrained in what I click on and what I buy, and I ignore most ads.

5.  Ok, though until there's a problem that I can see....

6.  A good idea.

7.  So agree.

8.  This is something I'm usually for and feel strongly about, so I'm inclined to agree.  I'd have to know more, though.

Another article about reining in FB, further back in time.

A New Year's Resolution

Three blogging projects for the new year:

1. TR (Teddy Roosevelt) 110 years later.  Re-imagining our 26th president's outlook if he were alive today.  Busting monopolies, experiencing Nature, and admitting he was wrong about Imperialism.  I turn on the energy--for a change.

2. Rock Music, Revisited.  I look back at my Mighty 55 rankings, and make adjustments, adding a few newer acts and removing a few British gents.  Or, maybe bigger changes.

3. Election Boardgame Trilogy.  My brother and my 2016 design is finished.  It will be the most complex and satisfying of the three--for experienced gamers.  2012, which we'll likely revisit in the coming year, is of medium complexity.  2020, which we'll then create, will likely be the easiest to play.

Will I actually get to all the above?  A year from now we'll see just how resolute I was.

Christmas Letter - 2017

A Joyful Christmas, One And All:

Here at the Scarborough's we're experimenting with something new: a Christmas Letter.  And since there's little to report (aside from my current 6-days-a-week work schedule, and Tad’s quiet retirement), I’ll describe my experience looking for Christmas cards online, and how I decided to simply pick a few photos from the year gone by to substitute instead. 

I started out googling "Artisan Christmas Cards”.  I had visions of a farmscape filled with enchanting detail.  This led to thousands of images of what seemed like the same old abstract reindeer, redbird, evergreen or Santa hat.  Too hum drum.  So I tried “Antique Christmas Cards”.  This was a bit better, resulting in many Victorian era designs, some of which I'd never seen before.  But, they didn’t feel right.  So, I then tried Fine Art Christmas Cards.  Maybe, but nothing spoke to me.

I wonder if the reason one doesn’t see much that's captivating is that art is too easily copied these days; so artists daren’t risk putting much into their creations.  Thus the slap and dash approach.

A few cards that I considered are linked to here and here.  Comments: they're both nice, but putting candles on a tree is surely fire hazard territory (our old house burned down on Christmas night, 1949); and wishing someone a 'white Christmas' has an unwanted connotation when snowstorms make my workday life a lot more challenging.

As for this year's photos, I know, I know, I need to try harder:

This red-and-green snapshot shows what a maple tree does in the spring when deer nibble on its new leaves.

 Here, we see bees swarming.  No getting near that queen.

To my mind, this is a pretty good definition of 'radius'.  Our kitchen table doesn't get much attention these days, since we eat breakfast in our respective rooms, and dinner while watching TV (pre-recorded late night comedy is our mainstay).  Violets notecard from Kathy A.; mock orange blooming.

Cookies for Santa, from last year.

This pair of sticks (the one on the right is much thinner) got me thinking: what if crows left messages for their friends, like "this place has inactive chimneys".

A few of aunt Libba's daffodils on a wet spring day.  They're reproducing nicely.

Insect's delight: milkweed blooming at the pond (tribute to the late Krista Manard).

Kitchen door, with faithful guardian on lookout.

Sweet William on the march.

At our niece's wedding we met a few new friends.  Can't remember this guy's name for some reason.

At Annie and Kip's wedding party the cake was tree-themed.

Perhaps someone could tag this guy, too.

Hard to see, but the day after this root was exposed (our local utility re-laid our underground electric line this fall), the squirrels had a corncob picnic at the point on the drive where the root pointed (all that's left are kernels, cob and husk).  Coincidence?  Or the logic of how landscape subtly shapes us.

And a larger, 'big picture' photo from the wedding: mother/daughter dance (I 'd already gone to bed).

 

Happy New Year, all!

Thoughts On The Affordable Care Act

I've been following the ACA's fortunes over the years, and have a few thoughts:

 * The Individual Mandate (which requires that everyone carry health insurance) is about to be rescinded by Republicans (as part of their tax overhaul package).  This reminds me of an indulgent grandparent, when babysitting grandkids, declaring that no vegetables need be eaten.  Even the kids know something isn't right.

 * If the Republican tax contraption chugs on up the hill, as seems likely, and the ACA's insurance markets for 2019 come off the rails (without premiums from the young and lucky, the old and unlucky will find theirs unaffordable--if insurers are even offering policies), this will begin to be felt by the general public just as voters are making up their minds in the 2018 midterms.

 * And getting back to that indulgent 'no-vegetables' policy: the thrust of the Trump tax boondoggle can be thought of us an unbalanced meal with the $1.5 trillion in additional debt being the equivalent of a dieter telling himself that if he indulges his poor dining choices even more, then he'll really have to get serious about his diet.  So, the more junk food, the better!