Esperu

Update on job situation

2010-08-12T18:48:00.004-04:00

Okay, this post goes out to my FaceBook friends. It's too long for a status update, so I'm posting it here. Because this is more public than FaceBook, I'm going to be a little less specific than I might be otherwise.

I'm sorry I've confused so many of my friends about my job situation. I guess I don't post updates often enough to explain the whole narrative. Here's the story:

For the last 8 years I've worked for the same company. That company is very large, has different divisions, different contracts, and different positions on those contracts. For 6 of those 8 years I worked on one contract, and held several different positions on that contract. Last year, congress declared my job on that contract illegal. The basic explanation is that my job was to provide system engineering technical assistance (SETA) to the government that included providing a review of the technical performance of developmental contractors. In some cases, it was my own company that held those developmental contracts. (It's not just me. One large defense contractor is being forced to sell an entire division to comply with the law.) Congress (reasonably) outlawed these "organizational conflicts of interest" (OCI).

Thinking to avoid being left suddenly without a job as this acquisition reform act was implemented, I looked for, and found in January of this year, a different job within my same company on a different contract. The job I interviewed for there was to be the Enterprise Architecture Team Lead. There was some sort of miscommunication between myself and the Program Manager as part of my moving to that contract, and I ended up just as a member of the team, and not the lead. This was a bad fit for a number of reasons, and I asked to be taken off that contract. At that time, I started interviewing and going to job fairs.

Well, in May my company kindly moved me into a new position, working on a proposal. That was fun, but it only lasted a month. Since then I've been in a "temporary" position in the company. Basically, I am charging overhead and sometimes doing really cool stuff like strategy development and supplier relationship management, and sometimes sitting in my cube with nothing to do. I've kept interviewing this entire time, with no offers. My boss told me "keep looking" [he meant inside the company] because "the overhead account could run out any day."

On Tuesday, I got two job offers: one inside the company, and one outside the company. I'm pretty sure which one I'll pick, but there's some complex calculus going on and I don't know for sure.

I hope that clears everything up! Sorry I wasn't clear about things.

Got a message from Hyundai

2010-06-14T20:15:00.002-04:00

I got this email from Hyundai today:

Hello and thank you for your feedback regarding Hyundai advertising.

Hyundai Motor America would like to thank you and other consumers for sharing concerns about a new ad titled "Wedding" which aired during the opening games of the FIFA World Cup broadcast last week. We take comments of this nature very seriously. Because of feedback like yours, we have removed the ad from all Hyundai communications and stopped airing it.

We credit the passionate World Cup viewers and Hyundai owners for raising this issue to us. The unexpected response created by the ad, which combined both soccer and religious motifs to speak to the passion of international soccer fans, prompted us to take a more critical and informed look at the spot. Though unintentional, we now see it was insensitive. We appreciate your feedback and hope you will accept our sincere apologies.

With appreciation,

Hyundai Motor America

Here was my original message to them:

Dear Hyundai USA:
My attention was recently drawn to the "Soccer Mass" ad that is playing for Hyundai during the Word Cup. I'm sure no one at Hyundai intended this to be offensive or insulting, but you should realize that many will find it as such. I think I would best describe it as "disturbing," since it seems to take such a cavalier attitude towards something which I, as a Catholic Christian, hold so dear. Imagine an ad where a soccer game interrupted the funeral of a serviceman, and you might get a sense of how disturbing that would be.
I hope you decide to pull this ad for the remainder of the World Cup, and try to show a little more sensitivity to us Catholics in the future.

I don't think I could have asked for a better response. Thanks, Hyundai!

Strange Police Actions

2010-05-05T20:53:00.002-04:00

I had a very strange interaction with some Arlington County police officers today. I was coming out of Ballston Mall on the Wilson Boulevard exit near Stuart street. I saw on the sidewalk a woman's wallet. I looked around and didn't see any woman whom it might belong to, but I did see a police officer sitting in his car a few feet from me.

I picked up the wallet and walked to the police officer's car. I waved to him and he rolled down his window. I showed him the wallet and said I had just found it lying on the sidewalk. He pointed to the other police car in front of him and said: "That officer there will help you." Okay, I figured he must be busy with something.

I walked to the next car and repeated my interaction. The second officer got out of his car with a scowl on his face, took the wallet from me and threw it at the other police officer! I asked, "Is there a problem, officer?" He looked at me and said: "You don't have a problem. That other officer has a problem."

By this point, the other officer had gotten out of his car, and the two police officers started exchanging angry but indistinct words with each other. I walked across Wilson Boulevard as fast as I could reasonably do without drawing attention to myself, and went down Stuart street hoping to leave the angry men with guns behind me.

I hope they worked it all out quickly.

The Conservative Option

2010-01-19T20:35:00.004-05:00

With the election in Massachusetts complete, I've realized that I've waited in vain for a conservative, any conservative, to offer a reasonable option on health care reform (or, more properly, health insurance reform). Deciding to apply my systems engineering experience to the problem of health care provisioning, I've come up with what I propose as a truly conservative and workable health care reform proposal. It's simple, makes the minimum changes to the existing system, and will serve to lower costs for all. It even has a simple title: "Universal Secondary Health Insurance."

Here's how it will work: the US government will establish a fund that will provide secondary health insurance to everyone. That's right, the coverage is universal with no one left out. This secondary health insurance initially pays 20% of all your qualified out-of-pocket health care expenses. (There's plenty of law about qualified health care expenses, so I won't try to define it.) That's no great shakes by itself, except that it lowers costs for everyone. Where it gets really helpful is that once you have spent 20% of your adjusted gross income on health expenses, the fund now starts paying 80% of your qualified expenses.

This is great in several ways. First, it helps you because you are almost assured not to go bankrupt paying for health care. Whatever health problems are going on in your life, those costs are mostly covered once you've spent 20% of your income (which, by the way, is about what most middle class folks spend, anyway.) Second, it helps the insurance companies, because they know that their risks are limited. The insurance companies also aren't going to be stuck with a huge bill for a single person's illness. Third, it helps the poor because it provides more coverage to those who need it most; the high-rate coverage kicks in earlier the less money you make.

How will we pay for this fund? The same way that your bank deposits are insured by the FDIC; the same way that rural areas are assured of telephone service; by a fee imposed upon the service providers. In this case, the health insurance companies will all have to contribute to this fund, and everyone will benefit. Yes, that raises the cost of health insurance, but you and I are already paying these costs in the current system. Our hospital bills are higher, our insurance rates are higher, our ambulance fees are higher, because of all the people who currently use these services without paying for them. This approach ensures that these higher costs are covered by normal health care spending, and not disproportionately by us when we have an emergency or serious health problem. By the way, the money you spend buying health insurance will be included under the 20% of income cap. If you buy health insurance for 20% of your AGI, then the 80% coverage of further out-of-pocket expenses kicks in immediately.

How do we make this system fair for everyone, including the insurance companies? That's where the universal mandate comes in. Everyone benefits from this fund, so everyone has to pay into it. This is better than having Uncle Sam pay for the fund, though, because it's not a tax. Congress doesn't get a chance to divert your health care funds to pay for public television or the V-22 Osprey. You are paying for health care, and it goes into a fund that pays for health care only.

Now, this universal mandate is a big boon to the insurance companies, so we have to put some additional constraints on them. Some of these features are the good parts of the existing legislation. "Universal Insurability" is one feature. You can't be denied coverage. No lifetime maximums is another. If we have to buy insurance, then the insurance companies have to treat us with justice.

There's a couple of other issues of justice that we need to deal with in the conservative option. First, retain the Hyde amendment. Abortion is not health care, it's the termination of a human person for the convenience of another, and the government shouldn't be paying for it. Neither will the secondary insurance fund. Neither can you count coverage of abortion from an insurance company as part of your out-of-pocket expenses.

Second, the fund needs to provide coverage for illegal aliens. I know there are a lot of conservatives who will balk at this, but the truth is that you are already paying for their trips to the emergency room by higher fees. By making the illegal alien eligible, he also has to buy health insurance and contribute (indirectly) to the fund. However, an illegal immigrant doesn't have a legitimate adjusted gross income, so he never moves to the 80% coverage bracket. His coverage stays at 20%.

Third, subsume Medicaid. I'm not proposing anyone touch Medicare, which is the current insurance for older Americans. Medicaid is the program that provides supplemental insurance coverage for the poor. Instead, if your AGI is below 150% of the poverty level, you start out at the 80% secondary coverage. This gets interpolated back to the 20% coverage when your AGI approaches 400% of the poverty level. This has the effect of actually lowering taxes, since we no longer have the payroll tax into the Medicaid fund.

There are a couple of additional steps that health insurance reform legislation should take to "bend the curve" of cost growth. First, eliminate direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs. You know all those ads on TV for depression medicines? You and I are paying for those ads when we buy our own drugs. If the drug makers have the science to back up their claims, let them make those claims to doctors, not tax my wallet to advertise them on TV.

Finally, phase out over a few years the tax subsidy to employers for providing health insurance. There's no reason to subsidize insurance companies through a tax break, they're already making good money. As the tax subsidy to employers phases out, more of us will be buying insurance ourselves, instead of having our employers do it for us. This has the effect of putting power back in the hands of consumers. Right now, insurance companies don't answer to us, because we aren't paying them directly! They answer to our employers, who are paying them -- paying them with what should be our money! As any conservative knows, whoever pays the piper calls the tune. We want insurance companies who are responsive to our needs. To get that, we need to be the ones paying them. Remember, however, that what you pay to the insurance companies is included in the 20% AGI cap. That's where your tax break stays in place.

This is what real health reform looks like. It covers everyone. It keeps you from losing your life savings because of an accident or illness. It provides justice for the poor, and it puts the power back in the hands of consumers. It's well past time for a politician to stand up and put a true conservative plan on the table. Let this be the answer to true health insurance reform.

My Votes on America's Got Talent

2009-09-10T18:45:00.006-04:00

So, a vice I've got is I'm a dedicated watcher of America's Got Talent. This season especially has brought out some outstanding talent. It's tough to pick among some of the very best, but here's my list for what order the finalists should be in:

11. Wait, Wait, Number 11?!!? I thought there were only 10 finalists! Indeed there are, but I had to put a vote in for Nick Cannon. He has really shined as much more talented than Jerry Springer at hosting a show like this. He can't win, but way to go, Nick!

10. Hairo Torres. They say Hairo is the best at what he does. Indeed, but there's a good reason no one else does it. He's fascinating to watch, much like a train wreck, but not very entertaining. He's easily shown-up by the club dancers around him, each of whom should be a finalist if Hairo is. In the "it's an honor just to be nominated" category, it was indeed an honor for him. He should take the honor and go home.

9. The Voices of Glory. I was fretting when the Fab Five and VoG were the last two on the first round. I cheered when they both went through. I really like them. However, there are a lot of singers in the final (6). Compared to the other singers, the two boys in this trio (especially 13-year old Avery Cole) really don't have the chops. 9-year-old Nadia is wonderful, but not good enough to pull this trio to $1 Million.

8. Drew Stevyns. I had been pretty much ignoring Drew as he went along, as he's a rather nondescript pop-style singer. He really gave a great performance of George Michael's Careless Whisper ("Guilty feet have got no rhythm"). However, his performance was all in the singing. That song has some great guitar riffs, and he just played rhythm (ironically) behind his singing. He doesn't really have the guitar chops to present himself as a singer-songwriter or solo pop artist. Drew belongs as the lead singer in a great cover band, not as a Vegas act all on his own.

7. Grandma Lee. Her first performance was hilarious, and her comic timing was perfect. On each successive performance, her material has gotten weaker and repetitive. Also, as the stakes have gotten higher she's clearly gotten more nervous, and her timing has failed. Piers thinks shes funnier than she is, but that's not surprising, he's British. Unless she seriously steps it up for the final with all new material and impeccable timing, it's time for Grandma to have a guest appearance on Jay Leno's new show, and then go home.

6. Texas Tenors. These guys are individually decent singers. Put them together with a very large dose of cheese (to quote Piers), and they're a very entertaining act. I'd be happy to see them at the Birchmere at some point. But one night at the Birchmere is not a standing show in Vegas. They've made a name for themselves, and if they keep refining their act, they've got a career to look forward to, just not as winners of AGT.

5. Lawrence Beamen. A very nice man with a very nice voice. Listening to him is nice. Nice is not necessarily interesting. His talent and performance merit a decent finish, and maybe a single on some Simon Cowell anthology album, but not the big prize.

4. Fab Five. Okay, this is the first one on the list that I wouldn't mind being wrong about if they win. Their back story is great, and they are on the cusp of being the Next Big Thing. I liked the firefighter skit, but the majorette piece -- Riverdance meets Bring in Da Noise Bring in Da Funk meets Toni Basil. It's not clear they've got enough variety to do an entire Vegas show, but they keep pleasing and surprising, so if they find a way to keep delivering, more power to them!

3. Barbara Padilla. Oh, man, did I want to to put her at #1! I cried from the beginning to the end of her Ave Maria. The opera world is tough, though. I don't really have the expertise to know how good she is. I think Cristina Nassif is awesome, and no one's really heard of her. If Barbara is as good as I think, she'll have a great opera career, regardless of whether she wins AGT.

2. Recycled Percussion. Okay, I admit, I don't really like them very much. But, much as with Eminem, I can admire their talent. Plus, it takes a great deal of creativity to make music (that can be appreciated) by hitting an old van with a sledgehammer. If they hire some additional creative writers/choreographers, they could be the next Blue Man Group. They are very Vegas, and know how to structure a performance. I'll never go see them, but they would certainly be deserving winners.

1. Kevin Skinner. I don't think I can be happy if Kevin doesn't win. He just draws the audience into his world, and makes you love it. When he sang "You were always on my mind," I felt like I had never heard the song before, because it was so gentle and sincere. I'm ready to buy his album, and buy tickets for his next performance at Nissan Pavillion. He's already won in my mind, and I hope he gets the $1 Million to go with it.

Dear Washington Post Editor

2009-08-28T21:39:00.003-04:00

Well, I guess The Washington Post is not going to publish my letter to the editor, since the original letter to the editor it references is no longer available on their website. I thought I wrote a good letter, so here it is:

Dear Editor:

In a 16 June Letter to the Editor, Sophia Panieczko of Manassas wonders rhetorically "If the goal of antiabortion activists is to reduce or eliminate abortions, why aren't they enthusiastic advocates of the use of contraceptives?" Perhaps Ms. Panieczko is unaware of actual contraceptive failure rates. A June 2008 study published in "Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health" showed average contraceptive failure rates of 12% per year. This is "substantially unchanged" from other studies in 1995 or 2002. If half the undergraduates at a university of 10,000 students are sexually active, unmarried, and using contraception, then this results in approximately 300 children per year. All of these children are, by definition, unwanted, and most will be aborted. If advocates of "planned parenthood" really have "every child a wanted child" as their goal, why aren't they advocating for the elimination of contraceptives? Unlike Ms. Panieczko, I won't engage in idle and insulting speculations about what others' motives might be.

I hope The Post's readers eventually learn the truth about the ways in which contraception leads to abortion.

Best Mass Ever!

2009-08-14T23:29:00.003-04:00

So, there was an interesting message on our parish website today:

A Message from Father Specht

Feast of the Assumption

August 15^th is the Solemnity of the Assumption of Mary, the day that the Church celebrates the Blessed Mother’s spiritual and physical entry into glory. Because August 15^th falls on a Saturday this year it is not a holy day of obligation for the faithful. This means that there is no requirement to attend Mass on the feast this year.

This feast is also one of a handful of feasts that include a proper Vigil Mass. A vigil is a Mass intended to be celebrated on the proceeding evening, and containing it’s own proper prayers and readings.

Over the last two years the choirs have spent a great deal of effort expanding their familiarity with “proper” musical parts of the Mass. Most people do not realize that each Sunday and Feast Day Mass also has assigned its own “proper” music, intended as an intimate part of that specific celebration along with the specific prayers and introductions (prefaces) to the Eucharistic Prayer itself. We have used the English translations (and sometimes the Latin originals) of this music during most Sunday noon masses.

Now that these elements are in place we are able to celebrate some masses in a more solemn way. The Vigil of the Assumption of Mary will be celebrated on August 14^th at 7:30PM. This Mass will be fully chanted in Latin with the proper music parts. Mass celebrated in this way is likely to fullest expression of the reforms of the Novus Ordo, the Mass instituted by Paul VI. The Holy Hour normally scheduled for Friday evening will not be held on the 14^th.

Please consider joining us for the celebration of this great vigil.

Intrigued, and alone for the weekend (my wife & kids are out of town) I went. I have two words to say: "Wow!" and "Yeah!"

Wow. This was one of the most beautiful Masses I've been to. Yes, better than Easter Vigil at the Abbey, although that was excellent. What was wonderful about this was it finally felt like we were doing Mass the way it was intended to be. This took us, our community, in many ways out of the mode of creative self expression, and instead into the mode of conforming ourselves to Christ. It's like in a marriage where it stops being an effort to accommodate the other person, and instead becomes natural to be the person your spouse needs you to be.

Yeah! This is the Mass I've been yearning for. This is the Mass that the Council Fathers promised us. The use of Latin ties us with the rest of the Church. The expanded collection of readings (in English) open up the Word to us more fully. The use of Gregorian Chant (and some polyphony) expresses the richness of our Western heritage. The audible canon with responses facilitates full, active participation. (I know some people won't like me saying that, but I really find the inaudible canon of the extraordinary form indefensible. )

I know I said before "Latin, I just didn't get it..." and I promised to go an Extraordinary Form Mass, which I did eventually do. Here's why the Mass this evening was so much better than the one I went to before:

1. Consistency of language. Except for the readings & the homily, the Mass was in Latin. There was none (well, maybe one minor mistake) of the random switching between languages as in the previous Mass I attended

2. Gregorian Chant. Singing or chanting everything gave me, as I predicted, the time to understand what was going on. Thank you, Fr. Specht, for chanting the entire canon. I know that's not easy for you, but it adds richly to the experience.

3. Pacing. Nothing seemed rushed about this Mass. (Yes, it took about 90 minutes, but it seemed shorter than many 45-minute Eucharistic-Prayer-2 rush-jobs I've attended because I was never distracted.)

A couple of things I appreciated:

Having the words of the Collect, the Gradual, the Offertory, etc. in English. I found that I could scan the English first, and be able to catch enough of the Latin keywords to both know where we were in the prayer, and let the beauty of the experience fully affect me.
Also, I really like it when the acolyte incenses the congregation. Indeed, we are all together offering ourselves as a sacrifice of praise. Talk about active participation! We are also gifts offered to God.
Ad Orientem. As I said in my previous post, once you've seen this, you'll never want to go back.
The Choir learning all the parts. They did a great job helping all of us navigate this somewhat unfamiliar territory. Sure, they were a little rough in some parts, but I don't think the Holy Spirit minded.

Now, maybe we could start having Mass Ad Orentem every Sunday at the Noon Mass, hey Father?

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Fr. Specht!

A comment on the Christopher West West Kerfuffle

2009-05-29T23:42:00.003-04:00

So, I had been carefully restraining myself from commenting on the current kerfuffle regarding Christopher West after he was profiled on Nightline. The first reason is that I am related to Christopher and even received an acknowledgment in one of his books. The second reason is that in many cases, I would have been guilty of committing the exact error I would criticize someone for.

Did the person criticize Christopher without talking to him? How could I do the same? Did the person criticize his teaching without knowing what he teaches? I'm no theologian to know whether Christopher teaches that or not. It seemed that anything I might say would end up being a supreme instance of the pot calling the kettle black.

Now, a fellow named Dan Kenney has posted his reflections on the commotion. I really think Dan Kenney has hit all the marks on the points I wanted to make, and has done so in a manner much better than I could.

I hope that more people read his posting.

Mission Accomplished?

2009-04-25T23:21:00.004-04:00

Well, I can't really say that the craps table is finished. It just reached the point that I had more important things (like a see-saw for the kids) to work on. Obviously, finishing wood is a real art, and I don't have it. I was needing multiple rounds of painting, sanding, cleaning, painting, sanding, cleaning, and I just couldn't get the finish to look anything like I wanted. I finally decided to just attach the pull clasps to get it looking like something more than a pile of boards. Here's that result:
But, really the edges still were very rough. One more round of sanding, cleaning, and painting, and I declared it "good enough." I put it together in the living room; here's the result:

Gee, in that light you can see the finish really isn't very good at all. I played a few rounds immediately: First throw was a craps 3, but then I made two 6s and a 9 in a row, with several placed 8s hitting during the 9 point. Then I sevened out on a 4 point. Not too shabby. I discovered that every time I throw the dice, I'm digging pits into the boards at the end, so it looks like I'm really going to need to buy that pyramid bumper to put on the ends. Oh well, the craps table budget is about tapped this month.

I took off the players' long rail so that the kids could play. My 5-year-old really got it, and was placing odds on his come bets before I knew it! We played about 2 hours. He was up about 400 on an initial stake of 185 after one hour, but then he started putting blacks on the field, and ended up with about 120. I started also with 185, but ended up with 250 by the end. Again, not too shabby!

I went to put the players' long rail back on, and the way I grabbed it the molding fell off again. That makes tonight the 3rd time I've glued that molding back on. Neither the brads nor the liquid nails wants to hold it, so I think I'm going to have to find some wood screws and see if they'll work.

Okay, so it's about time to plan the craps party! I figure I can get 8 players at $20 stakes with a 10-to-1 buy-in. Hmmm, how soon can I plan this?

Getting Closer on the Craps Table

2009-04-05T20:03:00.003-04:00

I'm really pleased with how the craps table is turning out. I got all the molding around the outside cut, glued, and nailed. Then I primed the boards. I discovered that MDF absorbs primer like Ganesha drinking milk! After an extra run to Home Depot for more primer, I got everything primed and sanded:

The black glossy enamel paint then started to go on beautifully. I'm really happy with how things are turning out:

There's only one spot on a piece of molding that for some reason, the paint started to crack and bubble immediately on contact:

I'm not sure what's up with that, since I've handled all the boards the same. Evidently there was something on the molding. I'll sand down that location, prime and paint again, and hope that fixes it.

The pull clasps I ordered from Amazon.com never showed up. I went to Amazon.com, and they don't show any record of it having been ordered, and the credit card has no charge. I must have done something wrong during the order. Oh well, I went to Fischer's Hardware in Springfield and found the clasps I wanted, anyway. And that without shipping & handling!

The sides are only half painted at this point. Once they're dry, I'll turn them over and paint the other side. Then I just have to add the clasps, and it should be done! I'm hoping no other hiccups show up, and it'll be done soon.

Progress on the Craps Table

2009-03-29T21:55:00.004-04:00

Well, the home-made craps table is starting to take shape. I got a 4x8 piece of MDF cut down by Home Depot to make the 3x6 table top. I'll use the extra for the rails. (I bought another 6'x1' piece of MDF for the dealer's rail.) Here's the pieces at home:
So, I fine-tuned the lengths a little, and then put pegs in the corners. Here's the result:

Just don't touch it! There's nothing except pegs holding it together at this point. After this, I sanded all the edges down.

I started working on attaching the hardware to the corners to hold it together, and I've decided that I just don't have quite the right hardware. It was getting more and more complicated -- adding lattice pieces and additional molding -- I decided to take a different route. I found some different pull clasps on Amazon.com. They should be here in a couple days.

Also, I realized that the brads I have for attaching the molding are too long: they'll go right through. I need new brads. Also, the liquid nails was opened previously, and had seized up. Off to the store soon, then, to buy new brads, new liquid nails, and return the old clasps. Also, I think I won't need the lattice at all, but I've already marked it up, so I can't really return it.

I'm just going for minimalism on the first round. I'll improve it after it gets a couple of nights of play. I guess I'd better go buy some more 11.5g chips!

Great Opinion Piece in the Post

2009-03-22T17:14:00.003-04:00

The Washington Post's Outlook section included an opinion piece this week on how America is culturally not like Europe, and why that's a good thing. Here's the thesis:

The stuff of life -- the elemental events surrounding birth, death, raising children, fulfilling one's personal potential, dealing with adversity, intimate relationships -- occurs within just four institutions: family, community, vocation and faith. Seen in this light, the goal of social policy is to ensure that those institutions are robust and vital. The European model doesn't do that. It enfeebles every single one of them.

The most frightening quote is his analysis of American political parties, that puts a halt in my slow slide toward sthe Democratic party:

The European model provides the intellectual framework for the social policies of the Democratic Party, and it faces no credible opposition from Republican politicians.

Okay, so that leaves me still an Independent, but what can I do about it? The article falls short in that it offers few suggestions about what to do about this, but the piece is still well worth reading in that it points to problems I've been aware of, but articulates them in a way much clearer than I have seen or been able to describe by myself.

Was Esperu Right?

2008-12-03T19:21:00.001-05:00

Sometimes our hopes are confirmed.

Preliminary thoughts on the 7th Commandment

2008-11-17T23:21:00.004-05:00

"Thou shall not steal." (Yes, that's the 7th commandment. YMMV.)

Things exist.
People exist.
Some things belong to people.
Some things do not belong to anyone.
When a thing belongs to a person, that person (the owner) has the exclusive right to disposition the thing.
Among the dispositions an owner may select, the owner may abandon the thing.
An abandoned thing does not belong to anyone.
A person may appropriate a thing that is capable of being owned, and which does not belong to anyone.
When a person appropriates a thing, then the person now owns it.
Sometimes, justice may dictate that an owner disposition a thing in a particular way.
If a person dispositions a thing that belongs to another, then that person has violated the rights of the owner to be the exclusive dispositioner of the thing.
If an owner is incapable or unwilling to disposition a thing according to the dictates of justice, then others may be obligated to disposition the thing, even though this violates the exclusive rights of the owner.
If a person dispositions a thing that another owns, and the disposition was not dictated by justice, then the person has committed theft.

I hope that by reasoning this way, I can someday come to understand the concept of "usury." We'll see if I ever get there.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Do

2008-07-29T23:45:00.003-04:00

So I heard a piece on NPR today about Obama and McCain having differing opinions on the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of the U.S. Military regarding persons with same-sex attraction (yclept "gays"). In short, Obama thinks it should be removed as a policy, because it has led to some number of good soldiers being dismissed from the armed forces. McCain supports continuing the policy, and -- curiously enough -- cites this as a "gay-friendly" policy. (Apparently, he's referring to the "Don't Ask" part of it.)

I think it's a terrible policy and should be removed, but not for the reasons that Obama presents. I'm opposed to the policy because it posits and ontological character to an epistemological phenomenon. In short, it fails to distinguish between orientation and action. The military has apparently bought into the strange idea -- brought about by a combination of liberal identity politics and the enduring influence of John Calvin in the American cultural landscape -- that "gayness" is an intrinsic part of a person, similar to race, rather than an extrinsic manifestation of an internal disorder.

By way of analogy -- there are certainly a number of U.S. servicemen who suffer from a disordered affection for alcohol. However, alcoholism is not per se grounds for being removed from the military. Chronic drunkenness, however, is reasonable grounds for corrective, remediative, and punitive actions by the military.

Similarly, the Uniform Code of Military Justice already has well-established mechanisms for addressing the negative impact to good order and discipline that arise from extra-marital sexual activity among the troops. It's very good at identifying the types of sexual relationships which mar readiness and morale. There is no reason that this code should be applied differently or exceptionally to those who suffer from same-sex attraction. Adultery and fornication are often contrary to good order in a military organization, and should be addressed uniformly within the military.

The problem isn't whether a person self-identifies as "gay" or not. The problem in the military is behavior that disrupts readiness and order. It is behavior that should be addressed.

I hope clear heads prevail in this arena.

More on Latin, and good Liturgy

2008-07-16T20:10:00.004-04:00

Fr. Z. was kind enough to review and comment on my previous post about attending an ordinary form mass in Latin Ad Orientem. I'm truly grateful to him and to the many people who posted. They have given me much food for thought. I especially appreciate that most of the posters, and certainly those kind enough to comment on this blog, seemed to truly have my best interests at heart. Thank you.

A few of the posters made assumptions about me for which they really didn't have any evidence. Without addressing these point by point, I'll just say that your assumptions probably reveal more about yourself than they do about me.

One of the posters said

"Could someone explain why one would want a NO in latin Ad Orientem rather than a straight forward Tridentine Mass in dialogue form. In what way is the fomer superior to the latter and if not superior why bother with it when its predecessor is perfectly good (infact perfect and good)."

To this I can only answer that it is not strange for someone to want what the council fathers said we should have. I think the idea that the Tridentine liturgy as it was celebrated between 1920 and 1963 is "perfect" is an idea that needs some serious critical examination. The historical documents I've read seem to indicate otherwise.

Now, some insights I've gained in reading the responses:

1. Indeed, silence is golden.
I think the simultaneously rushed and bored approach of the priest at the Mass I attended contributed to my dislike of the experience. The ordinary form contains many points when reverent silence is indicated. That these are seldom observed is a tragic consequence of the realities of large suburban parish life that so many of us experience. We have to get the cars out of the parking lot from one Mass in order to get to the next.

2. Gregorian Chant is a big part of what I missed
No, I didn't think of it at the time, but indeed I would have appreciated much more Gregorian chant in this Mass. I don't mind singing in Latin. The time it takes to sing the notes tends to be enough for me to figure out what it is I am saying. (I know French and Esperanto, so both the Romance vocabulary and the modality of the language are familiar to me.) It's the rapid stream of recited Latin that has no appeal to me. That's what I had trouble with.

3. The inconsistency was part of the problem
The fact that there was no rhyme or reason to which prayers were in Latin, and which in English was a part of the distraction for me. One person asked me if I'd ever attended a Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. Indeed, I have, and I remember it with awe. I visited a Ukranian Catholic Church back in 1981, and I've never forgotten that liturgy. The consistency -- entirely in one language (I assume Ukranian) -- did not generate the distraction I felt by the random switching between languages. I think I'd like all the propers and ordinary (I mistakenly said "commons") to be in Latin. Just give me the readings and homily in English, and I'd probably be happier.

I'm a little puzzled by those who do not want to have their mind engaged at all during Mass with what is occurring at the Mass. What happened to full, conscious, active participation? I acknowledge the meditative trance that one enters into during a rosary, but that's a private act of worship, not a communal celebration of the great mystery.

I was hoping to attend an extraordinary form Mass tonight, but life intervened and it will have to wait until next week. I think part of why I'm not anticipating great enjoyment of it is that the canon is silent. Like I said, however, I'm willing to give it a try and see. I was surprised by the ordinary form Mass I attended, maybe I'll be surprised in a different way this time.

Latin -- I just didn't get it

2008-07-14T21:27:00.002-04:00

Okay, so based on the descriptions I'd read on various Catholic blogs, and studying the theology of the liturgy, I'd reached the conclusion that the best Mass for me to attend would be an ordinary form (yclept "Novus Ordo") Mass, in Latin, with the priest facing with the people ("ad orientem").

A little research revealed that there was such a Mass on Sundays within about 1/2 hour from my home. So, on a recent Sunday I attended. I didn't bring the wife and kids, since I didn't think a 4-year-old would tolerate it very well, and my wife didn't seem to have any interest.

First thing to note -- despite the summer weather, everyone was dressed modestly. This is nice, but not really different from my home parish, which holds ordinary form Masses in English on Sundays. There were noticeably more mantillas than I'm used to, but this wasn't a surprise.

The priest entered, and I noted he was wearing one of those "fiddleback" chasubles. I realize this is a matter of aesthetics, but the fiddleback looks to me like a short scapular. This has two effects: implying that the priest is a religious, even when diocesan; also, since it's short, it looks like he's heading out to work in the fields wearing a tapestry, rather than preparing to celebrate liturgy.

Enough fashion. This particular Mass was most disappointing because of the mannerisms of the priest. This priest delivered everything, whether Greek, Latin, or English, in a kind of bored sing-song that seemed to imply nothing other than "all right, let's get this over with." I don't know anything about this priest, but he's not the only reverend who could really use a quick tour with Toastmasters.

There didn't seem to be much rhyme or reason to which prayers were in Latin, and which were in English. Okay, I understand why you say the propers in English, since no-one in the congregation (even this priest, I suspect) knows enough Latin to do an on-the-fly translation like Fr. Z. The strange thing to me was that the commons were either in Latin or English without any discernible pattern. The paternoster in Latin makes sense, but then the "Deliver us" in English. Isn't that part of the same prayer? The congregation seemed puzzled how to answer. "For the Kingdom..." came out in English.

Personally, I'd prefer that the creed be left in the vernacular, since I think it's important for people to be reminded in their own language what it is they are professing, but I acknowledge arguments for putting it in Latin.

In fact, after attending this Mass, I'm kind of inclined to give up on Mass in Latin any time in the future. I just don't get the appeal. I'd rather know what it is I am saying, and what is being said. It engages my mind much more in the moment. I don't begrudge anyone their Latin Masses, but I think I'll take a pass.

Let me put in a plug for the altar boys. These guys have been very well taught. The thurifer especially knew his stuff, and did a great job with the incense. I'd say the team of 6 altar boys was probably the most well-rehearsed I'd seen in a long time.

So, here's one thing I really liked. Ad Orientem. Once you've seen this, you'll never want to go back to "versus populum." So much of the Eucharistic prayer, and the actions of the priest, just make so much more sense when the priest is offering up the Eucharist to the Lord, rather than to the congregation. (I'm exaggerating to make a point.) It's clear when the priest turns to the people and invites them to participate, that this is exactly what he is doing. Also, the elevation of the species turns into a great high-point of the Mass (especially with that incense!) rather than just a momentary gesture.

I hope that Ad Orientem takes off throughout Christendom. That's really the way to go to Mass. Latin -- take it or leave it. I'll leave it, thanks.

I hear there is an extraordinary form Mass about 20 minutes away on Wednesday mornings. I'll see if I can get to it some time soon. Based on this experience, I'm not anticipating liking it much, but I'm willing to give it a try.

#6 on things I never thought I'd say

2008-05-23T17:24:00.003-04:00

#6 What are you doing up there, and why is that in your mouth?

Here's the remaining 5 after the link.

Fatima Prayer in Esperanto

2008-05-23T17:23:00.003-04:00

O mia Jesuo, pardonu niajn pekojn, savu nin el la fajroj de Geheno. Konduku cxiujn animojn al Paradizo, precipe tiujn plej bezonatajn de cia kompateco.

Top Things I Never Thought I'd Say

2008-04-07T20:42:00.003-04:00

Okay, so I wish this were a "top 10" list, à la David Letterman, but I've only got 5 right now.

Top 5 things I never thought I'd say until I had kids:

5. If no one's bleeding, then work it out yourselves.

4. It's 3 am, I'm in my pajamas, and the only thing I'm buying is Infant Tylenol. How do you think I'm doing today?

3. It's okay, it's just poop.

2. No! Never turn out lights with your tongue!

1. I'm sorry honey, I'm just too tired tonight.

Oddnipotent Anachronym

2008-02-26T00:45:00.002-05:00

So, my co-workers have been prolific in the neologism department lately. Two additions gave me such delight, that I felt obliged to share them.

Overheard in a meeting: One person looked at an entry in a document and asked: "What does that abbreviation mean?" Another responded: "Oh, that's an anachronym," by which he meant that we no longer use that abbreviation. I love it!

Overheard in the galley kitchen: "That guy is so strange, he's practically oddnipotent!" Beautiful.

I hope you enjoyed that as much as I did.

Deal, or No Deal

2007-12-21T20:51:00.000-05:00

So, I served on a jury on Monday. I'm glad to do my civic duty, and I have complete confidence that we decided the case correctly, but I'm sad to say the whole thing missed the point of what matters.

This was a civil case, so there were only 7 in the jury. This case was a piece of a medical malpractice case that's been going on for 4 1/2 years. In all that time, no jury has ever heard any medical testimony. We didn't get all the details of the case, so I can't connect all the dots, but here's some pieces.

When he was about 12, J. fell off his skateboard and broke his wrist. Dr. M. set his wrist in a cast. 6 weeks later, the cast was removed and his wrist wasn't set correctly. A different doctor then performed orthopedic surgery to correct the problem. Somewhere along the line, J., his father, and his mother sued Dr. M. for malpractice. Their lawyer, B., took the case on a contingency basis.

So, the original suit was "non-suited" for procedural reasons. In other words, it just went away because of some filing error on B's part. B. refiled the case. This second suit was also "non-suited." We weren't told why, but apparently the judge blamed the plaintiff, and J. (now 14) was ordered to pay $15,455.95 to Dr M. for lawyer fees. Somewhere along the line, this, or the original non-suit, or the second non-suit, I don't know, was twice appealed to the Virginia supreme court. J. didn't fare so well at the Virginia supreme court, apparently because B. didn't file the correct paperwork along the way. B. filed a third suit for J.

So, I guess because of the ongoing appeals, J. (now 16 or 17) never paid Dr. M. for lawyer fees. The original judge didn't take too kindly to this, and so was threatening to put J. in jail if he didn't pay the fee, and to do so on the day before the SATs.

Here's where we come in. B. called Dr. M's lawyer and asked if they would forget the $15,455.95 if they dropped the third suit. Dr. M (or his insurance company) agreed, and then Dr. M's lawyers and B. called the judge in the second suit to say, "no worries -- the issue is settled." Here's the thing -- they couldn't reach the judge because of a power outage at the courthouse. J's other lawyer, C. made reference to an "alleged power outage." The judge responded: "I assure you, Mr. C., the court did not lie. We really did have a power outage." She then went on to explain that because of the construction next door, when the power goes out all of the toilets back up. The witness on the stand (Dr. M's lawyer) said: "TMI, Judge." We all got a good laugh. Wait -- I still haven't explained what we were doing there!

So, because they couldn't get through to the judge on Wednesday, it was too late to remove the case from the docket, so J. still had to show up before the judge on Friday. Apparently because J. was going to miss a test in an AP class so he could go to court, J. (or his father) changed his mind and said he'd rather pay and continue the suit than stick with the deal. So, when they all showed up on Friday, and Dr. M's lawyer announced: "We have a deal," B. says, "No, we don't."

So, we, the jury, had to decide: "Deal, or No Deal?"

Hour after hour of testimony from lawyers about which lawyer called which lawyer at what time on what day about what topic. Questions about which lawyer had authority from which client to do what. Instructions from all lawyers involved as well as the judge about what makes a contact. Questions about who was going to pay some other lawyer $750, questions about when the question of "a rule to show cause" was raised, questions about what constitutes authorization to represent someone else at law, etc.

Here's what it came down to: B. lied on the stand. He couldn't keep his lies straight, so he repeatedly contradicted himself; he contradicted documentary evidence he'd previously signed. Dr. M's lawyers had all kinds of documents that supported everything they said. B. couldn't produce any evidence to support what he said. J.'s other lawyer, Mr. C, even had to quiz him in a confrontational way just to get his own witness to tell a single coherent story. Dr. M's lawyers pointed out to him that if he stuck with what he was saying on the stand, he could be punished by the Virginia bar for ethics violations, so he changed his testimony. But then he went back to what he said before. And on.

When we went to deliberation, the foreman made sure we walked through every criterion for a valid contract. Yes, they were all there. They were all there in spades. Not a one of us 7 had even the slightest doubt. The foreman is trying to keep us focused, but the answers to his questions were so easy for us all, it was more fun to just play "spot the contradictions in B's testimony."

Here's the problem. The two most important questions in the whole matter weren't addressed. We didn't even hear anything about them. The first question: What now for Dr. M? Does the fact that they had a deal mean the whole awful thing is over for him? Does he get to go on with his life, or is this just one more piece of a never-ending case? We don't know. I suspect that J.'s father isn't going to let this die, and Dr. M. will be back in court again on this topic. The second question: What of J? He wasn't in the courtroom. We don't know if he has any permanent disability, or "just some scars," as one lawyer said. What does he think about all this? We don't know. In short, we never heard from, or even about, the two most important people in the whole case.

I hope, for both their sakes, this whole ordeal is over, and they can get on with their lives. Sadly, I fear that won't be the case.

So, what would you do?

2006-10-11T22:48:00.000-04:00

Okay, so suppose you lived on a block full of mobile homes, except for that one really big mansion in the middle of the street. Now suppose that guy who lives in that mansion announces that he hates three people on the block, and lists them. Suppose your name was on that list. Suppose you don't have any means to move away from this guy. Suppose he then goes and attacks the third guy on the list and burns down his trailer. Suppose he then swears that he has no intention of attacking the other people on his list, but oh-by-the-way he still hates them.

Might you go out an buy yourself a gun? Maybe you set up a range in your front yard and make sure your neighbor sees you taking target practice?

In truth, these are not things I would do. I hate guns; I refuse to own one; I refuse to fire one. Personally, I'd rather be killed by the rich mansion dweller than take the risk of harming anyone myself with a gun. All that said, I sure do understand that some people might respond this way. I wouldn't call them crazy because of it. I might say their approach was ill-conceived, but not crazy or malicious.

I hope this puts some things in perspective.

How long has it been?

2006-10-06T19:53:00.000-04:00

Almost a year since my last post! Maybe blogging is not my forte!

How long has it been since "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq? Too long, you must admit. The question is, what is our strategy for victory? "Stay the course" is a strategy to keep getting the same thing we've been getting: thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis dead, without anyone's life being any better for it. In fact, if the press has it right about the NIE, everyone is worse off for all this expenditure of money and lives.

To have a strategy, you have to have a goal. What is our goal? What would "victory" look like? I'd say victory would be an Iraq that is not subject to anarchy, and does not threaten its neighbors, and provides justice for all of its peoples.

One of the things often forgotten is what makes a government a government. Elections do not make a government. A key characteristic of a government is that it enjoy a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within its borders. Therefore, as long as U.S. troops are in Iraq and are not subject to the Iraqi government, the Iraqi "government" will not be a legitimate government. We must achieve a status-of-forces agreement with the Iraqi government that really permits this government to govern.

"Within its borders" is an additional caveat. Even if the Iraqi government could enjoy a monopoly on legitimate use of force in the perceptions of its people, it does not have the manpower or the technology to secure its borders, especially its borders with Iran and Turkey.

Here's a proposed strategy for victory:
1. Focus US troops on the borders. Shut down the flow of jihadis and arms. If this also hampers trade with Iran and Syria, so be it. (Turkey would probably welcome a reduction in cross-border traffic with Iraq, even if it comes at some economic cost.)
2. Outside of the border areas -- i.e. within the country -- U.S. troops only patrol with Iraqi army units, and only where those units wish to patrol. Yes, this will leave sections unpatrolled, but this is the incentive for both the Iraqi government, and those well-meaning Iraqis who value peace and stability over their own ethnic interests (however many of them there may be) to "stand up" to the task at hand.
3. Work to expand the green zone, until it encompasses most of Baghdad, including Sadr City. Don't allow any arms, not even small arms or single-shot rifles, inside of this zone. When expanding the zone, search house-to-house, apartment-to-apartment, to find all arms. Yes, this will irritate a lot of people, but they will all be happier when no one except the Iraqi army has guns in their neighborhood. This is, of course, an extremely difficult proposition, but it's one that at least has a path to success, while the current plan has no such path.

Now, I know nothing about being a soldier, or commanding armies. So, I'm sure that anyone who ever went to boot camp, much less anyone who has spent time in Iraq, can tell me what is wrong with this plan. I'm sure beyond a doubt there are some significant flaws in these ideas. I offer them up, however, in the hope that some piece of these ideas might help us find a route to meangingful victory.

Mary's Virginity and Historical Novums

2005-10-18T15:57:00.000-04:00

Eric Svendsen at New Testament Research Ministries has recently concluded another series of posts about Mary's perpetual virginity. The link in the title of this post is to part IV of this series, from which the other parts are accessible. In part II of this series, Svendsen has a section in which he calls the idea that Mary might have agreed to marry while remaining a perpetual virgin an "historical novum." Here is the full quote:

Keating (by positing a married virgin) has, moreover, introduced a
historical novum; namely, that there was such a thing as a married virgin. Yet,
such a notion cannot be supported either biblically or historically: “Such an
interpretation of 1:34 reads into the text later concerns; and the idea that a
Galilean village girl, who had already entered into marriage, did so intending
to remain a virgin and childless is out of harmony with the Jewish mentality of
Jesus’ time” (Brown et al, 1978:114-115).

Svendsen has done a great deal of reading about the perpetual virginity of Mary, and throws a great deal of information at the reader. I would that I had the time and the academic resources to study each of his arguments. I just wanted to point out that arguing that Mary's vow of virginity is an "historical novum," or that it is "out of harmony with the Jewish mentality of Jesus's time" is really not an effective refutation. Certainly, the incarnation of the living God in the person of Jesus Christ is also an historical novum, yet this does not argue against its truth. Neither does the fact that the zealots, herodians, sadducees, and pharisees of Jesus's time saw his teaching as "out of harmony with the Jewish mentality of [the] time" provide an effective argument that Jesus's teaching (especially in, for example, John 6) are incorrect. Finally, an angel appearing to Mary and calling her "full of grace," and telling her she will conceive by the Holy Spirit is certainly a biblical and historical "novum," but it is also shockingly true.

I hope this one point is now somewhat clearer.

Monty Hall was a Friend of Mine

2005-10-13T20:39:00.000-04:00

Michael Shackleford, who also has the marvelous Wizard of Odds page, has an old set of math problems on a web site he no longer updates. Problem 16 on that website has been the source of more mail for him than any other problem. Here's how he states it:

A box contains two coins. One coin is heads on both sides and the other is heads on one side and tails on the other. One coin is selected from the box at random and the face of one side is observed. If the face is heads what is the probability that the other side is heads?

Now Mr. Shackleford has way more math expertise than I'll ever have, and his websites are usually excellent. However, in this case he does not seem to realize that his otherwise correct solution of 2/3 contains an unstated assumption. If he made just a minor change to the problem statement, his answer would be completely correct. As it stands, his answer assumes too much. The correct answer, given the problem as stated, is "possibly 1/2, possibly 2/3, depending..." The part that it depends upon is whether a random face of the selected coin is observed. If, once a coin is randomly selected, then a random face of the coin is observed, then beyond a doubt, his answer of 2/3 is correct. You can see his solution to work it out yourself.

However, when I read the problem I was reminded of the classic Monty Hall problem, problem 186 on this page: http://mathproblems.info/group10.html. In the Monty Hall problem, the fact that someone else has more information than you do makes a critical difference in the outcome. In the case of this problem, if someone else pulled the coin out of the box, and then decided which face to show you, then the solution of 1/2 is correct.

Considering Mr. Shackleford's own statement of Bayes' theorm of conditional probability as applied to this problem:

For the problem in question we can reword this to: Pr(two headed coinhead chosen) = Pr(choosing two headed coin) * Pr(choosing heads given that two headed coin was chosen) / [Pr(choosing two headed coin) * Pr(choosing heads given that two headed coin was chosen) + Pr(choosing one headed coin) * Pr(choosing heads given that one headed coin was chosen)] =
1/2 * 1 / [ (1/2 * 1) + (1/2 * 1/2) ] = 1/2 / (1/2 + 1/4) = (1/2)/(3/4) = (1/2)*(4/3) = 2/3.

The difference is that if someone else chooses the face on the coin to show me, then Pr(choosing heads given that one headed coin was chosen) = 1, not 1/2. The resulting math is:

1/2 * 1 / [ (1/2 * 1) + (1/2 * 1)] = 1/2 / (1/2 + 1/2) = (1/2)/(1) = (1/2)*(1) = 1/2

The correct wording of the problem is then:

A box contains two coins. One coin is heads on both sides and the other is heads on one side and tails on the other. One coin is selected from the box at random and a random face of the coin is observed. If the face is heads what is the probability that the other side is heads?

Now, Mr. Shackleford tries to justify his wording of the problem with the following explanation:

Some other people have questioned my exact wording of this problem, mainly objecting over the tense of the verb I use for when the coin is chosen. What appears now was taken almost exactly from a similar problem in Probability and Statistics (second edition) by Morris H. Degroot on page 63, problem number 5. I changed cards to coins and eliminated what would be the coin with two tails. The book is a commonly used college text on the subject and should be above reproach.

It really seems to me that Mr. Degroot has made the same mistake, however, and I don't think Mr. Shackleford is well served by perpetuating this mistake. When I encountered problem 16 on Mr. Shackleford's page initially, I immediately realized the ambiguity and came up with the two solutions as the possible results, depending on the randomness of the presented face.

Unfortunately, Mike Shackleford is no longer willing to read any emails relating to problem 16. I can understand why this might be, due to the large number of people who have evidently written in arguing about his math. His math is correct as far as it goes, but he really ought to make the problem statement clearer. I have emailed him about this post on my blog, but I don't expect he'll read the email. If he responds, I'll let you know.

I hope you found this interesting.

Teaching Evolution in High School

2005-08-20T21:35:00.000-04:00

So I've been a little puzzled about the brouhaha over teaching "Intelligent Design" in public schools. I recall my 9th grade biology class with Mr. Creveling at Oxon Hill High School in 1984 and wonder why his fairly obvious approach has not been spontaneously adopted universally.

Mr. Creveling taught us in detail many origin and development theories. I specifically remember Darwinian Evolution, Lamarckian Evolution, Guided Evolution (as Intelligent Design was known in the '80s), Instantaneous Creation, Punctuated Equilibrium (per Gould), and Panspermia. For each of these theories, we discussed them from a scientific perspective: what predictions do they make, are these predictions testable, what evidence supports them, what evidence do they fail to account for.

I remember reading a paper that argued there is more evidence for Punctuated Equilibrium than Darwinian Evolution. I remember discussing a particular experiment with certain yeasts that seemed to be only accounted for by Lamarckian Evolution and no other theory. I remember learning the phrase "begs the question" as we discussed Panspermia. I remember learning that almost every evolutionary biologist believes that Darwin did not manage to tell the whole story, much as Newton didn't write the last word on gravity, Mendel did not write the last word on genetics, and Freud did not write the last word on psychoanalysis.

For us 14-year-olds, all of this information enabled us to make well-informed and scientifically-based decisions about our understanding of evolution. Mr. Creveling seemed to be a Darwinian with reservations, but he did not insist that all of us agree with him, only that we could explain the scientific implications of what we did believe. I personally believe in Guided Evolution manifested as Punctuated Equilibrium.

My point is that it is perfectly straightforward for a teacher to teach multiple theories of evolution without sacrificing his scientific credentials. All a teacher need do is look at each theory from a scientific perspective and Socratically allow his students to judge. In fact, a teacher need not refrain from articulating which theory he prefers, and defending that decision. However, the teacher must provide his students with the toolbox to discuss these issues scientifically. None of this would constitute establishment of religion, hostility to religion, or scientific bankrupcy.

Thanks, Mr. Creveling, for your excellent instruction. I hope other teachers follow your lead.

Bait & Switch

2005-02-06T13:20:00.000-05:00

It's a little amazing to hear what President Bush is saying about Social Security. He's done an admirable (if somewhat exaggerated) job of describing the troubles of the current system. (I should note that Medicare is in much more significant financial straights than Social Security, but that doesn't change the fact that Social Security needs fixing.) President Bush then proposes "personal accounts" and touts their benefits.

The amazing thing is that the President doesn't claim (although he strongly implies) that these personal accounts will fix what ails the Social Security program. In fact, when pushed on the matter, the White House press secretary admitted that the President's plan does nothing to change the expected cash flow problems of Social Security in 2018, or its going into debt in 2045. The President's plan takes a certain amount of money out of the Social Security system, and also reduces the payouts by the same amount. The net result is nada.

You may or may not believe that these personal accounts are a good thing. However, we should be given the opportunity to debate them on their merits, rather than having them sold as a solution to the very real problems of Social Security, which they clearly are not. I hope we get that chance in the coming months.

Summer More Extreme Than Others

2005-01-30T14:14:00.000-05:00

So Lawrence Summers, President of Harvard University has been in hot water for a few weeks now because of what he said, or supposedly said, about women in science and engineering. While some find questionable certain statements he made about innate differences between men and women, there is one part of what he said that has attracted little controversy; most likely because it seems to be true.

Summers pointed out that men tend to have a greater diversity in science or mathematical skills than women do. This means that even if men and women average (mean) to approximately the same skill level (which they may), that the standard deviation is greater for men. This means that there are more men with extraordinarily week math skills than there are women with such skills, and there are also more men with extraordinarily strong math skills than there are women. Implicitly, therefore, there are fewer men at the mean. You will be hard pressed to find anyone who disputes this; even the woman professor who left Summers' talk claiming to be nauseated by his words does not dispute this part of his statements.

Now, with a little logic, we can see that if there were a test that preferentially selected those with average math skills, such a test would preferentially select women. Similar tests that preferentially selected those with somewhat above average skills, or somewhat below average skills, would select approximately equal numbers of men and women. Any test that preferentially selected those with very low skills, or those with very high skills, will preferentially select men. Summers argument, then, is that being a university professor in math, science, or engineering, preferentially selects those with very high math skills, thereby selecting more men than women.

Note that when I say "average" math skills, I mean it literally. Average is where the majority of the population finds itself. (I know I specified that I was talking 'mean' before, and not 'mode,' but in this case all evidence is that the the two are identical for the subject population.) I don't mean "average" in the sense that it has come to mean in American school system, where anyone scoring "average" is not fully applying themselves. (And one wonders why we have such problems with math as a nation!)

It seems that anyone failing to understand this logic must have significantly below average math skills, and should therefore preferentially be men. (Just kidding.) That those who have been quoted in the media most vociferously excoriating Summers have been women are indications either of media bias (preferentially reporting on women's indignation), or that Summers said something else objectionable, not related to this argument (which seems likely), or that those objecting to Summers' speech are not using their innate math skills to look at his proposition (also a possibility).

I know that as an engineer I have observed throughout my career that women engineers are usually accorded great credit by their peers (although not always by their superiors.) I have always attributed this to a sense that any woman who has succeeded in engineering has faced significant cultural biases and impediments. She must, therefore, really love what she is doing and therefore be unusually good at it. This kind of overgeneralization is not founded on math, logic, or especially sound reasoning, but no one seems to object to it. I know that so far I have not caused any significant trouble for myself or others by believing it and acting as though it were true. I hope someone studies the question someday.

But what are the French doing?

2005-01-05T21:29:00.000-05:00

So for Christmas my sister gave me a CD of a group named "Paris Combo," specifically their album "Attraction." I really like this CD, the music is fun, memorable, jazzy, and interesting. Unfortunately, all the songs are sung in French. I used to speak French, but years of not using it, and learning Esperanto, have resulted in my almost complete inability to understand this CD. At one point I thought the singer was talking about "A story of Africa," but she was actually talking about "Prehistoric."

The first song on the CD I believe I understand well enough, and it is the one that causes me a bit of ire. It is titled "Mais, que fait la NASA?" (But, what is NASA doing?) It describes (in a light-hearted, silly way) a black hole on an errant course consuming our beautiful universe. It then asks "but, what is NASA doing?"

Now, I realize that Paris Combo is just being a little fun and silly, and is not trying to make political statements, but for some reason this particular song really got up my dander. Why should these French people in Paris be expecting NASA to solve their problems? Shouldn't they be asking "What is ESA (the European Space Agency) doing?" Or better yet, "What is Arianne (the French space company) doing?" From this side of the Atlantic, this seems like just another example of where Europeans who would otherwise complain about U.S. unilateralism naturally would turn to the U.S. to solve their problems, and think nothing of it.

When Kofi Anan criticized "wealthy countries" for not doing enough to help the tsunami victims, who didn't realize he was criticizing the U.S. primarily. "Please America, do more, do more!" When America does more, we get criticized for being in everyone's business.

I hope the international community will see why Americans are puzzled and offended by their actions.

(By the way, I really like the CD.)

Unintentional Descrimination

2004-12-13T18:13:00.000-05:00

A Sunday article in The Washington Post reported about 11,000 new jobs in the homeland security domain that are expected to be created in Northern Virginia within the next five years. The article included an interview with SRA, which expects to add several hundred in the next six months. The SRA representative indicated that their hiring strategy is generally to ask their employees for referrals; they generally don't advertise the open positions.

What SRA doesn't realize is that this policy results in unintentional discrimination, and should be balanced with a corresponding affirmative action program to really be considered fair. The reason is that if SRA has a disproportionate number of white employees (I have no idea if they do.) then they will get a disproportionate number of white applicants for these positions. It's not that white people won't refer their minority friends to their employer, it's that white employees on average have proportionally fewer minority friends than exist minorities in the general population.

I am reminded of my experience when I graduated from Villanova in 1992. You may recall that there was an economic downturn in 1992, and jobs were hard to come by. My grandfather was an accountant, and had provided accountancy services to Sharp electronics. He asked Sharp to give me a call and set up an interview.

Now, understand that I was and remain grateful to my grandfather for his help, but I am very pleased that I did not have to accept an offer from Sharp: I found a position with GE instead. Even at the time I was gravely troubled. I'm sure (I opined) that there are any number of minority engineers graduating from Drexel who are more qualified than I for a position at Sharp electronics. They are significantly less likely to have accountant grandfathers than similarly qualified white graduates. (Their grandfathers, in many cases, having been forbidden by law or custom from holding white-collar jobs.) This kind of networking amounts to a kind of structural descrimination. The hiring manager sees disproportinally fewer minority candidates, and ends up hiring disproportionally fewer minorities.

As long as programs like SRA's exist, the need for affirmative action will continue to exist.

I hope it won't be forever.

Actual and Imputed Motivation

2004-12-12T15:46:00.000-05:00

In my work as a systems engineer, I encountered a conflict recently that by God's grace we may be able to resolve. We all in the systems engineering team believe that we need to change our methodology for systems architecture. A year and a half of experience with our current methodology tells us it just doesn't provide to our customers (the development contractor) the information they need to do their job.

The chief architect, on the recommendation of a consultant, has selected a particular methodology (I won't name it here.) that several of us are familiar with. He selected this, according to his own statements, because he believes it will make requirements analysis more efficient, giving us more time for detailed design. Those of us most familiar with the methodology are arguing strongly against this move because we know by experience that this methodology doesn't scale well, and we believe that the scope of our project is sufficiently large that it won't scale well for our project. We believe that it won't be more efficient.

The chief architect has been completely unwilling to even listen to our arguments that this is the wrong methodology for us. This has puzzled us, since he is normally a reasonable fellow. In discussing this odd turn of events, we came to a realization that we hope will resolve the issue shortly. The realization has to do with imputed instead of actual motivation.

The chief architect proposed this methodology expecting our group to object because it will move authority (and control) for a key artifact out from our group and give it to another. Going in with this expectation, he has imputed to us a "ricebowl" motivation for all our objections. The truth is that we don't much care who owns this artifact, we are just concerned that the result will be less efficient, rather than more efficient, and have good arguments for such. This is our actual motivation.

I have convinced my boss to discuss this issue -- imputed vs. actual motivation -- with the chief architect. We are now hopeful that once the chief architect understands that our motivations are not what he presumed them to be, he will at least give our technical objections a fair hearing.

Proof that even in the world of engineering, you have to understand people and what motivates them. This experience has taught me to be on the lookout for imputed motivations -- imputed by myself, or imputed by others. I hope that this insight will smoothe interpersonal relations for me in the future.

Advances in Embryonic Stem Cells

2004-12-04T16:26:00.000-05:00

It is unfortunate that so many Americans are unaware that there are two types of stem cells, and only one type has been shown to have any theraputic benefit at all. Embryonic stem cells are taken from otherwise normally developing embryos, however it is necessary to kill the embryos to harvest them. No one has ever identified any theraputic benefit for such cells, and only an amoral monster could argue that it is acceptable to destroy a human embryo for a purpose that provides no benefit to anyone.

Adult stem cells are taken from adult tissue, and there have been several promising experiments with them. No one is injured when adult stem cells are harvested. I argue that instead of wasting their time and effort lobbying for the federally-funded murder of additional embryos, advocates for stem-cell research should spend their money financing adult stem-cell research.

Given these caveats, I did find interesting the article in today's Washington Post that discusses two approaches to harvesting embryonic stem cells that do not involve the destruction of human beings. I laud the members of this bioethics committee for looking into other options. Unfortunately, at least one of these approaches remains morally unacceptable.

The first approach discussed involves watching embryos who have been produced as part of an IVF program. Some 40% of such embryos cease to divide after a few days, indicating that they are morally equivalent to adults who have experienced "brain death," still metabolizing, thus "alive" in some sense, yet not in any sustainable or meaningful way. Curiously enough, just as one can harvest a liver or heart from a brain-dead adult, it remains possible in some cases to harvest embryonic stem cells from such embryos. The "ethicists" in this article seem to believe that no-one could have an ethical objection to such harvesting. They are close to the truth, but sadly blind to their error.

While I would be hard-pressed to argue that the harvesting of embryonic stem cells from such embryos is immoral, I must point out that the creation of such embryos for IVF is certainly immoral. It may not be immoral on the same scale as intentionally killing an embryo is, but the distinction is much like arguing that rape is not as bad as murder. The statement may be true, but it hardly makes an effective argument for encouraging rapists. The reason I make this analogy is that just as rape is an offense against the dignity of a human being, in-vitro fertilization is an offense against the dignity of the child. Every human being has the right to be conceived as part of loving relations between married parents, and within the womb of his mother. Anything less offends the dignity of that child. Therefore, while the harvesting of stem cells from deceased embryos is not a sin, creating those embryos in-vitro in the first place most certainly is. It is no more moral to profit from the immoral actions of others in this case than it would be to make use of the scientific research of Josef Mengele (Nazi torturer).

The second approach is a bit more complex, but strikes me as potentially more promising from a moral standpoint. In this approach, an adult cell is taken and certain genes (I suspect homeobox genes) are disabled. The nucleus is then evacuated from an ovum, and the nucleus from the disabled adult cell is inserted. This is the same process that is used for cloning. The same electro-chemical stimulation as is used in cloning is provided. However, with these genes disabled, what would be produced is not an embryo, but a tumor cell known as a teratoma. Embryonic stem cells could then be harvested from this teratoma, and their disabled genes reactivated.

Curiously enough, it is this second approach that garnered objections from the bioethics panel. "What you propose, really, is to build a weird genetic hybrid. . . . Is that right?" was the objection. I can understand the concern, but it's hard to see exactly how this is reasonable ethical objection, since human life is neither created nor destroyed in the process.

One question this proposal raises for me, however, is whether embryonic stem cells could be harvested from naturally-occuring teratomas. These tumors, while rare, appear naturally. I have heard of them being used as the basis for "cell lines." Wouldn't these cell lines also be pluripotent, as embryonic stem cells are?

These ideas still need some work, but I hope this is the start of a more ethical treatment of human embryos.

Perpetual Virginity of Mary

2004-11-30T21:10:00.000-05:00

Catholic Apologist Robert Sungenis engaged in a debate with Protestant theologian Eric Svendsen regarding the meaning of the greek "heos hou" (english: "until") in Matthew 1:25.

The reason for this debate is that Svendsen reads this verse as proof against the perpetual virginity of Mary. Unfortunately, the Catholic is clearly in over his head, as Dr. Svendsen wrote his PhD thesis exactly on the use of this greek term in the New Testament. The critical point that Sungenis and Svendsen both miss in this exchange is that it is really rather irrelevant precisely what the word "until" means in this context. As the commentators on the New American Bible point out, the evangelist is concerned to emphasize that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus. Matthew isn't concerned here with Mary's perpetual virginity. Which ever way one reads "heos hou," this particular scripture doesn't relate to the point of their debate.

Let's instead look at Luke 1:34. Here, the evangelist is concerned with Mary's virginity. Setting the stage, Luke tells us that Mary was already betrothed to Joseph. Then, the angel tells her that she will conceive a son. Now, any young woman who is engaged to be married and is then told that she will conceive a son is naturally going to assume that this will come about through normal relations with her husband after she is married. Instead, Mary says "how can this be, since I have no relations with a man?" What kind of question is that! A more familiar translation of this text is "I do not know man." Now, I'm no greek scholar -- I didn't even join a fraternity in college -- but I have noted that in every translation I have ever seen of this verse, the verb is in the present tense. I reasonably conclude that in the greek it is also in the present tense. Now, a present tense objection to a future prediction only makes sense if the present state is expected to be ongoing. In other words, Mary specifically says that it's not just that she is a virgin right at the point of the angel's visit, but that she expects to remain a virgin throughout her life, even after she is married.

Given Mary's word that that is her intent, and no record in the New Testament indicating anything else (Jesus's relatives, called "brothers" having been widely dealt with by Catholic scholars) we can reasonably conclude that she fulfilled her plans. Furthermore, the continuing tradition of the Church, especially strong in Ephesus, where Mary lived out the remainder of her days after the resurrection, that Mary remained a virgin, really lays the burden of extraordinary proof on anyone who would deny the teaching. A difficult parsing of an adverb in a passage having nothing to do with Mary's perpetual virginity is not going to provide extraordinary proof, and hou!

I hope this clears the air a little.

Make DC's Vote Count

2004-11-16T21:04:00.000-05:00

In this most recent presidential election the District of Columbia voted 91% for Senator Kerry. Time after time the Democratic candidate can count on DC's 3 electoral votes, and can completely ignore the District's otherwise disenfranchised population. Four years ago, one of DC's electors cast a blank ballot to protest DC's structural impotency to govern even its own affairs. This brave action gives me an idea how DC could make its voice count in the presidential election.

The concept is simple: instead of voting for presidential candidates or parties, DC should vote for actual electors. Barbara Lett-Simmons (the faithless elector in 2000) is a reasonably well-known name to DC's electorate. The club of people involved in DC politics is relatively small. Witness the recent re-election of DC's ignominious former mayor Marion Barry back to the city council. DC residents would certainly recognize the names of electors on the ballot.

What good would this do? It would allow DC residents to send a more specific message to the Democratic candidate. For example, one could imagine a candidate from DC's Statehood party (the second largest political party in DC, with the Republicans a distant 3rd) promising to cast a blank ballot, as did Ms. Lett-Simmons. A candidate from the Green party might promise to vote for the Green candidate unless that would decide the election, in which case he would vote for the Democrat. Or, a candidate might promise to withhold his vote until the Democratic candidate promised to push for DC representation in Congress and increased home rule.

Most people in America don't realize that DC residents do not have a representative in Congress. Most Americans don't realize that DC can't even spend its own money, raised with its own taxes, without permission from Congressmen that they are not allowed to vote for. A candidate for elector might promise to vote for Marion Barry for President unless the Democratic candidate gave a speach endorsing DC Statehood.

DC residents have very few platforms for making their voice heard, they should not be throwing away this platform with 80-point margins; they should be using their vote to speak truth to power.

I hope this idea will help.

Improbably True

2004-11-13T22:45:00.000-05:00

Recently the Wizard of Odds tried to explain a poker problem with a curious tidbit. Suppose you know two women, A and B, who each have exactly two children. Woman A says "I have at least one son," while Woman B says "I have a child named Jacob." It turns out that there is about a 67% chance that Woman A has a son and a daughter, and a 33% chance that she has two sons. Conversely, there is a 50% chance that Woman B has a son and a daughter, and a 50% chance that she has two sons. How could this be? It seems like "I have a child named Jacob" gives you the same information as "I have at least one son." The wizard tries to explain that the distinction somehow relies on the words "at least," but this doesn't seem especially satisfactory.

I've spent some time puzzling through this result, and I think I can explain it a little more clearly. First, you have to understand how it is that Woman A has a 67% chance of having a son and a daughter. If we ignore details such as identical twins and the fact that there are about 106 boys born for every 100 girls, and the odd case of transgendered children, we find that there are four equally likely combinations of children for woman A:

1. Two girls
2. An older girl and a younger boy
3. An older boy and a younger girl
4. Two boys

Three of these four possibilities are allowed by the statement "I have at least one son." In two of these three equally likely cases Woman A also has a daughter, leaving a 67% chance that Woman A has a son and a daughter.

This is actually misstating things a little bit. There is 100% chance that any real Woman A has exactly the children that Woman A has. More precisely, we are stating that if you had a geneological database of sufficiently large size, and selected from that database all women with exactly two children, and then from that list, selected only those who could truthfully say "I have at least one son," you would find that about 2/3 of those women thus selected would have one son and one daughter.

Let's look at Woman B's case, now. We think that the statement "I have a child named Jacob" is equivalent to "at least one of my children is a boy." We are, of course, assuming that the number of girls named Jacob is vanishingly small. The curious thing is that if we went through our same database and selected all the women who have exactly two children, and from those, the number who have a son named Jacob, we will find that about half of them have one son and one daughter, and about half of them have two sons. The reason for this is that each boy has roughly an equal probability of being named Jacob. We ignore the fact that it is unlikely that a woman would name two sons Jacob, although this does slightly skew the results.

Basically, a woman with two sons is twice as likely to have a son named Jacob as a woman with only one son. So, if we start with our set of possible candidates for Woman A, in which 2/3 of the entries have a son and a daughter, and randomly assign names to all the sons in that set, the women in that set who have two sons are twice as likely to have a son named Jacob as the women with only one son. So, if the probability that a boy is named Jacob is X, we have 2X*1/3 as the probability that Woman B has 2 sons, and 1X*2/3 that Woman B has a son and a daughter. These values are both X*2/3, meaning that they are approximately equal. 50% of the set of candidate Woman Bs have two sons.

I hope this clears up some of the confusion.

What is Esperu?

2004-11-11T23:52:00.000-05:00

Esperu is the imperative form of the verb "to hope" in Esperanto. It is pronounced "es-PAIR-oo" with the 'r' slightly trilled. I have discovered that as long as I have hope, I can endure almost anything.

I'm not quite sure I get the "blog" concept, but I've decided to try it out. Please forgive my fumblings if I don't quite get the paradigm. I hope that I can produce something useful and interesting.