Moonbeam Time...Again

     On April 13, 1973 Robert was sitting on the stage of Purdue University's magnificent Hall of Music. The occasion was the Grissom-Chaffee Memorial Seminar on the subject of "Technology and Man's Future." The featured speaker was one of Purdue's astronauts Gene Cernan who led the Apollo 17 moon mission. The hall was filled with people who came to hear Gene Cernan. Robert had the privilege of bein g invited by then-Purdue President Arthur Hansen to be a discussant following the speaker's presentation. Cernan showed some remarkable pictures taken during the moon mission and the audience was gasping. This was a tough act to follow, but here is what Robert said more than 40 years ago.

"I believe that the regulation of technology is the most important intellectual and political task on the American agenda. I believe that a beginning on this task is possible if we do several things. first, we must recognize that technology is more than simply 'organized knowledge for practical purposes. such a benign definition of technology emphasizes its purity--that there is no intrinsic flaw or benefit in technology--only in those using it. We must begin to understand technology as an institutional system with an ideology, elites, interest groups and supportive links with corporations, foundations, military interests, federal government, and universities.

Any attempt to alter, regulate or stop certain developments or applications will have to confront that institutional system, and it will take more than the wisdom of scientists, humane values, and a convincing cost-benefit model.

     The second thing that must be done is the creation and institutionalization of a technical-professional role that will put people first and technology second. it is often assumed that technical experts and professionals have no ax to grind, and therefore their output is always on behalf of the general good or humankind, rather than for their own benefit, or that of the people who are involved in the technical practice, or for the corporate profits which always seem to accrue after major technical innovations have been developed.

     Unfortunately, the experts' loyalties are not always pure. Neither is the power that must be granted if they are to apply their special knowledge. What Robert said more than forty years ago may not make much sense today. But it may be worth considering.

From Camelot to Trumpelot

We have already written a blog about the media's love affair with Camelot and the Kennedy family. The media made most Americans fall in love with Camelot as the "magic kingdom" which provided a "royal family" that seemed almost touchable. Of course, the "magic kingdom" was pure fiction and a product of the media's desires.

Now we have Trumpelot, and the media have decided that the family in the White House (temporarily, of course) deserve our scorn rather than praise. Trump has added a bunch of "rough edges" and a certain "coarseness" to the office and to the person who occupies the office. But Trump has also taken us behind the curtain (remember the Wizard of Oz) to see that it is full of people just like the rest of us. Going behind the curtain gives us a glimpse of true democracy, "warts and all," and it may give the American people the belief that they can participate in the ruling process. Unfortunately, much of what we hear from the media about the Trump administration is as "coarse" as the target they have chosen. The media are not interested in a self-governing public.

The ball is now in the court of the American people. It is time for them to start electing people who enter government service for a short time and then go home, and who understand the meaning of our democracy while they are there.

 

Sense and Nonsense

The following statement appeared in the "science and technology" section of the March 19-25, 2018 issue of The Economist. The words that we have changed are italicized, to indicate a switch from "hard" science to "soft" science, or from astronomy to sociology.

"One of the most basic facts abut the universe is the expansion of complexity. This observation, made by William Ogburn in 1930, leads to all sorts of mind-stretching ideas. That the universe is growing more complex implies that it was less complex in the past. Which leads to the thought that a "Big Bang" (Industrial Revolution?) kicked everything off. It also opens the question of whether the universe will expand forever, or will eventually see its expansion halted and reversed by gravity, thus ending in a Big Crunch (nuclear war)."

We can now stop with the quote and the words of astronomers and sociologists. Much of what is in the material presented in the name of astronomers, is sheer speculation, or less kindly, nonsense. But we accept and reprint the nonsense of "hard" scientists while we question and reject the ideas of "soft" scientists. Maybe it is time to give them both equal standing for their sense and nonsense.

Identity and Biology

This essay was written on May 26, 2012 after Senator Elizabeth Warren "discovered" her Native American roots.

After reading today's newspaper account of Liz Warren's struggle with her identity or biology ("I'm 1/32 Native American...") I was reminded of a long-standing question from my youth. I had observed, as a young ethno-demographer, that almost all the Italians I knew had much darker skin than anyone else except neighborhood Negroes. In fact, I had darker skin than one of my Negro friends, Junior Emerson. As I matured, and read more widely (the NY Daily News) I discovered that almost all Sicilian Italians were darker than those from the Florence area in the north. How could that be? Was Sicily closer to the sun. Were Sicilians and Barese (that's my family from Bari in the south on the Adriatic coast) too poor to afford sun screen or sun hats? No, the question required deeper understanding.

It wasn't until my college days and my first course in biology when I learned of Gregor Mendel and theories of plant genetics and its link to human genetics. The plot thickened when I took a medieval history course and learned about the Mamaluke people from North Africa. Yipes! In my neighborhood we called kids that we thought were dummies "mamalukes." How can that be? Later in the history course I learned about a Sultan named Mingooch. Holy shit! My father's nickname was Mingooch. What the hell is going on?

If Liz warren has identity without biology, I have biology without identity. Could I have gone to Harvard with Liz Warren instead of Cortland State? Should I tell my kids they are descendants of Sultan Mingooch? Would that do them any good?

Hair

During the Vietnam War era, young men who opposed the war and did not want to be drafted into the military, either fled to Canada, or joined the National Guard in the hope of avoiding the draft. Another way was to express opposition was "hair," long hair was a political statement. Men with beards and with long head hair were assumed to be in opposition to the U.S. war in Vietnam. Today, it seems like facial hair is back, but the reason is unclear. With some frequency many men today seem to be attracted to facial hair, not beards, but a week or so of no shaving. This phenomenon seems to especially prominent on TV, where men who are advertising products  have the unshaven look. Why do the TV advertisers believe that viewers will be more  attracted to products if the person holding the product, or pointing to it, has not shaved for a week or so?

My colleague, Rich Hogan, recommended several articles that might help: Leslie A. Zebrowitz, Reading Faces: Window to the Soul?, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997; Rebekah Herrick, Jeanette Morehouse Mendez, Ben Pryor, "Razor's Edge: The Politics of Facial Hair," Social Science Quarterly, v. 96, #5, November 2015: 1301-1313.

I will look at this literature; in the meantime, tell me what you think.

Hedgehogs and Foxes

In 1953 the political philosopher Isaiah Berlin published a book in which he discussed two styles of work by scientists or academics or anyone engaged in sustained intellectual thought. The idea for these two styles came from an ancient Greek poet, and Berlin made them come to life in a lively and playful way. They are the hedgehog and the fox. As Berlin put it: "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." Over time, the hedgehog will become more well-known for its achievements, but it will be at the expense of a very boring intellectual life. In contrast, the fox will explore a wide range of topics over time, but will never become as well-known as the hedgehog.

As academics, we have seen Berlin's two characters many times among our colleagues. Although most do not do enough scholarly work to even be in the game, the most productive scholars may be found in one of the animal phyla. For Robert and Carolyn, we have been foxes for most of our careers, darting from topic to topic over time, but never really being recognized and becoming a "contenda" (to quote Marlon Brando from the film On the Waterfront).

Robert has discussed different research styles in a course on publishing in sociology, and in talks that he has given to new graduate students in his department.

This blog by Carolyn and Robert is clearly the work of a pair of "foxes," but it gives us pleasure.

You will spend a night in the box!

Robert just had the chance to see Cool Hand Luke on the Turner Classics channel. For those who remember the 1967 film and the memorable non-conformist character of Luke played by Paul Newman, the memorable take-away line is usually "what we have here is a failure to communicate" spoken by the warden as he heaps additional punishments on Luke each time he defies authority and tries to remain an individual. For me, the take-away from the film was that each time Luke defies authority he will "spend a night in the box," a small human-size metal closed cage that barely allows the inhabitant to sit with legs pulled up to one's chest. The message for all of us ordinary folk is that if you fail to follow the orders of the legally established warden, or police officer, or teacher, or president--you will spend a "night in the box." The people at Waco spent a "night in the box." The people at Ruby Ridge spent a "night in the box." And if you don't pay your taxes because you believe that they are used to support unjust wars, you will spend a "night in the box."

If you saw the film, what was your "take away."

Culture or Structure & Development

I just listened to several interviews with DACA young people on NPR. These young people were in every way extraordinary: motivation, knowledge, skills. Given what we know about the role of nature and nurture in shaping the lives of the young, the DACA students must have had parents who are as extraordinary as their offspring. Given this possibility, why aren't the countries from which they came as developed economically as the countries in which they seek their new homes. The answer cannot reside in the skills, talents, and motivations of the people, that is, in their culture. We must look elsewhere, like the qualities of their leaders, their economic policies, and the helpful or harmful economic policies of their trading nations.

History is Dangerous

I have just read, for the first time, that eleven Italian immigrants were lynched by a mob in New Orleans in 1891. They had just been acquitted of involvement in the shooting of a police official. Apparently, the mob didn't agree with the verdict. I was doing this deep reading in order to better understand my deceased mother's pre-occupation with being an American. Although she was born in this country, and was an American, her parents were immigrants, and my mother was married to my father who came from Italy at the age of four, and who was technically an immigrant. What I learned from this "deep reading" was that the 1920-30s was a period of anti-immigration sentiment following the massive legal immigration to the United States. This anti-immigrant sentiment must have been a part of the reason why my mother changed her first name, to sound more American, and eventually changed her last name on her Social Security card because she thought she would have a better chance of finding a good job.

This led me to contrast the anti-immigration sentiment of the 1920-30s with what we experiencing today. Something to think about.

Secret Society?

This is an unfolding story so it is just the beginning and we do not know where it will go next. We have often heard of references to the "deep state," which has usually meant for us the existence of the "permanent" officials of state agencies that continue in place while elected politicians of both parties come and go. The existence of a "deep state" is troubling and it erodes the existence of trust between the public and its elected officials. However, we now have reported the existence of a memo exchanged between two FBI officials that makes reference to a "secret society," (to which they presumably belong) and which one FBI agent thinks should meet to discuss some new item of concern. This is deeply troubling, and makes the "deep state" scenario look like "business as usual," while a "secret society" is a threat to the very meaning of democracy.

Stay tuned. This is an unfolding story. Track it on your own through whatever media sources you use on a regular basis.

Update 1/25/18: Latest news report on the "secret society" email: the two FBI officials who made mention of the "secret society" were known to have emailed each other with some frequency. It now appears that these messages between the two FBI officials over a five-month period cannot be found. This only serves to keep the spotlight on the question of the meaning of a "secret society." This is a very partisan issue, so it is wise to wait and look at all documents before drawing any conclusions.

Update 1/26/18: Our local newspaper reported today that the missing emails between two FBI officials have been found. We can now find out if the "secret society" statement was an in-house joke or whether it has legs.

Update 5/5/18: This is a no-news update. Will we ever learn anything more about the alleged "secret society." I don't think so.

Update 2/9/18: We said this was an unfolding story, but we didn't know it would be this slow. We think that the release of the memo by the Republicans has made all the power centers nervous because they are all implicated by their actions or inactions. Thus, the FBI, DOJ, Big Media, Democrats, and Republicans are moving slowly because they lack full control over the story. Thus, the discussion of "secret society" has disappeared, or moved into a category of  an inside "joke" that the two parties enjoyed, but which is reported to be fiction. So all we can do is to stay tuned, but remember that inaction going forward may also be revealing.

Update 6/15/18: The report on the FBI and DOJ that was released today suggests the existence of a lot of activity inside these two agencies to protect their interests, which may be as low-level as protecting your job and pension, or as high level as advancing the interests of one political faction or party over the interests of an opposing party or faction. But we must still be careful as to whether what was revealed in the FBI/DOJ report are the actions of a "ruling class" or the actions of a "political and economic elite." The "ruling class" argument is supported by apparent FBI/DOJ actions to support a past president and undercut an elected president. I am still inclined to lean toward the "elite" conclusion because their actions sometimes seem very petty and smell of inter-group politics. The one big loser identified in today's FBI report is one of the FBI agents (Peter S.) who appears to be a first-class creep capable of a variety of actions to advance or protect very petty political interests. He is the kind of person who should never serve in any government position.

Personal Consumption and Climate Change

The February 18, 2018 issue of In These Times has an article entitled "Ban Yachts, Not Burgers" that examines the role of personal consumption styles and the climate crisis. For me, the significance of the article is that it brings the views of the "right" and the "left" together when they identify the role of the consumption lifestyle of the wealthy, in addition to multinational corporations, as responsible for carbon emissions. Put in on your reading list. 

We pay--but how much?

Robert is not opposed to the Mueller investigation of Russian interference in the US election. But I would like to know how much is being spent on the salaries of the lead investigator and his staff of 10-15-20 lawyers and their underlings. When I Google Mueller's salary, all I get is articles about how much income he has lost from not working with his corporate law firm and serving corporate clients. His decision to serve his country is admirable, but why can't I find out how much he and his staff are being paid to serve their country?

If some of you know the answer to my question please tell me. Or if you know how I should look for the answer, please tell me. Is it too much to ask for a taxpayer to know how his/her taxes are being spent? We know how much the President earns, and we know about the salaries and staff budgets of members of Congress. Why is the Mueller information so secret?

4/12/18 Update: There have been several short news items on the dollar cost of this investigation. The reports say about $5-7 million, but with little detail about the number of people on this payroll, and about who is paid what.

5/1818 Update: The Mueller-led investigation of Russian interference in the US election has reached the one-year point. I have still not seen a single report on the number of persons on the payroll and how much each is being paid.

It just occurred to me why we don't have any info on how much the Mueller team is getting paid for their investigative work. If the reporter asks them how much they are getting paid, the same question might be turned back on the reporter, and maybe the editor, and maybe the publisher. I am really a fool for having missed the obvious--they are all in the same big money game-- they are the money elites and everything that they do is designed to maintain or enhance their money flow, whether they are "lowly" reporters or part of an elite investigative team. They are all economic elites attacking other economic elites, whether they are Russian oligarchs or Donald Trump. The game that economic elites play is to attack other economic elites because it takes attention away from them as being part of the same system. That is why the prominent big money types like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet take the lead in heading a public relations effort to mobilize the rich to sign on to a plan that "gives away" their money to public projects before the "people with the pitchforks" (that is what they were called by Pat Buchanan when he was a candidate for president) come to take their money without asking.