Your efforts to build the Cordoba House near Ground Zero have set back relations with the US non Muslim population in a way as to cause irreparable harm. You see this as a way of demonstrating Muslim tolerance but most of us see it as Muslim arrogance. You look at it as a way of bringing people together and we see it as an attempt to build a “Victory Temple at Ground Zero”. I don’t expect you to understand this but most Americans experience their understanding of Islamic beliefs on the evening news.
We see daily bombings carried out world wide in the name of Islam. Women stoned to death for what we would consider to be a civil matter. Beheadings of innocent people simply because they were non Muslims or God forbid Jews. Muslims dancing in the streets of Gaza because four Israeli Jews were murdered. On a daily basis Muslim extremists bent on murdering their fellow American citizens are arrested in the US. And of course the murder of 3,000 innocent people on Sept 11, 2001; which resulted again in Muslims dancing in the streets worldwide chanting Allah Akbar. Our experience of Islam is as a “barbaric, alien stone age religion” that is the primary cause of world wide strife and it rightly scares the Hell out of us.
We do not see the tolerance in Islam that you proclaim and your actions are interpreted by many of us as arrogance. Wake up before any more harm is done: Apologize to the American people and build the dam center out of sight of Ground Zero.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Monday, September 6, 2010
.jpg)
Climate Change Crusade Falters
George Will’s article (Hartford Courant 9/06/2010) on the cause of the recent failure to enact climate change legislation in the US neglects a fundamental trait of present society and that is: we have become a society of scientific “Denialists”. I was fortunate to have done my undergraduate work in Physics in the 1950’s and to have worked in the Aerospace community in the 1960-1970’s. The success of the Manhattan Project in the 40’s and the amazing success of the Space Race had clearly demonstrated the achievements of modern science. We didn’t know it at the time but this would be the hay day of our success.
In the early 60’s Crick and Watson showed that the mechanism for transmitting genetic information was the DNA structure; the classic twisted helix. This was the last remaining bit of information needed to unequivocally prove Evolution and yet it seemed to do the opposite. Recent polls indicate that 40% of the US population does not believe in Evolution and yet the scientific evidence for it is overwhelming.
Scientific Denialism is evident when we see in the grocery store the exponential growth of aisles containing “organic foods” yet there is no scientific evidence of its superiority. Genetically engineered foods are looked on with dread both in the US, Western Europe and even some places in Africa where it is desperately needed to fend off starvation. Bottled water is now a staple of our society yet there is no evidence of it being superior or tasting better than tap water. We have an epidemic of families refusing to vaccinate their children despite the risks to society. Opponents of nuclear power are aghast that we could possibly consider it a partial solution to global warming.
At one time I believed the explanation for this disbelief resulted from the complexity of modern science; but I no longer believe that to be the total answer. Science is based on skepticism and uncertainty and we live in a society that appears to demand certainty. Certainty however is the province of religion and many of the beliefs of Denialists appear to me to take on a religious nature. That is they are not amenable to skepticism or uncertainty. Perhaps the likely ascendancy of China will have more to do with their scientific belief; rather than economic success.
In the early 60’s Crick and Watson showed that the mechanism for transmitting genetic information was the DNA structure; the classic twisted helix. This was the last remaining bit of information needed to unequivocally prove Evolution and yet it seemed to do the opposite. Recent polls indicate that 40% of the US population does not believe in Evolution and yet the scientific evidence for it is overwhelming.
Scientific Denialism is evident when we see in the grocery store the exponential growth of aisles containing “organic foods” yet there is no scientific evidence of its superiority. Genetically engineered foods are looked on with dread both in the US, Western Europe and even some places in Africa where it is desperately needed to fend off starvation. Bottled water is now a staple of our society yet there is no evidence of it being superior or tasting better than tap water. We have an epidemic of families refusing to vaccinate their children despite the risks to society. Opponents of nuclear power are aghast that we could possibly consider it a partial solution to global warming.
At one time I believed the explanation for this disbelief resulted from the complexity of modern science; but I no longer believe that to be the total answer. Science is based on skepticism and uncertainty and we live in a society that appears to demand certainty. Certainty however is the province of religion and many of the beliefs of Denialists appear to me to take on a religious nature. That is they are not amenable to skepticism or uncertainty. Perhaps the likely ascendancy of China will have more to do with their scientific belief; rather than economic success.
Glen Beck Needs to Understand History.
Glen Beck needs to read some history before he lectures others about it. I think Beck provides a useful addition to our understanding of the beliefs of the leadership of the Revolutionary War but his limited historical knowledge and understanding prevent him from understanding why New Englanders and others thought they could stand up to the British Imperial Might. It was the New Englanders who started the War and they would not have done it if they did not believe they could somehow prevail. Wars are started by individuals with both a grievance and a belief that they can prevail.
The religious among us tend to describe the Mayflowers passengers as all Pilgrims however only half of them were. The half that were not; were a mix of tradesmen, farmers and some soldiers. It was the soldiers such as Miles Standish who brought them through the first winter in Provincetown and who provided their leadership. As we now know the Indian population had been decimated by disease introduced earlier by traders and others who came before the Pilgrims; this meant the Pilgrims only had to deal with the harsh environment and by their poor choice of location at Plymouth were poorly prepared for it.
The transition in belief from English Colonists to American Colonist began to occur during King Philips War. By this time it had become evident to most of the colonists that “living with the savages” was not possible. The Indians had arrived at a similar conclusion and were almost successful in driving the colonists from New England. Again it was the colonial military leadership who prevailed and was able to defeat the Indians although it could very easily have gone the other way. This was the greatest loss of life on a per capita basis in any war the US has ever engaged in. Unfortunately the animosity against the Indians eventually resulted in the destruction of most of the Indian tribes of New England south of what is now Maine.
The 1704 raid by the French and their Indian allies on the town of Deerfield had a harrowing effect on all of the New England settlers. It demonstrated unequivocally that the outlying settlements were incapable of defending themselves from the Indian raiders and that knowledge prevailed along the whole length of the spine of the Appalachian Mountains. The later experience of George Washington at Bradford’s defeat was probably the basis for Washington’s realization that the English Army was incompetent and incapable of defending the colonists. A glimmer of hope came with the defeat of the Iroquois and the defeat of the French by New Englanders at the Fortress of Louisburg in 1745.
In both cases the colonialists had prevailed against almost impossible odds and in both cases where the British military leadership thought it was impossible. At the same time the young conscript colonialists, who had experienced the British brutality to its soldiers and grew to resent it. These were the young men who’s prior experience was primarily as independent farmers. They not only didn’t like it; they refused to be placed under British Military leadership and instead chose to elect their own officers. These young men later became the mature colonial leadership of 1785 and they believed based on their military experience, they could prevail over the British..
I believe the men of the colonial leadership: Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Franklin, Hamilton and even Washington were men of The Enlightenment. This was especially true of Jefferson and Franklin. Franklin’s experiments with electricity were vitally important in understanding the basis of electric charge and Jefferson’s library showed he was familiar with all of the main ideas of the Enlightenment. All of them were skeptics of European ideas of nobility but understood intrinsically that the historic dominance of the churches of Europe was as dangerous as the nobility. We sometimes forget but it was Christianity that brought us the “Dark Ages”, and it was the Enlightenment which brought us out. Some historians ascribe to the invasion of the Visgoths as the cause of the decline of the Roman Empire; but the conversion of the empire to Christianity had as much or more to do with the loss of the military ethos; which ultimately resulted in the inability of the Roman Legions to defend the Empire from the hostile invaders.
Franklin had personal knowledge of the Quaker beliefs about the Indians, which had sadly resulted in the massacre of thousands of settlers on the Western border of Penn. Even Adams the most religious of the lot was knowledgeable of the Pilgrims murder of countless witches and other poor souls who did not meet the Pilgrims definition of piety. He was also knowledgeable about the hanging of Quakers by the Pilgrims because they chose to evangelize among the Pilgrims.
Jefferson after his election was proclaimed the “Spawn of the Devil” by ministers of “enlightened New England” for his Deist beliefs. Freedom of Religion probably had its basis not in the knowledge of persecution of the Pilgrims but in the distrust of the founding fathers for an established religion controlled by the government. They were totally cognizant of what happens when religion comes to dominate society. A quick perusal of Islamic society today should bring that home to both the believers and non-believers alike.
If you would like to check my sources see the following:
“Captive Histories, English, French, Native Narratives of 1704 Deerfield Raid”
‘White Savage”, William Johnson
“King Philips War: The History and Legacy of America’s Forgotten Conflict, Eric Schultz,”
“The name of War: King Philips War and the Origins of American Identity”, Douglas Leach
“The Mayflower”, Nathanial Philbrick
There are a number of other references but most are long out of print. The ones I reference are both well written and reflect serious scholarship. You can Google the “Seige of Lousbourg” for information on that critical bit of history and when I can find it I will list what I believe to be the most definitive source I have been able to find..
I got it when I was at the Fortress of Lousbourg’s celebration of that famous battle.
The religious among us tend to describe the Mayflowers passengers as all Pilgrims however only half of them were. The half that were not; were a mix of tradesmen, farmers and some soldiers. It was the soldiers such as Miles Standish who brought them through the first winter in Provincetown and who provided their leadership. As we now know the Indian population had been decimated by disease introduced earlier by traders and others who came before the Pilgrims; this meant the Pilgrims only had to deal with the harsh environment and by their poor choice of location at Plymouth were poorly prepared for it.
The transition in belief from English Colonists to American Colonist began to occur during King Philips War. By this time it had become evident to most of the colonists that “living with the savages” was not possible. The Indians had arrived at a similar conclusion and were almost successful in driving the colonists from New England. Again it was the colonial military leadership who prevailed and was able to defeat the Indians although it could very easily have gone the other way. This was the greatest loss of life on a per capita basis in any war the US has ever engaged in. Unfortunately the animosity against the Indians eventually resulted in the destruction of most of the Indian tribes of New England south of what is now Maine.
The 1704 raid by the French and their Indian allies on the town of Deerfield had a harrowing effect on all of the New England settlers. It demonstrated unequivocally that the outlying settlements were incapable of defending themselves from the Indian raiders and that knowledge prevailed along the whole length of the spine of the Appalachian Mountains. The later experience of George Washington at Bradford’s defeat was probably the basis for Washington’s realization that the English Army was incompetent and incapable of defending the colonists. A glimmer of hope came with the defeat of the Iroquois and the defeat of the French by New Englanders at the Fortress of Louisburg in 1745.
In both cases the colonialists had prevailed against almost impossible odds and in both cases where the British military leadership thought it was impossible. At the same time the young conscript colonialists, who had experienced the British brutality to its soldiers and grew to resent it. These were the young men who’s prior experience was primarily as independent farmers. They not only didn’t like it; they refused to be placed under British Military leadership and instead chose to elect their own officers. These young men later became the mature colonial leadership of 1785 and they believed based on their military experience, they could prevail over the British..
I believe the men of the colonial leadership: Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Franklin, Hamilton and even Washington were men of The Enlightenment. This was especially true of Jefferson and Franklin. Franklin’s experiments with electricity were vitally important in understanding the basis of electric charge and Jefferson’s library showed he was familiar with all of the main ideas of the Enlightenment. All of them were skeptics of European ideas of nobility but understood intrinsically that the historic dominance of the churches of Europe was as dangerous as the nobility. We sometimes forget but it was Christianity that brought us the “Dark Ages”, and it was the Enlightenment which brought us out. Some historians ascribe to the invasion of the Visgoths as the cause of the decline of the Roman Empire; but the conversion of the empire to Christianity had as much or more to do with the loss of the military ethos; which ultimately resulted in the inability of the Roman Legions to defend the Empire from the hostile invaders.
Franklin had personal knowledge of the Quaker beliefs about the Indians, which had sadly resulted in the massacre of thousands of settlers on the Western border of Penn. Even Adams the most religious of the lot was knowledgeable of the Pilgrims murder of countless witches and other poor souls who did not meet the Pilgrims definition of piety. He was also knowledgeable about the hanging of Quakers by the Pilgrims because they chose to evangelize among the Pilgrims.
Jefferson after his election was proclaimed the “Spawn of the Devil” by ministers of “enlightened New England” for his Deist beliefs. Freedom of Religion probably had its basis not in the knowledge of persecution of the Pilgrims but in the distrust of the founding fathers for an established religion controlled by the government. They were totally cognizant of what happens when religion comes to dominate society. A quick perusal of Islamic society today should bring that home to both the believers and non-believers alike.
If you would like to check my sources see the following:
“Captive Histories, English, French, Native Narratives of 1704 Deerfield Raid”
‘White Savage”, William Johnson
“King Philips War: The History and Legacy of America’s Forgotten Conflict, Eric Schultz,”
“The name of War: King Philips War and the Origins of American Identity”, Douglas Leach
“The Mayflower”, Nathanial Philbrick
There are a number of other references but most are long out of print. The ones I reference are both well written and reflect serious scholarship. You can Google the “Seige of Lousbourg” for information on that critical bit of history and when I can find it I will list what I believe to be the most definitive source I have been able to find..
I got it when I was at the Fortress of Lousbourg’s celebration of that famous battle.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
The Technology we need for Tomorrow is here.
On the way back from Hartford yesterday I turned on PBS because Fridays generally feature a science program. The program was about climate change and the person being interviewed was the Associate Director of the Sierra Club. The topic revolved around the present political situation and the consensus that very little is likely to occur in the next few years due to the lack of credibility of science in today’s political world. Up until this point I agreed with his analysis and awaited the disclosure of what the Sierra Club intended to push over the next few years.
I should state that I am a former member of the Sierra Club and was a member for a number of years. I left when I felt they had become to radicalized and had lost touch with reality. A number of others left including the former Chairman Ansel Adams who was a founding member. Having said that I still felt they still were a positive force for the environmental movement.
He stated their primary goal was to prevent the construction of new “dirty coal plants” and he talked about the health problems of breathing the contaminated air from their smokestacks. He then went on to say we have to replace these plants with “Green Energy” from solar and wind; totally ignoring nuclear power and natural gas. He chose to ignore the fact that photovoltaic solar plants are still not cost competitive and wind power is feasible in only a few areas of the country. Even where photovoltaic is feasible; the desert southwest for example we have to deal with the problem of power storage. The sun does not shine at night and we do not have a way to store large amounts of power for nighttime use.
From an engineering point of view the solutions to excess carbon dioxide generation and air pollution are economically and environmentally feasible NOW. If we were to build no new coal fired power plants and replace them with gas fired and nuclear plants we can reduce carbon dioxide emission by 60-70% and not increase our cost of generation. Over the last ten years we have discovered enough natural gas to keep its cost low for the foreseeable future. Nuclear power plants are expensive to construct because of the regulatory process not because of the cost of power generation. Standardizing the design of the nuclear core, and building smaller generators would go a long way to lower the total cost of nuclear power.
The gorilla in the room is the states with large amounts of coal and the enormous economic cost to them if we simply discontinued the use of coal. Again there is a straightforward engineering solution which will both reduce our dependence on foreign oil and increase the efficiency of auto engines. Coal can be converted to diesel fuel using a process which was originally developed in Europe in the 1930”s. Modern clean burning diesel engines are 40% more efficient than gasoline engines and when combined with the new generation of 6 speed transmissions are capable of lowering fuel consumption by 50%.
These are all steps we can take now using proven technology while we develop the technologies for the future. Modern construction techniques allow us to build environmentally friendly home with energy use a small fraction of what we were able to accomplish just a few years ago. Combine this with commonsense home size and we can dramatically reduce our carbon footprint without sacrificing comfort.
The solutions Proposed here are being used primarily in Europe although China has undertaken a massive Coal to diesel plant and they are just starting to build a new generation of nuclear power plants. Biofuels will become an important source of future transportation and ultimately fusion power will be our power of the future. At that time when power is truly cheap electric cars will make sense. Today’s expensive electric cars depend on inefficient power generation and like ethanol are mindless solutions to a very serious problem.
I worked on the design of thermoelectric and thermionic power generators for space applications and worked on the design of two advanced technology nuclear power generators.
I should state that I am a former member of the Sierra Club and was a member for a number of years. I left when I felt they had become to radicalized and had lost touch with reality. A number of others left including the former Chairman Ansel Adams who was a founding member. Having said that I still felt they still were a positive force for the environmental movement.
He stated their primary goal was to prevent the construction of new “dirty coal plants” and he talked about the health problems of breathing the contaminated air from their smokestacks. He then went on to say we have to replace these plants with “Green Energy” from solar and wind; totally ignoring nuclear power and natural gas. He chose to ignore the fact that photovoltaic solar plants are still not cost competitive and wind power is feasible in only a few areas of the country. Even where photovoltaic is feasible; the desert southwest for example we have to deal with the problem of power storage. The sun does not shine at night and we do not have a way to store large amounts of power for nighttime use.
From an engineering point of view the solutions to excess carbon dioxide generation and air pollution are economically and environmentally feasible NOW. If we were to build no new coal fired power plants and replace them with gas fired and nuclear plants we can reduce carbon dioxide emission by 60-70% and not increase our cost of generation. Over the last ten years we have discovered enough natural gas to keep its cost low for the foreseeable future. Nuclear power plants are expensive to construct because of the regulatory process not because of the cost of power generation. Standardizing the design of the nuclear core, and building smaller generators would go a long way to lower the total cost of nuclear power.
The gorilla in the room is the states with large amounts of coal and the enormous economic cost to them if we simply discontinued the use of coal. Again there is a straightforward engineering solution which will both reduce our dependence on foreign oil and increase the efficiency of auto engines. Coal can be converted to diesel fuel using a process which was originally developed in Europe in the 1930”s. Modern clean burning diesel engines are 40% more efficient than gasoline engines and when combined with the new generation of 6 speed transmissions are capable of lowering fuel consumption by 50%.
These are all steps we can take now using proven technology while we develop the technologies for the future. Modern construction techniques allow us to build environmentally friendly home with energy use a small fraction of what we were able to accomplish just a few years ago. Combine this with commonsense home size and we can dramatically reduce our carbon footprint without sacrificing comfort.
The solutions Proposed here are being used primarily in Europe although China has undertaken a massive Coal to diesel plant and they are just starting to build a new generation of nuclear power plants. Biofuels will become an important source of future transportation and ultimately fusion power will be our power of the future. At that time when power is truly cheap electric cars will make sense. Today’s expensive electric cars depend on inefficient power generation and like ethanol are mindless solutions to a very serious problem.
I worked on the design of thermoelectric and thermionic power generators for space applications and worked on the design of two advanced technology nuclear power generators.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)