Nuclear Power Could Save the Planet

As we all know, our American liberals see themselves as the “reality-based” community that believes in science rather than religious superstition and myths. If so, they will be interested in the emerging science of hormesis, the idea that small quantities of toxins, even those that kill at high concentrations, may actually be beneficial.

The principle was demonstrated by Dorothy L. Sayers in her Lord Peter Wimsey mystery, Strong Poison. The not-very-lovely mystery novelist Harriet Vane is accused of poisoning her lover, the avant-garde novelist Philip Boyes, with arsenic. But it turns out it was the oily family lawyer Norman Urquart what done it. Over several months he had ingested small quantities of arsenic and developed a tolerance for the poison. So when he shared an omelette with Philip Boyes that was laced with the stuff, Boyes died in horrible pain while he experienced no ill effect.

It turns out that small amounts of nuclear radiation are beneficial too. Theo Richel reports that they are reducing the estimates of death from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. Right now, it is estimated that about 4,000 people will die prematurely from exposure to Chernobyl. But it may be that the estimate of excess deaths will be one day be reduced to a deficit, because “many people in the area [will] not have cancer as a result of their extra doses of radiation.”

Only about 140 people around the reactor received very high doses (28 of them died as a result), the rest of the population received an extra dose that was lower than normal background radiation

The notion that any exposure to nuclear radiation would increase cancer death arose in a report in 1958 analyzing cancer deaths among the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. The more radiation, scientists found, the bigger likelihood of cancer death.

But the question is, what happens as you lower the radiation dose. Does the likelihood of cancer
reduce slowly toward zero?

Some people had received an amount of radiation that was about 50-100 times the normal, natural, background radiation that the rest of the Japanese receive (about 2.5 milliSieverts/year). In this group of so called Habakushas (bomb survivors) they could not find enough cancer deaths to create a decent statistic that showed radiation is carcinogenic even at these low doses. So the straight line of dose and effect suddenly stopped.

But the scientists didn’t say, well, we don’t know what happens at low doses. Instead, they extended
their graph and invented a hypothesis called LNT (Linear no threshold). Radiation was dangerous all
the way down.

But maybe they were wrong.

In the past half century it became clear that there are many places on earth where
background radiation is 50, 100 or more times higher than the sea level average of 2.5 milliSievert...
In all these places epidemiological studies were started and they produced a
remarkably consistent picture: the people there have either the same or a slightly lower chance
of cancer compared to their
less-irradiated countrymen. They live just as long or a little bit longer.

You can see that this rather makes a mess of the nuclear meltdown hypothesis, celebrated on stage
and screen. If Chernobyl caused no excess deaths, except for the people actually at the reactor attempting
to contain the meltdown, then why are we worried about radiation from nuclear plants and from
nuclear waste disposal sites?

Naturally, all you folk in the “reality-based” community will be eager to understand the emerging
science of hormesis, and you will want to seek additional information here and here.

Imagine. Maybe hormesis points the way to solving the nightmare of global warming. Instead of burning
fossil fuels to power our cars and homes and destroying the planet, we could use nuclear power.
Because hey, a little extra radiation might do us good. And it could save the planet.

Liberal Guru Dies. Who Knew?

M. Scott Peck, author of perennial bestseller The Road Less Traveled, died on September 25 of cancer. “Life is difficult,” he wrote. It is a series of problems and we gain the wisdom to overcome them by discipline (and also through love, growth, religion, and grace). Who, among the reading classes of a certain age, has not read his book, or known what it was about?

Appearing as it did in 1978, Peck’s book was well-timed to offer a way for the baby-boom generation to sober up after the binge of the Sixties without actually admitting that their dissipations were rather more than harmless adolescent pranks.

But who knew? You wouldn’t know it from the obituary in The New York Times. You’d only get a hint of it in the obituary in The Washington Post. In fact, you’d have to go to the obituary in The Daily Telegraph to learn that Peck was not quite the paragon of wisdom he presented in his book.

On the contrary,

Peck himself was, by his own admission, a self-deluding, gin-sodden, chain-smoking neurotic whose life was characterised by incessant infidelity and an inability to relate to his parents or children.

In the end, his wife divorced him and two of his three children wouldn’t speak to him.

Hey, nobody is perfect. But it is still a remarkable thing that in all these years as a bestselling author, lecturer, and celebrity, there was never a scandal about the rather significant gulf between Peck’s philosophy and his life. If he had been a fundamentalist preacher and had written a best-seller on the Christian life, we can be confident our liberal friends would know about his every pecadillo and be able to recite chapter and verse of his misdeeds to us upon request. And also without request.

It’s the great double standard of our age. Conservatives that fall off the wagon are hypocrites and frauds. Liberals that don’t live up to their principles are merely human.

And that’s how it should be, after all.

Ballroom Dancing? At College?

Half a century after rock-and-roll ate pairs dancing for lunch, it looks like
ballroom dancing is making a comeback—at the university.
Liz Lightfoot reports that Oxford and Cambridge Universities in England
are getting serious about an annual ballroom dancing competition between the two
schools.

It has become so serious that

Cambridge University has appointed its first permanent
ballroom dancing coach as
the activity becomes the latest campus craze.

It is not before time. The bump and grind of rock-style dancing means nothing.
How about dancing plastered up against a dancing partner as you whirl around the
dance floor? Said Chris Horner of Cambridge University:

"It’s strange that male dancers pressed against a beautiful
woman are supposed to be gay while sports where 15 men run around holding
on to each other or getting
sweaty together in the showers are seen as manly,"

Actually, as an experienced Argentine Tango dancer, I’d say that the
prospect of pressing up against a beautiful woman is more enticing
than the actual experience.

The University: Sickness Unto Death

It’s university week as various opinion media trot out their annual state of the academy pieces. In
James Piereson’s
The Left University we saw a picture of the university drawn using the German historical method,
penciling out the progress of the academy from teacher of absolutes to liberal research institution to the current
left university that amounts to an establishment of secular religion.

On the other hand,
Victor Davis Hanson shows the university as a corrupt institution approaching terminal
sickness, or as we Kierkegaardians say, sickness unto death. You can tell there is something wrong by
comparing the antics of today’s college presidents with the giants of the university’s golden age: men
like “Woodrow Wilson (at Princeton), Robert Hutchens (at Chicago) or James Bryant Conant (at Harvard).”
Today’s presidents are pigmies by comparison.

There’s the infamous trashing of Harvard President Summers by the Harvard faculty for daring to suggest informally that
there might be innate differences between men and women.

There’s “Denice Denton, the newly appointed chancellor of the University of California, Santa Cruz,
heralded Mr. Summers’s public humiliation as a `teachable moment.’” Maybe there is a teachable moment
also in discussing
the shenanigans surrounding her appointment. Her partner got herself a six-figure job at the
university and a move-in allowance in the deal. What’s all that about?

And what about University of Colorado President Elizabeth Hoffman?

She recently resigned, ostensibly following athletic scandals, but more
likely as a result of the uproar over Ward Churchill. We remember him now as the strange
professor who compared the 3,000 murdered in the Twin Towers and Pentagon to "Little Eichmanns,"
supposed cogs in the military-industrial wheel who deserved their fate.

It turned out that everything about Churchill was a lie: his Native American ancestry and his academic
achievements.

But none of these worthies hold a candle to new Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau of the University of
California at Berkeley. On taking up his office

the chancellor complained that Berkeley has fewer Native American, Hispanic,
and African-American students enrolled than it should--the campus was only 3% black, 9.5%
Hispanic, and 0.4% Native American, in
contrast with about 45% Asian-American and about 33% white.

The chancellor blames the underrepresentation of traditionally marginalized minorities on Proposition
209 that banned racial quotas in state government.

"I personally don’t believe that most of the people who voted for 209 intended this consequence."

Oh really. But it really doesn’t matter what the people intended, chancellor. As a famous United States
Attorney General often used to say: “It’s the law.” Your job, as a government functionary, is to obey
the law. For changing the law we have legislatures and elections, initiatives from the people, and all
that stuff.

You wanna change the law? Run for election.

After the Left University, What Then?

In an important article in The Weekly Standard, James Piereson, longtime director of the James M. Olin Foundation, takes a look at The Left University and what to do about it.

American universities have gone through three stages, according to Piereson. The first stage was the British model: universities founded by Protestant denominations and designed

to transmit knowledge and right principles to the young in order to prepare them for vocations in teaching, the ministry, and, often, the law. Few thought of these institutions as places where new knowledge might be generated or where original research might be conducted.

In England, as in America, research and discovery were sponsored by nonacademic institutions like the Royal Society in London or the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia, the latter founded by Benjamin Franklin.

It is significant to note that the great figures of nineteenth century America, businessmen like Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Pullman, not to mention politicians like Jackson and Lincoln, “had little formal education at all.”

But all that changed when the Germans invented the research university. Conforming to Kant’s idea that you could never know the thing-in-itself, they founded the University of Berlin, “based on the idea that truth is not something known and passed on, but the subject of persistent inquiry and continuous revision.” The research model placed the faculty, not the students, at the center of the institution.

The model of the German research university spread rapidly in the United States in the decades after the Civil War, inaugurated by the founding of Johns Hopkins University in 1876 as our first institution organized around graduate research studies. The late scholar Edward Shils referred to this as "the most decisive single event in the history of learning in the Western hemisphere."

The men of the research university brought a different culture to the public square, inspiring the Progressive movement at the turn of the twentieth century and bringing “experts and expert knowledge into the political process.” What we may call the liberal university grew in size and prestige until the 1960s.

Then, in a single tumultous decade, the liberal university was replaced by the left university. Suddenly, the open, tolerant liberal university, dedicated to an optimistic vision of progress through knowledge, was shattered and in its place grew an altogether different institution, the university dedicated to “identity politics, group rights, and diversity.”

Ever since, the university has been radically out of step with reality and out of step with America. It has been wrong about the fall of Communism, wrong about the convergence between the Communist and capitalist systems, wrong that “welfare programs were in no way implicated in urban poverty, crime, family breakup, and teen pregnancy.” And the university research that once fed into the political process during the age of the liberal university is now done by independent think tanks like the “Manhattan
Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Hoover Institution,” and Piereson’s own Olin Foundation.

What is to be done? Piereson does not offer too much, except a recitation of reforms initiated by trustees and philanthropists. Which is fine, as far as it goes. But here is a more radical Three Point plan.

First, end university tenure. If there is one thing we have learned over the last half-century it is that people guaranteed a job are unhappy, cramped people, dogs-in-a-manger obsessed by their rights and utterly unlikely to serve the community. The university should be the great public square in which young people get to experience the great and the good as they visit the university for a season.

Second, prune back the research model. Some areas of the university lend themselves to the research concept, particularly in the hard sciences. But many do not. Is research in English literature a good idea? Research in law? It is probably not an accident that English and Law are departments that have been utterly vitiated by left-wing ideologies. The research model requires incumbents to do research in order to get tenure, money, and the glittering prizes. Some departments should be liberated from this burden.

Third, break up the “bums on seats” government education monopoly and its co-conspirator,
licensure. Why are we putting children in classrooms for twelve years K through 12, apart from creating jobs for education professionals? And why do we legislate a forest of credential requirements? The postmodernists know why. Power. Instead we could, we should be educating our children to adventure, to creativity, to service, or to work. Parents, take your pick.

It goes without saying that reforms of this magnitude can only be advanced by the conservative movement and its political arm, the Republican Party. Liberals, lefties, and Democrats are too compromised by their economic and political interests to do anything but resist to the last dollar of taxpayers’ money the system that gives them a comfortable livelihood, status, and power.

"Nobody Screws With Me"

Everybody is worrying about the decline of male participation in the university. At present
“135 women are graduating from college for every 100 men.”
Instapundit has a lot
of links.

The big question is: Where are all the men?
Vectorsphere
has some interesting posts on this, inluding a post from a father whose son was earning $70k a year as an
electrician. Many young men drop out of college because they cannot stand being indoctrinated as
“liberal feminists.” But after a few years in the real world, some of them return. So how do they deal
with the leftist faculty? One returnee responded:

I’ve got 12 years work experience, and if [they] dick
me around I’ll drag them through every rights process this university and state
laws have, and they know it. Nobody screws with me.”

So, fellas. Maybe the thing to do is to put off college until you’ve grown the cojones you
need to deal with the lefty professors. Then get in there and teach ’em a lesson.

Cherie Blair's Royal Progress

The personal is the political, they say. Whatever that may mean, we certainly like to imagine that celebrities actually live the characters they portray. And we like to imagine that the politicians of the other party are demonstrably not the kind, compassionate souls that other people’s money (actually, our money) makes them appear.

A recent biography of Britain’s First Couple, Tony and Cherie: A Special Relationship, by Paul Scott, gives us everything we want to believe about Cherie Blair, according to Frank Johnson (subscription required) in The Spectator, and more.

You see, as is proper in a working-class lass, Cherie Blair did not at all enjoy her trip to the Queens’s castle in Balmoral, Scotland.

First of all, she hated the ghoulish statue at the foot of her bed. Then she hated the bagpiper announcing the fresh Scottish morning at 6:00 am every day. The Queen’s royal corgis made “her eyes bulge, go red and begin to water.” Of course, writes Frank Johnson, this is probably because the royal pooches are not ordinary corgis but royal corgis. Not the sort of privileged animal likely to spark sympathy in the progressive breast of barrister Cherie Booth QC, who has defended the right of Muslim girls to wear the burqa in British schools.

All this is, of course, mere by-play. What really prompts an attack of acid reflux in the unbiased reader is the story of Cherie and the Tea with the Queen Mum.

Mrs Blair [did not] enjoy having to attend an afternoon tea party for the late Queen Mother’s `elderly women friends during a Balmoral holiday’. According to the book `it was not just tea but a steady supply of sherry that was on offer to the titled OAPs [old age pensioners]. The party began in a genteel enough manner, but as the afternoon progressed it steadily descended into a raucous sing-along with the Queen Mother leading from the front and insisting that a mortified Cherie join in every tune.’

Dear me. Now really. Who is there with a heart so hard that they could not enjoy, indeed not feel a lump in the throat when singing along with a bevy of slightly drunk little old ladies as they rumbled through the good old songs of their youth?

Maybe Cherie Blair would prefer a tuneful ditty from the Rolling Stones golden age, such as the compassionate and sensitive “Let’s Spend the Night Together.”