Nevertheless.blog

I have never met a Catholic who had read the encyclical letter of Pope Francis, Laudato Si. That’s a pity.

The California Governor, Jerry Brown, has said that when politics fails, morality may help.

Francis majored in chemistry, not physics or climatology, but he is familiar enough with the way science works to  read the climate science and understand it. He knows that scientists could not possibly be involved in some multi-national hoax.  Science is tested again and again. Results must be reproducible.

The pope’s focus is on human compassion, a moral issue.

An Encyclical is basically a letter to the faithful. It is not binding in the same way that the Ten Commandments are, but it strongly urges a certain position. Encyclicals are not the favorite reading of Catholics.  The Letter by a recent pope on human reproduction has been a resounding failure: Catholics’ use of birth control is similar to that of the rest of the population.  An earlier Encyclical by another pontiff long ago railed against “sins that cry to heaven,” and listed depriving the workman of his wages alongside of homosexuality. It is a rather confusing message for today’s believers.

This Encyclical by the current pope is different. Francis has expertise enough in science to know what he is doing and he appeals to a theme that people of almost any religious belief are predisposed to hear: loving one’s neighbor

I have read only one review.  It was by an economist  who said that the Encyclical was bad economics. Guess why. Real economists, he said, rely only on the Bottom Line.  He took objection to the fact that the pope is speaking of “externalities”–that means the effects that decisions have on the people and systems out side of the business. Morality, of course, would  come under the name of externalities.  The pope is writing about morality. Is there anything new about that?

It is generally agreed that those who will suffer the most from global warming and rising tides will be the poor, both poor individuals in developed countries and the poorer nations. It is, of course, already happening.  It might be more realistic to admit that everyone is going to suffer, but let that go for a moment. Most religions urge compassion for the poor and the less advantaged. Thus the Encyclical is right in line with mainstream morality. What’s new is that it’s a wakeup call to see how climate change calls us to step up our efforts and act now.

With no fire and brimstone, just calm reasoning, Laudato Si deserves more of an audience than it has had.

 

 

 

 

My mistake was starting the day at the bank.  There I was, writing March 14 on a check,  looking down at the figure bank’s helpful reminder of the date: It was March 14.

I grew up in one of many, many, generations who read Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar in the first year of high school. It was a rite of passage. Everyone knew the warning,  “Beware the Ides of March.”  All of the omens, all of the auguries told Julius Caesar not to go to the Senate on the Ides of March. He disregarded the warning, went to the Senate and was stabbed to death, by a dear friend, no less. And here it was the Ides of March–March 14 or 15, we were told back then.  Nowadays scholars say its the 15th in the year 2017.

Of course I don’t believe in that stuff–auguries, entrails. But I found that all day, when I almost tripped on a step, made a mistake in adding, or dropped something I should have been more careful of, I said to myself. Ooops, be careful, it’s the Ides of March.

On the following morning, today,  I read in the paper that  March 14 is now Pi Day, so named because the first three digits of the magical mathematical number pi are 3.14.

Pi is what we use to figure out circles. It works like a charm. The way to celebrate Pi Day is to eat pie. And now they tell me! In Silicon Valley the bosses order large quantities of pie for the staff. They go exotic. Think of butterscotch toffee, or mocha and marzipan, with the decorations in intricate figures all based on pi, I presume.

I would have been happy with apple pie or chocolate cream.

Any, change is good, and it’s nice to have Pi Day as a custom. Now about March 15 and the Ides…

 

Never mind Bannon and Breitbart. Trump himself was once upon a time called a Jew-lover. It is highly improbable that Trump himself is anti-Semitic. He says so, of course, in his characteristic way: “No one is less anti-Semitic than I.”  and his daughter Ivanka, his son- in- law and his grandchildren are Jewish.  Truth be told, the question that led to his denials never came up. Instead, he was asked if he knew why there has been a spurt in attacks on the Jewish population.

The spike in attacks is undeniable. A number of Jewish cemeteries have been desecrated and swastikas have been painted on walls and cars. When the editor of a Jewish periodical asked very politely, bending over backward to be deferential, why this could be happening, he was told to sit down. The journalist, wearing a kippah or yarmulke,  was told that he had lied when professing to ask a simple question.

There have been racist ad ethnic attacks  of all sorts since Trump’s campaign began and rumor has it that Trump has given permission for this–consciously or unconsciously– or has inspired imitation because of his attacks on handicapped persons, Mexican-Americans, Muslims and women. The unstated assumption is that bigotry tends to generalize. But that may not necessarily be so.

Many of the historic examples of hate crimes or victimization have seemed on the surface to be limited.  The lynch mob turns on the African American and not on another group. (Not really true; the Klan targeted Blacks, Irish and Jews. ) In “The Lottery,” that terrifying story by Shirley Jackson, once the mob has found a victim to satisfy its blood lust, it is sated at least for a while. And even in Greek tragedy, there is catharsis and an end to the attack, at least until the next cycle begins.

Now there is some research that sheds light on what may be happening.  Studies of venting online, called e-venting, show that there is no catharsis.  Instead the venting of hatred  leads to more aggression, more angry feelings.  It seems also that venting hatred is not really good for the initiator. It “brings out the worst in us,” as one  candidate for the  DNC said recently of the president.

The research has been on e-venting, not quite the same as the acting out we have seen, but it does suggest a possible pathway for the translation of example to action.  At the Trump rallies, the crowd is egged on into attack mode.  During the campaign the targets were varied:  Hilary Clinton and the media were constant victims. Since taking office, Trump has stepped up his attacks on the media, to the exclusion of many other objects of his anger. If this attack mode leaves the crowd shouting hatred at the target more angry rather than sated, there is a possible link to the statistical spike in hate crimes associated with his rallies.

It is ironic that a bitter attack on the media, seen in person or on television, could leave a crowd more ready to overthrow gravestones in a Jewish cemetery. At present the research needs further confirmation, but it looks as if that is so. It would leave Mr. Trump in the position of venting on an imagined enemy while the effects of that attack circle round to hurt the ones he loves- his daughter and her family. He could be truly an American tragic hero, like the protagonist of All My Sons, or the media scion murmuring “Rosebud,” because his career has hurt his daughter.  Creon in Antigone, realizes that his anger has killed his own child and the Montagues and Capulets find that hatred cones back to its source. But there is a difference: the hero of those stories has a moment of awareness when he realizes what he has done. No such moment for Trump.

 

Am I the only one who felt uncomfortable watching video of President Trump with Prime Minister Abe of Japan? Could Abe really have enjoyed being pawed like that?

I am a believer in doing in Rome as the Romans do.  If our Ambassador to England wants to bow or his wife wants to curtsy before the queen, that’s fine–when they’re in England, but not here.  If our Ambassador to Japan takes his shoes off before entering a home or shrine or important building in Tokyo, I applaud the good manners. But here in the States we do it the American way.

Touching is different.  At home or abroad, the queen does not allow herself to be touched, and there are rumors that Michelle Obama, early in her role of First Lady, tried to take the queen’s elbow simply in a caring way, and offended greatly. We all of us have feelings about who may touch us and who may not, but particularly with people of Japanese ancestry, the issue is (pun warning) touchy.   I would far rather have seen our president or his representative standing at an appropriate  distance and bowing slightly. I don’t like to be embarrassed by any sort of goings-on in Washington.

 

 

One of my favorite people in History-and I have lots–is Anaximander, an ancient Greek.  He’s the philosopher who shocked Ionia by saying that the moon was not a goddess but a big rock up there in the sky. This, of course, was totally contrary to common sense. How could a rock hang in the sky? Rocks do not levitate.  How could anything but a god or goddess float up there in the heavens, changing shape at will and sometimes disappearing entirely? The city fathers are said to have  resolved the issue by banishing Anaximander, sending him out to the wilderness, which was a serious thing in those days.

I have thought of the poor old guy lately because the folks in Washington want to silence data about many things, but especially about climate.  Again, sometimes truth flies in the face of common sense. The East coast has faced blizzards, the Midwest copes with floods and the Southwest suffers from drought. One TV channel has sent reporters out in snowstorms to ask people on the street if they believe in global warming, as a big joke. We don’t want to hear that temperatures off  the coast of Greenland are exceptionally high or that another ice cap has calved, broken off from the main.

Anaximander got a crater on the moon named after him.  Our contemporary scientists may be fired or banished if they  speak up and that will be the end of it.

The ancient Chinese built a wall to keep out the barbarians.  The barbarians did not pay for it.

The English centuries ago built a wall, called Hadrian’ s Wall, to keep out the Picts, present day Scots.  The Picts did not pay for it. I haven’t been to China, but I have hiked along party of Hadrian’s Wall. It wound up  being a rather scenic ruin, providing a nice walk in the country.

Walls are being built in Europe today to keep out refugees and there is no hope  at all that the refugees will pay.

Nevertheless it is worth thinking about control of a nation’s border.  Most people I know are vehemently opposed to a wall and not very worried about immigrants. A former foster child who slipped in across the border insists we should close the border.  If we opened it, she says, we have no idea how difficult it would be to  control drugs  and gang  warfare.  David, a former student, bellows “Close the border.” He is a graduate in Agriculture from a Mexican University and himself a former illegal immigrant, now legal and a citizen, thanks to an amnesty. Another friend who is a Quaker is  for open borders all around; I am not  certain whether that is her own opinion or a position by her church community.

We who live in a state where agriculture is important have a unique point of view. Our farmers need the workers. Their harvests and profits are suffering for lack of workers.  We respect immigrants from Mexico and Central America because they are decent family people and hard workers.  We know them as neighbors; our children go to school and play with their children. Every now and then we read in the papers that a pregnant woman working in the fields has died of  dehydration and we are reminded that even one such death is too many, that workers need protection from the sun and from pesticides; they need water and sanitation, and they need fair working conditions.

Most people I know would agree that if there were no other way to provide for their children except by sneaking across the border into Canada illegally, they would do it. My point is that there is a difference between illegal and immoral. It is not wrong to want a better life for one’s family.

Our immigrants from the Southwestern border work on lawns and gardens; they do construction work. and they fish. They work as short order cooks and they do the backbreaking work of weeding and plucking produce.  They have a high rate of accidents on the job because agriculture and fishing are dangerous. If anyone in the Midwest thinks the immigrants have taken away their jobs, they should come out and sign up.

Unlike most of my friends, I my self would not object to a guest worker program if it could work effectively. Although such programs have not been a success in Europe, where guest workers have not assimilated well,  we have visa programs that do work.  One is the H2A. What we need would be clearer if we acknowledged that immigration from Mexico and Central America is a  unique situation unlike that from Europe and Asia. Quotas should be set independently.

There may be some possibility of a terrorist slipping across the southern border and I’d like for us to be safe from that possibility. However, the would-be terrorist who was interrupted in his plan to bomb LAX airport several years ago had  come in via Canada.

Gangs and drugs are already crossing the border. We are importing them in exchange for the guns we sell various  rogue operators.  If North Americans could give up their drug habits, border problems would be a lot simpler. Now there’s a problem I’d like to see a solution to.

 

 

Climate change deniers—you can’t hardy find them. The key is this: those experts that you think are denying climate change are really not doing so. They agree there is change. A few deny human causation but a more significant group is saying “Yes, the phenomenon is real, but we should focus instead on helping the poor people and the poor nations who will suffer the most from global warming or those who need our help right now for whatever reason.” They are actually talking about a massive humanitarian aid effort to lift victimized peoples, a massive welfare project if you will. They argue that fixing climate change would cost a great deal and for the same money we could do a great deal of good by eliminating hunger and disease.
Prime example is Bjorn Lomborg, who advertises himself as a skeptic of global warming. But he does agree that there is climate change and that it is a threat. He thinks that fixing the problems would be expensive; for the same money we could fix many problems by prioritizing present needs. Climate change is only one of many problems; he believes we should take that same money and spread it around on various humanitarian projects.

In another example. Robert Socolow, the Princeton emeritus professor of physics and author of the Nine Wedges theory of fighting climate change, asked his colleagues at Princeton, those who disagreed with his findings, to make a presentation on You Tube, alongside his own presentation. Those who participated spoke out as if they were the opposition, but when it came right down to it, they said it would be cheaper to take care of the downtrodden victims of climate change than to fix the system that causes it.
Humanitarian aid is wonderful. Preventing suffering in the first place is better. Furthermore the situation has changed since many of these critics spoke. Extreme weather in connection with global warming is in itself able to disrupt many of our aid systems. The equivalent of three or four Hurricane Katrina’s in a year or less could wipe out resources and cause compassion fatigue. FEMA resources have already been strained to the breaking point and its payments are limited.

Climate change is advancing at a faster rate than expected . Some of the skepticism seems to have quieted. But we should remember that these so-called deniers are making pronouncements not about physics or climatology, but about allocation of budget in the social sciences. “We’ll buy rubber boots and hope the flood in the basement doesn’t rise any higher; meantime we can pay for more school lunches for hungry children.” All of these pronouncements assume that the effects of warming will be limited to poorer peoples and to developing nations.

The so-called denials are not science.  They are opinions about budgeting in the humanities by people in the sciences. Of course we should take care of people who are suffering now, and we should prevent future catastrophes as well.

Global warming is real  and it is dangerous.  Something you can do about it is to contact your representatives in government–local, state and federal– and demand that they have  a competent science advisor on the staff.