Friday, January 1, 2021

We must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.

Dwight Eisenhower's Military-Industrial Complex Speech, January 17, 1961 was his final public speech to the nation as President.  Two generations later there is still much of great pertinence.

The warning most cited was his concern about the distorting and potentially authoritarian, or at least anti-democratic, nature of a military-industrial complex.  Section V of the speech addresses this concern.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
 
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

I have never paid attention to the other half of Section V.  Another warning about a developing trend as dangerous to our traditions of democracy and freedom as that of the military industrial complex.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
 
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
 
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. 
 
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.
 
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

Our establishment politicians are demonstrably in the grip of both the military industrial complex (though more industrial/monopolistic than military) as well as the scientific technological elite.   They have yielded to forces inimical to freedom and democracy (and rule of law).  


Many categories are both very real but also have very hazy lines of division.

From Science Fictions by Stuart Ritchie.  Page 89.

Outside of exceptions such as the Higgs Boson, though, the 0.05 threshold remains, through conformity, tradition and inertia, the most widely used criterion today. It has scientists feverishly rifling through their statistical tables, checking for p-values lower than 0.05 so that they can report their results as being statistically significant. It’s easy to forget the arbitrariness. Richard Dawkins has bemoaned the ‘discontinuous mind’: our human tendency to think in terms of distinct, sharply defined categories rather than the messy, blurry, ambiguous way the world really is.25 One example is the debate around abortion, which often fixates on the question of when an embryo or foetus becomes ‘a person’, as if there could ever be a bright line by which we could make that decision. In Dawkins’s own field of evolutionary biology, pinpointing the exact moment when one species evolves into another is likewise a fool’s errand, no matter how satisfied we might feel if we could do so. It’s the same for p-values: the 0.05 cut-off for statistical significance encourages researchers to think of results below it as somehow ‘real’, and those above it as hopelessly ‘null’. But 0.05 is as much a convention as the 17-degree taps-aff rule – or, slightly more seriously, the societal decision that someone legally becomes an adult precisely on a particular birthday.

Indeed.  Many categories are both very real but also have very hazy lines of division.   

Quote

 

History

 I have to admit, I was extremely skeptical.  Then again, I am no public health expert either.


Nativity Poem by Joseph Brodsky

Nativity Poem 
by Joseph Brodsky 

Imagine striking a match that night in the cave:
Imagine crockery, try to make use of its glaze
To feel cold cracks in the floor, the blankness of hunger.
Imagine the desert – but the desert is everywhere.

Imagine striking a match in that midnight cave,
The fire, the farm beasts in outline, the farm tools and stuff;
And imagine, as you towel your face in the enveloping folds,
Mary, Joseph, and the Infant in swaddling clothes.

Imagine the kings, the caravans’ stilted procession
As they make for the cave, or, rather, three beams closing in
And in on the star, the creaking of loads, the clink of a cowbell;
(No thronging of Heaven as yet, no peal of the bell

That will ring in the end for the infant once he has earned it).
Imagine the Lord, for the first time, from darkness, and stranded
Immensely in distance, recognizing Himself in the Son
Of Man: His homelessness plain to him now in a homeless one.

 

An Insight

 

I see wonderful things

 

Offbeat Humor

The Expert, 7 Red Lines.

Double click to enlarge.

Data Talks

 

The library of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh

The library of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh.

Click to enlarge.