Richard Feynman, Kantian

Last week there was a bit of a flap over global warming.  The lefty Guardian reported, according to Nick Schulz

"Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study."

 Yes, apparently the American Enterprise Institute had actually offered money for papers by scientists on global warming.  The call for papers didn’t actually say that the scientists were expected to act as global-warming “deniers.”

The call for papers by AEI explicitly states that "The purpose of this project is to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process, especially as it bears on potential policy responses to climate change."

But hey, you think we lefties are dumb or something?  We can read between the lines and detect a conflict-of-interest better than most!

But Nick Schulz took the opportunity to deliver a little homily about the uncertainty of science.  He quoted Richard Feynman:

All scientific knowledge is uncertain.

Not some knowledge.  Not most knowledge.  All knowledge.  So when we talk about a scientific “consensus” on global warming, how exactly does that mesh with the idea that “all scientific knowledge is uncertain?”

This idea about the uncertainty of knowledge began with the doubting of Descartes and reached its modern fortissimo with Kant, who famously asserted that we could never know “things-in-themselves.”  All we can know is appearances.  And the question Kant raised was: Given the limitation of our human senses, how do we know that we are getting the whole story when we sense an appearance?

Significantly, it was shortly after Kant formulated his radical new philosophy that mankind discovered that the visible light with which we look at the world was a tiny octave in the vast “invisible” electromagnetic spectrum.  Then there was that smart Jewish kid from Ulm.  You know what he came up with.

When discovering something as radical as that, it helps to start with the concept that all knowledge is uncertain.

Let us review the Feynman quotation in full:

All scientific knowledge is uncertain. This experience with doubt and uncertainty is important. I believe that it is of very great value, and one that extends beyond the sciences. I believe that to solve any problem that has never been solved before, you have to leave the door to the unknown ajar. You have to permit the possibility that you do not have it exactly right. Otherwise, if you have made up your mind already, you might not solve it.

Here’s a bit of uncertainty for you.  It appears that sunspot activity is at a thousand year high right now.  It was at a Maunder minimum, with almost no sunspots, back in the 17th century.  Remember?  That was during the Little Ice Age. 

Yeah.  Go ahead and check it out on Wikipedia.

If School Choice Can Work in Sweden...

While we Yanks and the Brits agonize over school choice last-ditch union leaders like Randi Weingarten hiss about people who don’t care about kids.  But the socialist Swedes have gone ahead on school choice anyway. As Fraser Nelson and James Forsyth write:

Those denouncing the [school-voucher] system as the product of discredited right-wing ideology will have difficulty explaining its success in Sweden, arguably the most socialist country in the developed world. School vouchers were proposed in 1991 by its shortlived Conservative government, yet the scheme proved so popular that it has been preserved and expanded by the Social Democrats.

Sweden’s conservatives had no real plans on how to implement school choice.  But it turned out that they didn’t need to.  But they went ahead anyway.

To their astonishment, take-up was huge. They had unwittingly harnessed one of the strongest forces in civil society: parents’ determination to do what is best for their child.

 And now, of course, every government school principal and every government teacher in Sweden knows that a dissatisfied parent can leave tomorrow.  Just like a dissatisfied customer at Wal-Mart.

Freedom to set up a school is enshrined in the Dutch constitution [no kidding!], and today two in three state-funded schools are privately run. This bottom-up approach means more, smaller schools: the average school roll is 200 in Sweden and 190 in the Netherlands. In England it is 890 and rising: closures are running at the level of 120 schools a year.

Think of that.  Lots of little schools all over the place.  Mothers could walk their kids to the school on the corner, and if they didn’t like the nearest school they could go to another one.  What a concept!

Come on America! What are we waiting for?

Compassionate Democrats Love Lavish

Does it really matter that presidential candidate John Edwards, whose campaign centers on a Two Americas narrative about rich and poor, has just built a lavish mansion reaching the imperial size of 27,000 sq ft?

Not really.  As Mike Baker points out, we are really missing the point. 

After introducing their new home on her husband’s campaign Web site, Elizabeth Edwards explained the couple had taken special precautions to make the house energy efficient &3151; keeping in line with Edwards’ environmental platform.

So that’s all right.  Still, as efficient as it no doubt is, I doubt if I could afford the energy bills.  28,000 sq ft is a lotta space to keep warm in the winter and cool in the sweltering North Carolina summers.

And what about Grandma Nancy Pelosi.  Apparently her needs for air transportation are somewhat larger than former Speaker Denny Hastert.  And according to Fox News she blames the Bush administration for “publicly mischaracterizing her need for a larger military aircraft to travel back and forth from the West coast.”

Old Denny used to tool around in a government C-20.  That’s the military version of a Gulfstream III that seats 10-12 people.  But the C-20 may not have the range to get to California without refueling.  And that would be a security risk.  Anyway how big of a plane does Pelosi want?  According to ABC News:

Various Republican officials in recent days have claimed that Pelosi has requested a C-32 plane for her travels -- a luxurious and specially configured version of the Boeing 757-200 commercial intercontinental airliner. The plane seats 45 passengers with business-class accommodations and a crew of up to 16, depending on the mission. It features a communications center, a fully enclosed stateroom for the primary passenger, a changing area, a conference facility, an entertainment system, and a convertible divan that seats three and folds out to a bed. The C-32 can cost as much as $22,000 an hour to operate. It’s normally used by the first lady, the vice president, Cabinet officials and members of Congress upon request.

There is only one way to characterize the behavior of the various Republican officials: mean-spirited.

Of course it is true that the gas-guzzling house of John Edwards and the gaz-guzzling plane for Speaker Pelosi hardly fit the imaage of a party that believes that Americans are far too wasteful and that global warming is going to put us under water and do for us all.

But the “little people” have never begrudged their leaders a little luxury.  They do draw the line when it comes to businessmen and Republicans, however.

 And rightly so.

The New "A" Word

Who knew?  Be very careful who you call “articulate.”  Because they might be offended.  Or at least their political supporters might be offended.

Certainly someone who feels that they are overdue for a “talking-head” appearance might be offended.

Anyway.  There’s another important thing for you to know so that you can pass as enlightened and bien-pensant.  Here it is:

Don’t call any prominent African American like Senator Barack Obama (or is it person of color, today) “articulate.”  Bad form old chap.  That goes for you Senator Biden and you President Bush.

As you might expect, professional African American Clarence Page is all in a twitter.  He thinks that while average folks might rate the “articulate” firestorm as 2 on a scale of 1 to 10, “with many black Americans, it’s a very strong 2.”  What’s needed is some pompous pundit-speak:

[P]residential campaigns can be teachable moments in the long saga of American history. It is a time for Americans to learn more about their fellow Americans as we choose someone to lead us. We shouldn’t be afraid to talk to each other. Just don’t forget to listen.

That will be the day.

Conservative Jonah Goldberg is just fed up.

I think complaints from elite blacks about the overuse of the word "articulate" are well-taken to a point. However, not only is it not the code word some are making it out to be, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Al Gore and even Biden himself are routinely described as "articulate," and President Bush is relentlessly dubbed "inarticulate," yet nobody thinks that means he’s being called "black."

 Yeah.  But don’t make the mistake of treating Hillary as just one of the guys, Jonah.  Remember what happened to Rick Lazio?

So Why Is Giuliani Leading the Pack

Everyone knows that Rudy Giuliani is too liberal for the Republican base.  There are his divorces, his support for abortion, and his support for gay marriage.  The theocratic party will never go for that.

Who is that “everyone” by the way?

Then why is Giuliani leading the GOP pack right now, by 31 percent to 26 percent for John McCain.  As John Podhoretz writes:

By the conventional wisdom, this isn’t even possible: The GOP is the party of the social conservatives, while Rudy Giuliani is - or so we’re told - "socially liberal."

 Maybe it’s because Republicans respect Giuliani as a leader.  And maybe something more.

Republicans not only like Rudy, they want to like him. Conservative Republicans want to like him. Socially conservative Republicans want to like him.

That’s quite something, isn’t it.  I guess you would call it curb appeal, or something.

That other chap, John McCain, has done his best to rile up the Republican base over the years.  And we haven’t forgotten.  So with McCain, the sentiment works in the other direction.  We don’t really want to have to vote for him.  Because we really don’t like him.

As Hugh Hewitt says of John McCain:  “Great American. Lousy senator. Terrible Republican.”

But Rudy, now.  Well that’s a different kettle of fish.

What Makes Public School Kids Excel in School

What’s the secret of success?  Specifically, how do public school students from modest homes compete against private school kids who have all the advantages, from educated parents, after-school tutoring, and computers and stuff at home.

Queena Lee-Chua, Filipino college instructor did some research.  Yes, she discovered, the private school kids have plenty of advantages, 

But according to our study, the families of our best public school students have more powerful strategies.

These are their secrets — discipline, goal-setting, self-reliance, strong family bonds and a conducive home environment.

Well, now, that’s a surprise! “You mean to say,” in the words of the immortal Mike Wallace, that positive self-esteem isn’t important?

Er, no. Not really. Here is more.

Ninety-nine percent of the families of public school achievers in the survey agree that “discipline is a responsibility of the parents and an act of love.”

There’s a shocker for you.  So what would the parent do if little Johnny doesn’t want to work hard?

He tells them about people in the community who ended up jobless because they took the easy way out and did not finish school — “Sumunod lang sa agos (They just went with the flow).”

Still want more?

Most of the families in our survey believe that success is achieved through hard work, not luck or fate. They believe in God, but they also know that God helps those who help themselves.

The children are patient, persistent and capable of delaying gratification.

Successful students believe that they can control their lives, while their less successful classmates are ruled by chance, malas (bad luck), or other factors.

This isn’t rocket science, of course.  Why should it be? 

Two Turning Points, says Michael Barone

Democrats, we know, have to play to their base.  And their base believes that violence never solves anything.  Republicans, of course, play to their base.  And that base tends to believe in the vision of the legendary Al Davis: Just Win Baby.  Thus the ongoing domestic conflict over Iraq and the war on terror.

So let us rise above all this and listen to the adult Michael Barone.  There have been, he asserts, two important turning points in the last year.

The first was the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra in February 2006. This was intended to, and evidently did, spark an upsurge of sectarian violence -- Shias killing Sunnis and vice versa.

 The second was the Hezbollah war in Lebanon.

The Sunni Arab states viewed the Hezbollah attack -- undertaken without even the notification of the Lebanese government, yet putting Lebanon at grave risk -- as an Iranian offensive aimed at establishing something like hegemony over the greater Middle East.

So the question in the Middle East is no longer “winning” in Iraq.  It is, as it has always been since 1979, the problem of revolutionary Iran.

So now, belatedly, we are conducting a “surge” in Iraq which may have as its principal goal the reduction of Iranian influence in that war-torn country.  And there is also this.

Bush appointed an admiral to be the head of CentCom, the regional command in the area, and ordered a second aircraft carrier group sent to the Persian Gulf. This is a hugely significant move, signaling that if necessary we can bring overwhelming military force to bear against Iran, as we did in 1986-88.

Naturally the Democratic Party responded with weakness.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid responded by demanding that the administration not take action against Iran, and The New York Times condemned Bush for "bullying" poor, sweet little Iran.

Oh please.  The fact is that we have been at war with Iran for nearly 30 years, ever since the Iranians violated the US embassy in 1979.

And as for the idea that violence never solves anything, what about the two civil wars that the US conducted in its teenage years: one against the Brits and one against the South?  That certainly solved something didn’t it?