The Informationist, a blog written by Bruce Abramson

Where Do The U.S., EU, And UN Encourage Restrictive Housing Covenants?

Cross-posted at breitbart.com's BigPeace

Quick.  Look at a map of the world and put an “X” through all the places that should be off-limits to Black residents.  Great.  Now put an “X” through all the places from which we should ban Muslims.  Then, just for good measure, “X” out all the places from which we should prohibit Chinese, Latinos, and gays.  Now look up.

Got any “Xs” on your map?  I hope not, because the exercise is hugely offensive.  Only a hard-core racist or homophobe would base housing restrictions on ethnic origin, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation.  The elimination of racial restrictions in housing was among the first, and most important, victories of the civil rights movement in the U.S., and few today would defend apartheid.  In fact, we have come so far from the days that racial covenants were standard clauses in real estate contracts that the mere suggestion of such an exercise should generate widespread revulsion.

But, let’s try one more, just for laughs.  Look back down at your map and put an “X” through all the places that should be off-limits to Jewish residents.  Got any “Xs” on your map now?

Naked Anti-Semitism Requires A Vocal Response

"It's reminiscent of Nazi-era propaganda," she says. "It's as offensive and outrageous as the measure itself." 

via blogs.sfweekly.com

So the folks behind San Francisco’s proposed circumcision ban also circulate propaganda repeating some of history’s most famous visual anti-Semitic stereotypes. Big deal. The only surprising bit of news here is that it is news. The proposed circumcision ban represents anti-Semitism in its most basic, primal, and historical form.  It deserves condemnation from across the political spectrum, and repudiation by all decent people of good will.

Why “The Informationist?” Redux

Informationism is applied information science; it is social and political policy based on a scientific foundation.

via www.theinformationist.com

Every now and then I like to remind myself that my various interests really do cohere. One of the nice things about having launched this blog five-plus years ago is that I forced myself to put that coherent philosophy in writing. I like to revisit my original "Why the Informationist?" essay periodically. For those of you who have joined me recently, enjoy! Or not. Either way, I always welcome comments.

Guest Blogger: Chaim Scheff on Global Temperature Management

My friend Chaim Scheff asked me to post his thoughts on Global Temperature Management.  I reserve the right to agree or disagree with them as I think about them some more.  - BA

From Chaim:

If planet Earth were an enterprise, then Global Warming would be (is) a symptom of bad management. Petro-technologies (waste product intense) are causing this dangerous climate shift. To save the Quality of Human Life on this planet, our urgent question is: “What should good management do?” Bad management lets market forces regulate environmental toxicity; until we retrograde shift into some high-tech Stone Age. Good management’s paradigm is to modify the global biosphere to recycle more of the surplus atmospheric CO2. Lets look at the simple science, straightforward engineering, and down-home economics of this global eco-management procedure.

Science: In Nature, solar powered chlorophyll reactions bind atmospheric Carbon (Dioxide) to water – to build plant material (e.g. grasses, trees, algae). These chlorophyll-based plants absorb light around a few very narrow optical frequency bands – violet & blue (430, 453) and orange & red (644, 663). Exposing many of these plants to a “shot” of this light (during the night) will cause them to grow “as if” there had been an extra day. (Note: This is a well-known technique – used in Temperate/Sub-Arctic commercial green houses; to accelerate produce delivery schedules.)
Carefully altering the lunar spectrum is a rational paradigm for halting global warming. Taking sunlight that bounces off the lunar surface Earthward, and “improving” its spectrum will shift the biosphere’s Carbon equilibrium. This provides petro-technology continuity and decreasing atmospheric CO2 levels – because artificially stimulating additional plant growth is actually binding surplus Carbon (Dioxide). Most plants will do this correctly, others will remain unchanged, and a few will develop imbalances. In the robust biosphere ecology, large scale shifting of ratios of plants in countless ecosystems will in turn respectively increase other species (e.g. molds, insects, birds, mammals, etc.). Classically, this is called Abundance.

Engineering: First, catalogue inert inorganic materials that return sunlight in the chlorophyll color bands; a reasonable task for an ordinary spectroscopic physicist. Next, eliminate materials that are unstable under the temperature, radiation, lunar surface contact, and vacuum conditions of the lunar surface; a reasonable task for an ordinary inorganic chemist. After that, eliminate materials that are difficult to make or to keep in a fine powdered form; a reasonable task for an ordinary chemical engineer. Of course, simply select the cheapest of the materials that qualify; a reasonable task for any prudent consumer.
Next, simulate the powder dispersal/deposition process – to understand how to apply it in small steps, so that the planet equilibrium is not overshot. Then, develop a delivery system for these materials; bringing the qualified materials to a location above the center of the visible lunar surface and dispersing them – probably in the form of a dry aerosol; perhaps from a lunar-tethered vehicle. Finally, even with super computers simulating this procedure, prudently introduce this phenomena in gradual steps over the course of 15-25 years – so that there is enough time to monitor the effects on global weather, ecosystems, atmospheric CO2, agriculture, fish stocks, etc.

Economics: Needing to deliver only a few tons of powder to 20% cover the lunar surface with a coating of 20-micron dust surely costs less than any of the hot space-exploration projects of the last few decades. Like more ordinary space missions, this project requires the supervision of cost conscious space-science engineers and other systems-oriented mission specialists. While this is not something that has ever been done, neither exotic science nor not-yet-invented engineering are needed. Simply stated: “It’s time to take another small step for mankind.”

Chaim adds: The right to print/reprint is freely granted – if accompanied by complete citation credits.  Chaim Scheff – Adjunct Professor – Hochstein School of Industrial Management

Atlantis Redux?

It’s hard to see the scenes of devastation from New Orleans without being affected.  I keep hearing Satchmo sing ”Do You Know What it Means to Miss New Orleans:”

Do you know what it means to miss new orleans
And miss it each night and day
I know I’m not wrong… this feeling’s gettin’ stronger
The longer, I stay away
Miss them moss covered vines...the tall sugar pines
Where mockin’ birds used to sing
And I’d like to see that lazy mississippi...hurryin’ into spring

The moonlight on the bayou.......a creole tune.... that fills the air
I dream… about magnolias in bloom......and I’m wishin’ I was there

I’m beginning to miss New Orleans.  Will we ever see it again?  Or will the city sink into the sea, never again to arise?  Three weeks ago I wandered around the island of Santorini, reputedly the source of the Atlantis myth, as a volcano and the sea conspired to swallow its major city.

I also have to wonder about global warming.  I have long been perplexed by this issue.  As far as I can tell, all political positions on global warming seem to be ass-backwards.  From a global Gaia perspective, its effect should be minimal.  Land masses will become a bit smaller, a few islands will disappear, crops and species will migrate away from the equator, and mother earth will recover.  From an economic perspective, the impact will be overwhelming.  Human activity and wealth lies disproportinately in coastal plains and in river valleys.  More and more of our cities will find themselves underwater.  These simple observations suggest that environmentalists should welcome the phenomenon with a shrug, while those who focus on economic development should be frantic.  Needless to say, such is not the case.

I had always assumed that our canary in the coal mine would be Bangladesh, but it could turn out to be New Orleans.  I’m certain that when the final numbers are in, we will find more dead and greater damage than we did in the wake of 9/11.  Perhaps its time to commit resources to combat global warming on par with those that we have committed to combating Islamofascism.  Writing this devastation off as an “Act of God” may be accurate (whom am I to judge?) but it’s also too easy.  There are things that we can do complicate God’s future attempts at such devastation; I’m certain that any just God would welcome our interference.

I have visited New Orleans only twice, and I have twice been taken by its charms.  I hope to see it again, vibrant and healthy, someday soon.  I do hope that we are not witnessing Atlantis Redux.  But from the scenes on TV, it’s hard to be sure.

Thoughts from the Road

Blessed are those who maintain nice, clean Internet cafes, for they truly do God’s work.

Starting a blog is like giving yourself a permanent homework assignment.  I mean, news commentary, book reports, pithy thoughts, etc.  Whew!  Imagine if I actually had readers!

A Confession and a Clean Start

I haven’t really been blogging until today.  I launched the site with some old essays.  Then I spent a month trying to learn a little something about the blogosphere.  I kept notes, posted elsewhere, and then backdated my entries throughout June.  I figured that it would make an interesting record of how I learned to become a blogger.  After all, I’m an essayist, not a diarist.  The transformation to blogger wasn’t immediately obvious.  And it may take me a while to back fill June.  But from 6/27/05 on forward, I expect the timestamps to be real.

A Promotion!

I got an e-mail from Kate Cambor and Joshua Michael Marshall today.  Apparently, they “noticed your interesting and thoughtful contributions to the discussion at TPMCafe and wondered if you’d be interested in being an ‘author’ at the site.” That loftier status would allow me to start threads without allowing others to screen their propriety--and to screen threads that others would like to begin.

I accepted, of course.  Who doesn’t love a promotion?

Baby blogger is learning to walk.

God—America—Faith

I was supposed to write about technology today.  For some reason, though, I really don’t feel like writing about technology.  I feel a strange need to write about faith.  I’m not sure why.  Faith has been my bete-noire for a long time now.  In fact, for as long as I can remember.  I’m afraid of faith because I have observed its power and I don’t understand it at all.

For a long time, I felt great anger at the concept of faith.  Sure, I knew people who’d been helped by it.  But I could also look around and see the pain and suffering that it caused, the crimes and unspeakable atrocities committed in its name.  I have always considered myself fortunate to live in a country without an official religion, without an imposition of faith.  And I have long been suspicious of those who attempted to interject faith into the American forum.  Couldn’t they see what a wonderful thing we had developed here?  Couldn’t they appreciate the brilliance of the Constitutional formulation?  Free Exercise and No Establishment.  The First Amendment sets out two rules for religion: every individual is free to exercise whatever faith—or lack thereof—they may possess, but the government may not favor any particular faith—or even a combination of faiths.  Those two rules allowed us to develop into the most pluralistic, tolerant society in recorded history.

When the (second) Bush administration came to power, it arrived armed with the notion that faith should be promoted—its “faith based initiative.” This initiative arrived at a bout the same time as I reached an important personal juncture—I was able to let go of some of the anger of my childhood.  I was raised as an Orthodox Jew, in an Orthodox Jewish community.  While it is impossible to capture any religion in a few simple words, it is generally possible to make a start.  Orthodox Judaism believes that the Torah represents God’s revealed truth.  The Torah teaches a fairly simple moral code for all people—stressing concepts like monotheism, marital fidelity, kindness to animals, and a respect for others’ lives and property.  In addition, it prescribes a much more detailed set of requirements for Jews.  While most Jews are born Jewish, conversion is open to anyone who truly accepts these added restrictions and requirements. 

Something about that never sat well with me.  Mostly, I think, it had to do with the notion of revealed Truth.  It all struck me as entirely implausible.  In order to buy the argument, you had to follow a series of implausible events.  First, there had to be an original creative force.  Okay, I’ve always been prepared to buy that one.  God, Big Bang, whatever you want to call it, I have no problems with the idea that something got things going.  But then it got tough.  That force had to be sentient.  It had to care about the earth.  It had to care about individual actions on this planet.  It had to have revealed itself in the way described to the people described.  And the revealed Truth had to have been interpreted in reasonable ways since the original revelation.  All of those struck me as implausible; and when you multiply the probabilities together, well, the likelihood that you were left with Truth was infinitesimal.

Of course, there was nothing wrong with the Torah Truth that didn’t apply with equal ease to the Truths preached by any other faith.  They were all equally implausible.  And it struck me that it was that utter implausibility that led adherents to the ultimate insecurity that caused them to denigrate and devastate adherents of the other Truths.

But when I started paying attention, I noticed that things played themselves out a bit differently here in America.  I noticed a huge number of folks who seemed to describe themselves as “spiritual, but not religious,” or as “religious, but not traditional.” And that’s when it dawned on me.  We’ve been drawing the lines in the wrong ways.  Not just me, but large parts of the spectrum of political pundits and commentators.  The lines do not belong between the different faiths, or even between the people of faith and the “faithless.” The proper lines belong between those who believe in a single Truth and those who do not.

The membership of virtually every religious organization contains a spectrum of thinkers.  Some believe that the teaching of their faith represent the entire Truth, and that those who reject that Truth have lost their way—and must be converted, shunned, or worse.  Others, however, seem to believe that they have found peace, solace, or fulfillment in the teachings of their faith—and that others should seek similar good feelings wherever they may find it.  These are the folks who believe that somewhere, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, and others are all sitting around annoyed, saying: “Look, all we ever said was that the world would be a better place if people got along with each other.” For these folks, the idea of importance is that every individual find an ethical center and a moral compass.  The source of that center is secondary.

But then, what of those without faith?  What of those who believe in none of the traditions?  Well, they break down the same way.  Many agnostics—and even atheists—believe in a humanistic philosophy.  They gain their moral center simply by recognizing that some things are right and others wrong, and that the world will be a better place if we all try to do right.  Those who do not are more than simply faithless; they are nihilistic. 

And therein lies the peace that I have attempted to make with faith.  I have a moral center and a compass.  I’m not sure where it comes from, and I’m not sure if it’s important that I do.  What I do know, though, is that I am fine with people of faith—as long as they do not feel that they have a monopoly on Truth and they recognize that all paths to self-improvement and world-improvement are equally valid.

As I look around the world, I wonder where these people are.  We seem to have them in abundance in the U.S., but they are dangerously missing elsewhere.  And so the religious carnage continues.  And so, I say, God Bless America.  Or to be more neutral, May the Force be with Us.