I came across an interesting article on the internet by Brian Greene, a physics professer, talking about how science should, and should, not be taught. Here's a link. It seems to me that Professor Greene is saying that in the teaching of science we lose sight of the big picture in our efforts to attend to the details. Actually he does not use the term "big picture", but I think he would not disagree with my use of the term in describing his article. He says science should be exciting, or inspiring. I do not disagree with him on that. But I would argue that his idea is nothing new. You could take out the word "science" and put in "history", or "music" or just about any other subject and the argument would be pretty much the same. We can call it the "big picture problem", as it comes up again and again. And it is a very important concern for all teachers, or at least it should be. But how do we teach for the big picture? How do we prevent the details from getting in the way? How do we make sure we don't lose the forest for the trees?

      I don't think I have a final answer for this problem, but I have some thoughts.

      First of all, I would argue, there is one very important thing that we should not do. We should not decide the details are unimportant. This has been tried many times. It's a standard theme in progressive education in the early twentieth century, at least from my reading and interpretation. Of course the emphasis would vary from time to time. Sometimes the "experts" would simply say that subject matter is not important, in either the big picture or the little picture. Other times they would say that students can get the details on their own, by doing activities or projects. And yet other times they would emphasize that students would understand and remember anything they "discovered" for themselves, making little distinction between the big and little picture.

      The best example of denigrating details in my experience was my college freshman history course. We were explicitly told "Don't worry about memorizing dates, or facts. Try to get the broad themes of American history . . . ." In fact they would actively riducule the learning of facts. "A student comes into class for a test with a head full of facts, and says, 'Don't bump me! Don't bump me! I might lose some facts' ". At the time my reaction to this type of rhetoric was negative. I felt it was wrong. Since then, and at least partly because of this type of rhetoric, I have developed the opinion that the big picture always comes through the details. There may be some exceptions, but I don't know what they might be. I do have some experience teaching both math and music, and all my experience leads me to believe that the big picture comes only through a mastery of a large number of details.

      But there are two important caveats here. There is nothing in my argument to imply that details have to be added on in isolation, that we should approach details as a job of rote memorization. I would argue just the opposite. In the vast majority of cases details to be learned must be fit into the structure of pre-existing knowledge. This is what understanding is, fitting each new fact or idea into the existing structure of knowledge, and not being content until it does fit in. Pure memory has it's place, of course. Fitting a new fact or idea into the existing structure of knowledge takes work and time. In many cases we must simply remember the new fact or idea, because it's much to time consuming to figure it out again each time we need it. I use the terms "structure building" and "brain packing" to refer to these processes of learning. I have discussed them more fully in another article. (Click here).

      The second caveat is this. Mastery of details is a necessary condition for getting the big picture, but it is not a sufficient condition. If students are to get the big picture something more must be done. An important part of that something more is simply pointing out the big picture, which hopefully teachers automatically do. Beyond that, I'm not sure.

      According to our local newspaper, the Fargo Forum, our local utility company would like to build a new coal-burning power plant. It's needed to keep up with demand. There is some opposition to the project, of course. Environmentalists don't think it's a good idea to burn coal. The new plant would burn millions of tons of coal each year. If you remember your high school chemistry, you can quickly figure out that a million tons of coal burnt puts about 3.7 million tons of carbon dioxide into the air. (Carbon has atomic weight 12, oxygen 16, so carbon dioxide has atomic weight 44, which is 3 2/3 times 12.) Environmentalists think that's a bad idea. I'm not what you would call a raving environmentalist, but I also think its a bad idea.

      So what should we do then? To me the answer is very simple - go nuclear. But nuclear energy has many detractors. Environmentalists in general, I think, aren't talking of nuclear energy when they talk of alternatives. What they prefer is wind and solar energy.

      Solar, I think, is not going to be competitive with fossil fuel in the foreseeable future. But wind energy may be. It was not too many years ago when I was driving in Minnesota and observed a number of wind turbines. It was an impressive sight. They are big, and there must have been twenty or more of them. I'm sure this wind farm is not unique, but it was the first I had ever seen.

      Thinking about this I very quickly decided that this was very good news. They don't put up that many wind turbines, I decided, unless it made economic sense. It doesn't necessary mean that wind power is truly competitive with fossil power, but it has to mean that it is close. What I saw could not be just an experiment. If they just wanted to gather data, one wind turbine would provide plenty of data. That many wind turbines must be put up to actually produce power. The cost of wind power must be competitive.

      Unfortunately over the next few months I decided the issue was not so clear cut. Minnesota, I learned, had some state laws that were enacted to promote wind energy. I don't know the details of these laws. I expect the total picture is pretty complicated. But I think it is fair to say that written into law were a number of "carrots and sticks", legal provisions designed to prompt power companies to invest in wind energy, whether or not it really made sense economically. There would be tax incentives, and perhaps accounting incentives, to favor wind energy, I suppose. And there would probably be some sort of penalties if energy companies don't put up some wind turbines. Indeed there might be a simple legal mandate to put up a certain number of wind turbines regardless of the cost.

      I am not against such laws, in principle, at least. I think there are times when it is well worth while for government to promote an agenda that will be in the long term interests of society, even though there are costs and problems in the short term. When we paid about 30 cents for a gallon of gas and gas shortages started to hit, I quickly decided that I would support a good stiff tax on gas if it would be used to promote alternative energy research. Over the years, however, I have become less of a believer in such actions. Ethonol is one reason for this. I thought that tax breaks and other legal provisions to promote ethanol were a good thing for the country in the long run. However a few years ago I became painfully aware that much of the country thought that tax breaks for ethanol production was just pork for the midwest. And I don't have much faith in the ability of the country to stick with an incentive program over a long period of time.

      So I don't know whether Minnesota's laws that promote wind energy are wise or not. But one thing seems very clear to me, and I think it is important. Any such promotion by government is going to obscure actual costs. I like the idea of wind energy. But I have no way of knowing the actual cost of wind energy production. The simple existence of a wind turbine, with its monstrous blades spinning majestically in the breeze, is not evidence that it is making money, or that it ever will make money. Perhaps people in the wind industry can know the actual costs, but I don't think that means that the general public can know the actual costs, at least not now. Lawmakers can bring in experts to testify about actual costs, before making or modifying wind energy legislation. But there will be conflicting testimony. I will have no way of knowing who is stating the simple truth and who is spinning the facts to favor their industry. Lawmakers will have to decide that, and they make mistakes.

      Thirty years from the answers will surely be in. Perhaps at that time wind turbines will be as common as billboards along the highway. That would mean that wind energy can stand on its own. It doesn't need any help from government. But I can also imagine that thirty years from now wind energy will be a thing of the past, an idea worth trying, but not worth keeping.

      I'm rooting for wind energy. But I have no idea if it's really going to be a part of our energy future or not. And I really don't know if it's wise or foolish for government to support it with incentives.

      The latest issue of Time magazine has an article on education. Apparently what prompts this article is a report due out this week by "the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce, a high-powered, bipartisan assembly of Education Secretaries and business, government and other education leaders . . .". I had not been aware of such a commission, or that it was going to make a report. I hope its report will be better than this article.

      I am a critic of education. Or, more exactly, I am a critic of what we might call the "educational establishment". I am not a critic of our schools as they actually do the job. There are many good teachers in the country who go about the business everyday of transmitting knowledge and culture as best and efficiently as they can to their students. These teachers don't give much thought to the latest educational fads. Indeed they may be unaware of them. The latest educational fads have little to do with their everyday lives. These fads are not relevant, because they don't work. "Constructivism" is all the vogue now, but it is nothing more than a new word for old ideas, ideas that date back to early in the twentieth century and went under the name "progressivism" for decades. These ideas are not all bad by any means, but they have never constituted anything revolutionary in teaching. I am a critic of the educational establishment because for a least a hundred years it has propagated these fads, but neglected to observe, describe, analyze, and report on what actually goes on in classrooms everyday, the actual practice of effective teachers, the actual nature of school learning.

      In recent years I have become a little more tolerant of the educational establishment's lack of reality grounding when it dawned on me that educational leaders are not the only ones that advocate and write admiringly of educational practices that I consider shallow and inefficient - reporters do it too. Time just did it. Obviously there is something appealing to these ideas. Here is a quote from the Time article:

Depth over breadth and the ability to leap across disciplines are exactly what teachers aim for at the Henry Ford Academy, a public charter school in Dearborn, Mich. This fall, 10th-graders in Charles Dershimer's science class began a project that combines concepts from earth science, chemistry, business and design. After reading about Nike's efforts to develop a more environmentally friendly sneaker, students had to choose a consumer product, analyze and explain its environmental impact and then develop a plan for re-engineering it to reduce pollution costs without sacrificing its commercial appear. Says Dershimer: "It's a challenge for them and for me."

      This project approach may sound wonderful and new to some, including the authors of the article, but it is not new. Here's a quote from "Left Back" which is a history of American education written by Diane Ravitch in 2000. Ravitch, unlike the authors of the Time article, is not an admirer of the classroom situation in this quote:

      In 1929 William Heard Kilpatrick visited Moscow, where he discovered that his books were read in all the teacher-training institutes and the project method was widely used. The three R's were not taught directly but were learned, much to Kilpatrick's approval, "incidentally from tasks at hand."

      He visited a fourth grade classroom that was working on the problem "How can we increase the yield per acre?" Another group of students studied "the problem of disposing of disintegrating carcasses of animals left frozen on the roadside, both for the salvage of fertilizer and leather and for better sanitation."

      To me there is very little appeal in this type of project approach. Are we to believe that high school students in Michigan or fourth graders in Moscow are going to actually tackle, in any meaningful way, the problems mentioned? People in industry are continually tackling such problems, and they have the advantage of algebra, calculus, chemistry, physics, and other subjects to work with. School children taking on such problems, it seems to me, are just play acting.

      But people who respond positively to such ideas need to be taken seriously. To refute these ideas takes a lot more than saying I don't like them. To that end I have done a lot of writing over the years, and the results are on my website.

      Like most people I consider honesty to be important. But I also realize that in an imperfect world it is not always a simple matter. There are many situations that, for one reason or another, we cannot be honest. Or others cannot be honest with us. Consider the following scenario:

      I am called in to the office of a member of the human resources department of the business where I work. I am informed that I did not get the job that I had applied for, and interviewed for, a couple of weeks previously. This is not unexpected news. The job would be a step up from my present position. My qualifications are basically that I have done a good job in my present position, and have shown myself quick to learn. There is no way that I can claim that I am perfectly qualified, or the best qualified. I do not know who else has applied for this position, and what their qualifications are. However I can guess, based on my knowledge of the company and its practices, that there are not too many other applicants, and that their qualifications, though different than mine in various ways, do not make them a perfect match for the job either. I can also guess that I am considerably older than any of the other applicants. Does this make a differece? So I ask the pleasant young lady who is giving me the disappointing news, "Is my age a factor? Did they want someone younger?"

      This scenario is not all fiction. It happened to me twice in the last couple of years. However the last part of the scenario is fiction. I did not ask if age were a factor in my not being hired. I know better than that. We have laws against age discrimination. Therefore the human resources people did not talk about age. I don't ask if my age is against me because I know what the answer would be. They would say no, my age is not a factor. This reply would be given with apparent sincerity. But is it honest? Can I expect honesty in this situation?

      I think it is very naive to think that age is not a factor. This is not to say that it is factor. There is no way I can know about that. For the particular two jobs involved in my situation, I consider it likely that age was not a factor. There is a lot of turnover in these jobs at this company. They may figure that age is irrelevant because anyone they hire will likely be gone in two or three years. Perhaps my age is even to my advantage. Perhaps they think that an older person will be more stable, dependable, and reliable.

      But what I can know with rock solid certainty is that the company must deny that age is a factor. They cannot be honest with me. They probably would not think that honesty enters into this situation at all. It would not occur to them to think in terms of honesty or dishonesty. But in my mind the question of honesty is involved. If age is important then I would like to know it. That would be valuable information to me. But I cannot get any information from their denial of age consideration.

      Age discrimination labor laws are based on good intentions, of course. In some circles good intentions are given high value. I am much more cynical than that. I often find myself saying that someone "had very good intentions", but my meaning is derision, not admiration. About a decade ago I was doing some serious job hunting, and a number of times I didn't get an interview when I thougt I should have. A little reflection convinced me that it is easy to get a good idea of my age from information on my resume, and if they don't want to hire an older person it's probably best not to interview an older person. This would explain the interviews I didn't get.

      One might argue that I am making wild guesses, that I don't have enough information to draw any firm conclusions. That, I would reply, is precisely my point. I don't have enough information to draw any firm conclusions. I would not claim to know that age discrimination is involved in any jobs I didn't get, or any interviews I didn't get. I cannot know because we have age discrimination laws.

      "Camelot legislation" is a term that I have always applied to laws that have desirable ends, but that we can't have much confidence that they can work. We can't legislate the weather. In a song from the Camelot the words include:

A law was made a distant moon ago here,
July and august cannot be too hot.
And there's a legal limit to the snow here
In Camelot

The winter is forbidden till December
And exits March the second on the dot.
By order summer lingers through September
In Camelot.

      In most legislation there are winners and losers. Sometimes it is very plain who the winners are and who the losers are. Sometimes it is not plain at all. Sometimes the winners are very apparent and the losers are invisible, or the losers are visible and the winners are invisible. And with many laws there are unintended consequences. Are age discrimination laws effective? Of course I cannot prove they are not. But common sense and my experience tells me that employers who don't want to hire older people can easily find effective, yet deniable ways, not to. With age discrimination laws honesty is a casulty. I don't know if I am a loser from age discrimination or not, but I know that I cannot know, and that, in my opinion, makes me a loser.

      One crisp autumn morning in the early 1990's I looked out my kitchen window and saw seven armed men across the street, with dogs. This experience, after a few months of reflection, gave me a new perspective on disarmament.

      When I was in high school in the late fifties I remember disarmament as being topic of popular discussion and serious political thought. The cold war was well underway by this time. America had an extensive arsenal of nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union, I think, had a much smaller, but still extensive, arsenal of nuclear weapons. Both sides had the capability of delivering those weapons, though I don't know just what those delivery systems were.

      As I recall everyone was for disarmament at this time, at least in principle. But there was a wide range of opinion on how it should be done. A segment of the population, probably a very small minority, favored unilateral disarmament. They thought, I think, that if only America would get rid of their nuclear bombs then Russia would no longer feel threatened, and would respond in kind. A more common view was that disarmament would be difficult. Unilateral disarmament would be foolish, and disarmament by mutual agreement would be a long and difficult process.

      I was rather complacent about the issue myself. I felt the "balance of terror" was a misnomer. There was a balance of power that would keep the peace. Nobody, at least that I was aware of, lived in terror that there would actually be a nuclear war. But, like everyone else, I thought the world would be a better place after disarmament. Until that came, probably after many decades, things would probably be all right. Disarmament was good, if it could be arrived at safely.

      If disarmament on a large scale is desirable, then it would seem sensible that disarmament on a small scale would also be good. I'm talking about gun control now. Advocates of gun control have often made the point that the availability of guns allow what would otherwise be a minor incident between individuals in conflict to become a major incident of violence. An argument over an alleged insult, for example, can turn into tragedy if someone has a gun. This argument always seemed to make at least some sense to me. If we apply this argument to a large scale then we could say that the possession of nuclear weapons by countries who have a disagreement might lead to a devastating war. Therefore disarmament is desirable. However I was about as complacent on the issue of gun control as I was on the issue of nuclear disarmament.

      It might seem that the sudden appearance of seven armed men across the street from my house that October morning would jolt me out of my complacency, but that turns out not to be the case. Those seven armed men were no big deal, and I recognized that immediately. There was a small motel across the street. This was in South Dakota. It was at the start of hunting season. I think it was a Saturday in either October or November, and I think the hunting season began at noon that day. They were apparently out of town hunters. I did not know these men personally, but in a very real sense they were my friends and neighbors. They were no more threat to me with their rifles than my wife would be with a steak knife.

      Why were these men not a threat? I can't give a full answer to that question. Part of the answer, and a very important part, is in our cultural values, which they share. Another important part of the answer is that they know our society is capable, and willing, to inflict severe penalties for the inappropriate use of deadly force. At any rate I immediately concluded there was no threat. My thoughts about potential threats and danger were academic or philosophic, not emotional.

      But what about all the arguments we hear about gun control and disarmament? Haven't we heard many times the argument that the availability of deadly force is not good. When deadly force is immediately available isn't there the potential that minor conflicts can take a deadly turn? Doesn't the simple presence of weapons tempt people to use them? So shouldn’t the presence of seven armed men across the street give me cause for concern?

      Rifles provide deadly force, but so do steak knives, hammers, gasoline, razor blades, automobiles, and a zillion other things in everyday life. We all live all day, everyday, with deadly force at our fingertips, unless we’re incarcerated in some way.

      The science of animal behavior has recognized for many years that animals that have evolved fearsome weapons (tooth and claw I'm talking about here) have also evolved strong instincts of inhibition against using those weapons under certain circumstances. Dogs, and their wolf ancestors, show this dramatically. (For an engaging exposition of this idea read King Solomon’s Ring by Konrad Lorenz.)

      I do not totally reject the arguments in favor of nuclear disarmament and gun control. But reflecting on the presence of those hunters has changed my perspective a bit. Eliminating a danger, outlawing guns for example, is not the only way to promote safety and security, and it may not be the best way. There are dangers of one sort or another in all cultures, and all cultures have evolved mechanisms to control those dangers. We should not claim infallibility for these mechanisms, but neither should we ignore them. Steak knives, hammers, gasoline, razor blades, automobiles and many other things are dangers we have learned to live with in our society.

      I don’t remember just when it was, but I think it was not too many years ago when some sort of agreement to end the violence of the Irish Republican Army was almost within reach. But, as I understand it, the agreement fell through because the British government wanted the IRA to disarm, which the IRA was not willing to do. I know very little of this situation and its long history, but it did occur to me that perhaps disarmament was not necessary or even important. There have been other situations in which disarmament seemed to be necessary to an agreement, but I really wondered if it was. Haiti and the Balkans after the dissolution of the Soviet Empire come to mind, but I have forgotten all the details. My view in recent years has been that no group will willingly disarm until they know an agreement will hold. Only experience will show if an agreement will hold. An agreement has to offer real incentives to both parties. Those incentives may include creditable threats of the use of force. Managing a danger, in many cases, is a preferable strategy to trying to eliminate the danger. I suspect, but certainly cannot prove, that would be the case when the danger in question is the arms held by the IRA.

      In the politics of left and right things may be changing. Historically I think it is the left wing that would argue that having weapons leads to the use of weapons. I think it was sometime in the 1980’s that I saw a bumper sticker that said, “You can not simultaneously prepare for war and work to end war”. I immediately decided I didn’t agree with that sentiment, but I took it for granted that the driver who sported that bumper sticker was on the left. They are the ones who would argue that if guns are available then guns will be used. But for the last year or so the argument seems to be reversed, at least for Iraq. The thinking on the left now seems to be that Iraqi arms under Saddam Hussein should not be taken too seriously. One might argue that if that is the case then guns in the hands of shady characters on American streets need not be taken too seriously.

      I suppose disarmament is still a desirable goal, in general terms. But in most situations I don’t think it has a very high priority. Disarming criminals would be good, but gun control, as it is usually considered, does not accomplish that. Disarming dangerous regimes would be good, but can be done only by decisively defeating them first. In any situation I think giving individuals or groups genuine motivation to refrain from using their arms is the more sure path to peace.

      I did not envision this blog to be a place to post excerpts from other articles on my website, but why not? In reviewing my article "NDSU Math" I came across a discussion of "the box problem". I think the following paragraphs are interesting:

. . . . . . . . For the moment I want to put PBL (problem based learning) together with the idea of “using technology”, meaning the calculator, and we come up with something like the “box problem”, more or less as follows:

      A box is to be constructed with a square base, and it must hold 9 cubic feet. The cost of the material for the base is $.20 per square foot. The cost of the material for the sides is $.15 per square foot. The cost of the material for the top is $.10 per square foot. Find the dimensions of the box of minimum cost.

      A problem like this occurs in Chapter One. A problem such as this is likely to occur on several of the tests in the course. One can argue that this makes a lot of sense. It’s the sort of thing that ought to define success in college algebra. It requires students to put together several steps, to translate a problem into an equation (or a function), and then use the calculator to find the minimum of that function, and then to interpret the results. I recognized early in the year that few students seem to be able to do this type of problem successfully. But it was not until the last week of the second semester that I zeroed in in this problem. I was helping a student prepare for the final exam. We had gone over several topics that he asked questions about, and he seemed to understand pretty much what he should understand. Then he said, “Oh, and what about the box problem? I have trouble with that.”

      This was a reasonably intelligent and diligent student. He was well motivated. Why couldn’t he get it all together for this problem. In helping him with this “box problem” for perhaps fifteen minutes it became clear that the geometry was not well established in his mind. I explained that if the side of the box has length x and width h , then the area must be xh . His response seemed to be that this was some idea to dredge from distant memory, not something that has been obvious since eighth grade. He had to think a minute to remind himself about the difference between area and perimeter. This surprised me. I thought the basic ideas of area and perimeter of rectangles ought to be obvious to everyone since about the eighth grade. If it is not obvious for this student, does that say something about him, or about the way he was taught math in elementary and junior high school? I don’t know, of course. But it is obvious that if this basic geometry is weak in a person’s mind, then the “box problem” is not going to be easy.

      Another major part of this problem is translating a written problem to algebraic language, getting an equation in other words. I will have more to say about this in the next section . A third major part of this problem is using a graphing calculator to find the minimum or maximum of a function. This is the only major part of the “box problem” that is directly taught in this course. Assuming it is new, or relatively new, to most students then it is understandable that it might be a little weak in their minds.

      And then a fourth major part of this problem is interpreting graphs. Finding a minimum makes sense only if one is reasonably fluent in interpreting graphs. I have become aware that this is a weak spot for many students. I would not have expected this. I would have thought that interpreting graphs is normally accomplished by the end of eighth grade by working with bar and line graphs. Then after graphing linear equations in elementary algebra, it should be pretty easy. But it was not for many of my students.

      So out of four major competencies required in this “box problem”, only one of them, finding the minimum on a calculator, is directly addressed in this course. The other three are considered prerequisite competencies. I will not quarrel with this expectation. It makes sense. Yet very few students could seem to do the box problem, even the third or fourth time they encounter it. I am not sure what to make of this.

      The "boss's syndrome" is a phrase that comes to my mind every now and then. It comes to mind when I observe someone being frustrated by others in a certain way. I think it is a useful concept, and a phenomenon that is not uncommon. I will describe the situation that first brought this term, and the idea, to my attention.

      Some years ago I worked part time as a band instrument repairman in a music store. The boss wanted to retire and so he sold the store. The new owner didn't need me, so I decided to get back into piano tuning, something I had done years before. The retiring owner of the store had done piano tuning for a number of years, and was glad to help me take over that activity. However a problem developed. The boss didn't like my pricing strategy. I decided I was going to charge $35 to tune a piano. He had been charging $50. He thought I was cheapening the service. Over a period of a week or so this difference of opinion developed into a major rift between us, and he no longer wanted to help me get into the piano tuning business.

      I stuck to my guns. I was no longer his employee. I was under no obligation at all to do things his way. I was surprised at how hard he took it. He just did not want to accept that I was going to do things my way.

      After some reflection I realized what was going on. For many, many years people had taken the boss's suggestions. It was his prerogative to make decisions. He was the boss because he owned the store. It was his employees' job to carry them out. He was not dictatorial by any means. He was a nice guy. People liked and respected him. He explained why we were doing things the way we were doing them. But for many, many years he was suffering under a delusion, a delusion that we might call the “boss’s fallacy”. He thought people were taking his suggestions, doing things his way, because of the merits of those ways, and that his explanations and arguments were convincing. That was not the case. They were taking his suggestions because he was the boss.

      Now, suddenly, he was no longer the boss. I was no longer his employee. I didn't have to do things his way, and I had no intention of doing so. I was going to do things my way. This frustrated him a great deal, judging by his reaction.

      This situation happened over ten years ago. Since then there have been a number of times when I would witness frustration on the part of someone whose suggestions were being rejected, and I would strongly suspect that person was suffering from the boss's syndrome. Most of us are very accustomed to making suggestions that are not taken. It is a common occurrence in many areas of life, and we take it in stride. We know that the best of suggestions are often ignored. When a person is surprised, frustrated, and even offended because their suggestions are rejected, then I tend to wonder why. If I then learn that that person has been a boss in the past then things make sense. Of course I cannot be sure, in any particular case, that my interpretation is accurate, but I continue to think the “boss’s syndrome” is a common phenomenon and a very useful concept.

      August 30, 2006

      I don't know much about American Indian history, or any history for that matter, but at one time I tried to learn a little. One bit of history has always stuck in my mind. I'll describe it briefly, and I hope I'll be forgiven if I get a few details wrong. Red Cloud and Spotted Tail were Sioux leaders, and at one time they made a trip to Washington D. C. This would be sometime in the later 1800's I presume. I'm not sure of the purpose of the trip, whose idea it was, or what it was supposed to accomplish. What I do remember from my reading about it was the different reaction of the two men to what they saw along the way.

      I presume that the trip would be long, perhaps several weeks at a minimum. And I presume it was made mostly by rail, with many stops along the way. The trip allowed the two to get a better view of the world outside their own area. Red Cloud was relatively unimpressed. Spotted Tail was very impressed. Back home in Dakota Territory they would see a few white settlers now and then, and they would see a few hundred soldiers at a time now and then. I expect it was not too hard to believe that this unwelcome incursion by an alien culture could be managed. Perhaps these strange pale people could be persuaded to go elsewhere. Perhaps they could be beaten back by force. Or if they must stick around, perhaps they could be kept in their place, civilized if you will, so that coexistence with them would be tolerable, if not particularly pleasant or welcome.

      But on the trip to D. C. Red Cloud and Spotted Tail would have seen mile after mile of farms and towns as they traveled east. They would have seen concentrations of people that were unknown at home. I expect they would be exposed to technology in some ways, not the least of which would be they train they traveled on. Spotted Tail, as I understand it, quickly became painfully aware that the encrouching white civilization was bigger than had before been imaginable. It was a cultural and political colossus, with dreadful weight and power. Red Cloud, on the other had was unimpressed.

      I can't find my source of this bit of history. And I don't remember the results of this trip. I would assume that Spotted Tail became what we would now call an accomodationist, for the encroaching collossus would have to be accomodated, that much was obvious to Spotted Tail. Red Cloud, apparently, came back with no sense of all this. His world view was as before. His tactics and strategies of dealing with the white encrouchment were unchanged.

      Red Cloud, as I understand it, is the greater hero to the Sioux Indians. What are we to make of all of this? I'm not sure. But I thought it might be worth mentioning.

      August 19, 06

      I once had a brief conversation with a friend about social security. I said that social security consists of three things, and the public mixes them up. The three things are 1) social security contributions are an investment, 2) social security is a form of insurance, and 3) social security is a form of welfare. My point was that by expecting all three things, we are bound to be disappointed in some ways. The three things produce some conflicts. As a society we would do well to think about it and be more specific about just what we do want. My friend worked in social security, and apparently had done so for a number of years. He emphatically insisted that social security is not an investment. I think he thought it was insurance. I think he agreed that there was a welfare component to it, but that was not of much importance to him. I tried to point out that whether or not it really is an investment, people think of it as an investment. He insisted that, no, people do not think of social security as an investment. I argued that at least some people think of it as an investment. He would not even accept that.

      This conversation was some years ago now, but I still think about it now and then. I still maintain that most people think of social security as at least partly an investment. We put money into it. It's our money. Therefore when we get money out we're just getting our own money back. In fact I expect for most people this is the primary meaning of social security. Perhaps most people would accept that it is also a form of insurance and a form of welfare, when it is explained to them, but I don't think that is what they first think of. I can't prove that people think this way. And of course my friend couldn't prove that no one thinks of social security as an investment.

      What was my friends motivation in insisting that no one thinks of social security as an investment? I can only speculate, of course. I did not know this friend very well. But I can imagine that a substantial part of his job is explaining to disappointed and frustrated social security recipients why they are not getting what they hoped for. And I can imagine that a fair amount of this disappointment and frustration arises from the investment perspective. They thought they were investing in social security for all these years, and now feel they are not getting a fair return on that investment. If that is the case then I certainly stick to my contention that as a society we need to think a little harder about just what we want social security to be.

      August 5, 2006

      The news headline today is that the United States and France have agreed to a cease fire in the middle east. My first reaction was almost to laugh. The U.S. and France are not fighting in the middle east. It's Israel and Hezbollah - they're the ones fighting. They're the ones that will have to come to an agreement on a cease fire.

      Of course I know what is meant. I certainly do hope it is good news, that the conflict will soon come to an end. But the way the news is presented, I think, points up part of the problem. Throughout much of my life, it seems to me, most Americans, and probably most Europeans have thought of a middle east peace as attainable simply by getting both sides to talk and hammer out some middle ground that will be acceptable to both parties. By this perspective peace will come through a "process". Both sides will have to compromise. Indeed "land for peace", I believe, has been offered as the essential formula that will someday produce peace.

      In response to this land-for-peace idea I have always asked "How much land, and what land, is the Arab population willing to hand over in exchange for peace?" That, of course, is a joke. That is not what is envisioned. Rather, the idea is that Israel should return to it's pre-1967 borders. Just why pre-19676 borders should be the crux of the deal has never been clear to me. Yes I know about the 67 war. But I also know about the 48 war. Why it is envisioned that only Israel should consider giving up land has never been explained.

      Another part of the "formula for peace" that is often proposed is the creation of a Palestinian state. Indeed it seems to be assumed in many quarters that the most important aim of the Palestinian people, and the PLO in particular, is to have their own state.

      Over the years I have concluded that there is one very important factor missing in this scenario. That factor is the simple fact - at least I consider it a simple fact - that the Arab world, or the Islamic world, or both, have always wanted, and always called for, the destruction of Israel.

      But doesn't the Islamic world want peace? Doesn't everyone want peace? Yes, to at least some degree, everyone wants peace. But that is not all there is to it. There is also victory. Sometimes peace and victory are mutually exclusive. That is very often the case in wars. Wars continue so long as each side wants victory more than peace. This is a reality that has to be taken into account.

      So what is "victory" to each side in the present conflict? That is a crucial question. Both Israel and Hezbollah want victory. But what is victory?

      I would argue, and have argued for a number of years, that victory in the Islamic world is defined as the destruction of Israel. This prsents a real problem. Israel will not consent to its own destruction. It has been assumed for many years that Israel has nuclear capabilities. It seems obvious that Israel will use this capability, if need be, before it will lose a war.

      I listen to talk radio when I can, both right wing and left wing talkers. A persistent theme from the right wing is that the media, especially television news, has a left wing bias. I have always felt that the term "bias" is a little too strong. I always thought it was more accurate to say that the national television news has a left-of-center perspective. That is okay. I have a right-of-center perspective, which I think is also okay. People have a right to disagree, to have different interpretations and to come to different conclusions.

      But I think the media have gone overboard for many years on one matter. I think their left wing perspective has led them for decades to misinterpret Palestinian goals. The media seem to have always thought that the most important goal of Palestinians is the establishment of a Palestinian state. Over the years I would now and then hear something different. It would be mentioned once in a while, in one context or another, that the charter of the PLO calls for the destruction of Israel, indeed that Arafat constantly calls for the destruction of Israel, and that in the middle east there are constant calls for Israel's destruction. Yet all we would hear in America that what the Palestinians really want is a state of their own. Then, presumably, all would be peace and harmony.

      Recently the president of Iran has been openly calling for the destruction of Israel. That is a little hard to ignore. I think it is a welcome development in one way. I think it forces the rest of the world to realize what we are up against. I think the only thing new is the lack of diplomacy on the part of Iran. The fundamental problem is not new. The fundamental problem - that the Islamic world wants victory more than peace and victory means the destruction of Israel - is not new. It dates back to 1948.

      A couple of days ago our local newspaper carried a column by James Pinkerton dealing with this problem. He says there is a "fundamental asymetry" in the middle east. The Islamic world wants the destruction of Israel. Israel wants security. I agree with this analysis. I came to this conclusion years ago.

      To me perhaps the most interesting question is why so much of the world is so eager to miss this fundamental point. I link this question to a larger question. Why is it so hard for people to recognize hard realities like this? Why has Marxism and Communism had such an appeal? I don't claim to understand Marxism very much. But I think it is accurate to say that it rests on an unrealistic appraisal of people's ability to work together cooperatively. Why has progressive education had such an appeal to educators throughout the twentieth century? Again I think an important part of the answer is that it has an unrealistic appraisal of people's ability to work together cooperatively. Why has the idea of labor unions remained very attractive to many people in spite of many bits of reality that detract from this attractiveness? Again I have the same answer. We idealize cooperation. We grossly overestimate the possibilities of cooperation. We leave reality behind. We conjure up dreams of teamwork, and think that because these dreams ought to be real, they are real.

      I cannot explain why people cling to an unrealistic appraisal of people's ability to work together cooperatively. I have dealt with what I call "groupiness" in my article "Let's Do It Together" on my website. This doesn't explain groupiness so much as simply give evidence of its existence. This article does not attract many readers, according to my website statistics, but I wish it would. I think it is one of my more important articles.

      July 23, 06

      Perhaps another philosophical idea kids ought to be exposed to (see July 18 blog below) is a theory of value and pricing. What I call the "input theory of value" seems to come to people by default. Oil companies, by this theory, are justified in charging for a gallon of gas only the cost of producing that gas plus a modest profit margin. In the past year gas prices have risen dramatically, but the public feels that the cost of producing a gallon of gas is basically the same as it was a year ago. Therefore the oil companies must be guilty of price gouging.

      But opposed to this "input theory" of pricing is the "free market theory" of pricing. This theory says that if a buyer and a seller can come together on a price without coercion then that is the value. Input costs are irrelevant. By this "free market theory" if I am willing to pay $3 for a gallon of gas, and a gas station is willing to sell it at that price, then that is the "actual value" of a gallon of gas.

      At this point in my explanation many people would only become more convinced that the input theory is better, more valid, than the free market theory. But consider this situation. A neighborhood, I'll call it Edgewood, consists of homes averaging about $100,000 in purchase price. Then a big industry, something like Microsoft perhaps, announces plans to build a big new plant nearby that will employ a large number of very smart and talented employees who will be paid high salaries. Over the next couple of years, in the normal housing turnover, sellers begin to realize big profits. A house that was bought for $100,000 just a few years previously now seems underpriced at $160,000.

      And let me extend this scenario a little bit. Another neighborhood, I'll call it Cityside, had expected for several years to get that big new plant that ended up in Edgewood. So for several years housing prices in Cityside were rising. The houses in Edgewood and the houses in Cityside look very similar in value, and up until recent years were similar in value. Let's say that in Edgewood the Evans family bought a house for $100,000 four years ago, and in Cityside the Cisco family bought a similar house for $130,000 at the same time. Now both the Evans in Edgewood and the Ciscos in Cityside put their houses on the market. The realtor advises the Evans to price their house at $170,000, and advises the Ciscos to price their house at $90,000. What does all this have to say about the input theory of pricing and the free market theory of pricing?

      Is this a question of philosophy, or a question of economics? It seems to me that it is both. It is not just a question of economics. Is this a question that high school kids can benefit from studying and analyzing? I think it is. I think the benefit to them would be great.

      So I’m thinking more and more that philosophy is important.

      July 18, 06

      The other day an idea for an article came to me. It is definitely an article I want to write - someday. It's title will be "Ten Philosophical Ideas Kids Ought To Get In School" or something like that. I can't write the article now because I can't think of ten philosophical ideas that kids ought to get in school. But I can think of one, the one that prompted the idea of teaching philosophy to school kids, and one that I have been painfully aware of most of my life, and others ought to be aware of. That is the idea of "involuntary contract". It is a very simple idea, one that kids can understand. A contract is a set of obligations. Suppose Johnny says to Jane, "Here, have a piece of my candy." Jane accepts. Then a short time later Jane has her own candy and Johnny wants some, but Jane doesn't offer any. So Johnny badgers Jane. "I shared my candy with you. Now you have to share yours with me!"

      A little reflection on this situation, and similar situations, rather quickly leads one to the conclusion that an involuntary contract is never valid, or at least shouldn't be. But if one doesn't go through this analysis one can be taken in by another's false argument. In one of my teaching jobs the faculty had a union. You could join the union and pay dues. Or you could not join the union and the union still got 90% of regular dues automatically taken out of your paycheck. It was explained that the union gives me benefits, and indeed promised to defend me in disputes with the university when needed whether I was a member or not. Therefore, they said, it was right and proper that the union got my money whether I consented or not. The argument was involuntary contract, of course, and I detested it.

      Isn't this concept of involuntary contract a valuable one for kids to learn? I think it is. The world would be a better place if the term "involuntary contract" and the concept were common knowledge. So why not teach it in school? I'm not at all sure what age such an analysis would be most appropriate. I would think fifth grade would be about right, but I don't have much experience to base that on. Perhaps junior high or even high school age would be better.

      It has occurred to me recently that philosophy is important. It should be taught, in some form, throughout school. But my thoughts at the moment are no deeper than that. I don't know philosophy. I don't know why involuntary contract is a philosophical concept, but I think it is. A few years ago I picked up a book on philosophy, a college textbook I believe, and read through most of it. I didn't get too much from it however. Perhaps the book was more about philosophers than philosophy. The ideas associated with different philosophers didn't seem worthwhile to me. So I remain highly ignorant of philosophy.

      Are kids "natural philosophers"? Sometimes in my past I would laugh at such an idea, thinking that kids are anything but natural philosophers. But at other times I would not laugh at the idea. I think it is true that adolescence is a time of life when kids are "trying on ideas" somewhat like they would try on different styles of clothes. One might say they are in a "search for identity". It is an age with a lot of idealism. Often it is stupid idealism. Occasionally it is virulent idealism. Couldn't that idealism, and that search for identity, use some guidance? I think it could. I just don't quite know how.

      July 9, 06

      I have thought for many years that the American system of justice is nothing to be proud of. But how should it be changed? That is no easy question. However two things come to mind.

      I think we need jury reform. How is it possible that twelve people will come to the conclusion that McDonalds Corporation owes a woman four million dollars because she spilled hot coffee in her lap? I think that judgment was reduced on appeal, but I know no details. I have never heard anyone defend that judgment, though I suppose a few people would, but I think they are a very small minority of the general population. My conclusion is that there is something in the American justice system that causes members of that very small minority to somehow get together on a jury. I would have no idea how to get twelve members of that minority together, but I must conclude that smart lawyers do. Therefore I further conclude that lawyers involved in a case should be the last to have anything to say about jury selection.

      So how should juries be selected? I would think a county jury selection board, or something to that effect, would make sense. It would operate something like a draft board. They would sift through names, look into excuses and special circumstances, ask enough questions in order to remove any real misfits, and then write out the roster. The jury for the next trial would simply be the next twelve names on the list.

      I'm sure it couldn't be quite this simple. Nothing in life ever is. But I think in general it would be a much better system than what we have now. The system we have now, I believe, allows lawyers to subvert justice.

      A second conclusion I have come to over the years is that lifetime appointment of Supreme Court justices, and probably a lot of lesser judges, has not worked out. I'm sure it seemed to make a lot of sense when the Constitution was written. The court was supposed to be above politics, I guess. But the result has been bad. Yes, I am indeed one of those people who thinks that judicial activism is out of control. I think I formed that opinion at the time of the Miranda decision, and that was many years ago. I held to that opinion when the death penalty was outlawed, whenever that was. And I hold Row Versus Wade as a classic example of judicial overreaching with a very painful consequence to society at large. I think it polarized the nation, and that polarization has not abated in the many years since 1973. I think it was needless polarization. States, as I understand it, were liberalizing abortion laws in the years before 1973. Without Row Versus Wade, I believe, society would have continued that trend, eventually reaching to the point of abortion on demand as the general de facto result.

      Instead of lifetime appointment, I think we should change the Constitution so that members of the Supreme Court serve a fixed term. I would make it an eight year term, or possibly a ten year term. I don't claim this arrangement would satisfy everyone in every case, but in the long run I think it would be better than what we have now.

      June 30, 06

      What side of the Laffer curve are we on? To me, that has been for many years one of the most important political questions there is. But the general public seems totally unaware of the existence of the Laffer curve, and those who are aware of it don't seem to put the question the way I do.

      Let me explain the Laffer curve as I understand it. I think it is named after a Professor Laffer, though I don't know just who that is. It relates to economics and tax revenues. We start with the simple observation that a higher tax rate, applied to a certain taxable base, will produce more revenue. Thus if everyone paid a tax rate of 10% of income, that would provide twice the revenue as a tax rate of 5%, other things being equal. But of course "other things being equal" seldom applies. Professor Laffer went on to say that beyond a certain minimum, taxes will set into motion various mechanisms that affect the taxable base. That seems like common sense to me. If we set the marginal income tax rate at 95% we can reasonably expect people to take that into account. A tax rate of 100%, we could expect, would produce no revenue. Why should anyone work, or otherwise produce anything, if it is to be all taken by the government?

      A tax rate of 0% produces no revenue, and a tax rate of 100%, at least after a period of adjustment, will also produce no revenue. But a tax rate between those two extremes will produce revenue. So the "curve" starts at zero, goes up to some maximum, and returns to zero. The "curve" is the graph of tax revenue plotted against tax rate, from zero to 100%. It produces the very important question of the location of the maximum. Will a tax rate of 80% produce the maximum revenue? I don't know. It would certainly seem to me that a tax rate that high would severely distort economic decisions. I would expect maximum revenue to be produced at something less than that? Would a tax rate of 50% produce maximum revenue? I don't know. I don't have much experience or training in such matters. I would expect that a tax rate of 50% would cause very substantial distortions on economic decisions. But would those distortions be enough to shrink the taxable base enough to be actually counterproductive? I don't know.

      I remember well being in the ninth grade in a government class learning about taxes. We did not address the issue of maximum revenue. I think it was years later when Professor Laffer brought up the subject, perhaps in the seventies. What I remember from the ninth grade is the difficulty the teacher had in explaining marginal tax rates. She did not use the term "marginal rate" but she could have. But she struggled to explain that if the top tax rate were 90%, you don't have to pay 90% of all your income in taxes. You pay a low rate on the first part of your income, then a higher rate on the excess over that minimum level, then another higher rate on the excess over that second category, and so on. The 90% rate would apply to only very rich people, and it would apply to only a part of their income. Many of my classmates, apparently, had trouble understanding this.

      I remember the figure 90%. I don't know if the actual top rate at that time (1958 or 59) was exactly 90% of just in that range. And I don't remember wondering if such a rate would be counterproductive, though it did impress me as an awfully high rate. I have read that Ronald Reagan also remembers, and that that was one factor that influenced his political thinking.

      I don't know the details, but I think it is basically true that the highest marginal income tax rates declined from about 70% to less than 40% during the Reagan administration. I also think it is of utmost importance that today no one, not even the most wild-eyed dreamer, seriously wants to bring back those high marginal rates. Apparently everyone understands that they are counterproductive.

      The question remains - what is the optimum rate? What tax rate will produce maximum revenue? I've never heard any attempt at an answer to that, though it is of very high importance. In recent years I have begun to suspect that we might still be on the wrong side of the Laffer curve. Fiscal conservatives love to point out that both President Kennedy and President Reagan raised tax revenue by lowering taxes. I think that is basically true, though perhaps it is much more complicated than that. If it is true, it seems to me, then in both cases we were on the wrong side of the Laffer curve. Is it possible we are still on the wrong side of the Laffer curve today? If so then we have everything to gain by lowering the tax rates. There are no trade-offs to be concerned with. We would indeed increase revenues by lowering taxes. If not, then any adjustment to tax rates would involve trade-offs. We would not increase revenue by lowering taxes.

      I expect I'll never know.

      June 25, 06

      Is global warming real? I don't know. For years I have been a skeptic. For years I have thought that if it is real it would take centuries to know. But also for years I have been saying that we can't go on forever burning carbon. I don't like the idea of burning so much carbon that we actually change the composition of the atmosphere.

      And so for years I have been in favor of nuclear energy. I still am. However nuclear energy has some problems. I am not concerned with the objections of many people. To those who say it is evil because it has been used in war I would argue that it ended one big war and prevented more wars. I would also add that gasoline has been used in wars. To those who say it is dangerous I would argue that it is safer than most alternatives. Gasoline, obviously, has a death toll, though I can't quote figures at the moment. To those who say Chernobel proves nuclear energy can't work, I would argue that Chernobel just proves Communism and socialism can't do anything right.

      One problem with nuclear energy is that it can exist only on a large scale. You can make a little gasoline generator that will supply one home with electricity. You can make a little wind turbine that will do the same. But you can't make a little nuclear power plant that will power one home, or one car. And, of course, there is the problem of waste disposal. But I see that as primarily one of politics, not technology.

      Global warming is not the only possibility. There can be other catastrophic climate changes, and I believe there have been. I understand the Sahara shows evidence of a past quite diffrent than the present. And Greenland, I have read, got it's name because it actually was green when it was discovered. And there is evidence that the ice ages, or some ice age, arrived suddenly, on one day, not over centuries.

      Among some of my frends the term "technofix" is used only derisively. They prefer to envision a world in which everyone walks or bikes to work. Some of them, I think prefer to envision a world in which mankind is punished by extinction for having the hubris to think they shouldn't have to walk or bike to work. Call me a nut, but I believe in technofix. I believe in a future in which transportation will continually get cheaper and cheaper, and the impact on the environment will get less and less. I am a fan of the internal combustion engine. To me, gasoline has a happy smell, simply because I associate it with activities of my youth that I enjoyed. But I would argue that common sense and a little imagination tells us that the internal combustion engine will soon be on the way out. It probably won't last more than another half century. It will be obsolete.

      The "green revolution", I believe, has hardly begun. Indeed I think the industrial revolution has hardly begun.

      I hate the high price of gas this last year. But my displeasure is tempered by the belief that it is a good thing in the long run. We won't save cheap gas. And for most of my life, it seems to me, gas has been dirt cheap. We will save expensive gas.

      It will not be in my lifetime that we stop putting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But it might possibly be in my lifetime that we turn the corner, that we start putting less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year instead of more.

      June 22, 06

      There was a time, I believe, when unions fought for fair play and human dignity. That time, so far as I know, has not been in my lifetime. In my lifetime, or so it appears from what I see on television, unions simply fight for power. And they do not fight fairly. The only legitimate tool of unions is persuasion. Once they start throwing rocks they have exceeded this limit.

      People respond to many ideals. They respond to the ideal of people coming together for their common good. I find I respond to that ideal to a certain extent. It says something in the Constitution about the rights of people to peaceably assemble. That resonates with me. It is important that people can work together to accomplish things that they cannot accomplish individually. So why then have unions lost so much ground in the last fifty years?

      I don't know a whole lot about unions, but I do believe they are stuck in a nineteenth century mindset. A twenty-first century union would start off with a no-strike pledge. Strikes, at least in the modern world, hurt everyone, with the possible exception of a few union bosses.

      Why don't Wal-Mart employees want to unionize? The answer to me seems very simple. The average Wal-Mart employee simply wants to sell his or her labor at the moment. They don't pledge lifelong allegiance to the company. They don't plan a career with Wal-Mart, though some of them will indeed find themselves long term with the company. There is a high turnover, not so much because of the conditions of employment, but because of the individual life conditions of the workers. A union that demands too much, and that might demand the worker join in a strike, is running roughshod over the individual lives of the workers.

      Yes, people ought to be able to come together for their mutual benefit. But a union will be rejected when it expects too much and demands too much, and it should be rejected. Joining the union should be purely voluntary. It should remain purely voluntary. It should do what it can to benefit its members, but as often as not that might mean helping a member move on to a better job. Such a twenty-first century union might or might not have success, but I can't see any future for the usual nineteenth century union. And I don't think it should have any future at all.

      June 18, 06

      If someone were to tell me that they got twenty-eight miles per gallon with a 2005 Dodge Caravan, I would smile, nod politely, and try to change the subject. I wouldn't believe a word of it. I learned long ago that I don't trust people to actually know what gas mileage their cars get. They don't really keep careful records, though they might claim to. However I do keep careful records, and my wife and are getting that kind of mileage.

      The secret is speed. We do most of our traveling on Interstate 94, to and from Fargo, ND. The speed limit is 75. We usually go no more than 55. I think it is true that most of the energy used by a car is for pushing air. It takes a lot less energy to push air out of the way at 55 mph than at even 65 mph. We started going slower about a year ago when gas prices shot up. Our 91 Geo, which had been getting around 33 or 34 mpg at regular highway speeds, was pushing 40 mpg after we slowed down. Our 95 Dodge Caravan showed a similar increase.

      Apparently, and I do not understand this, cars get better gas mileage in the summer than in the winter. I began to suspect this last fall, when the Geo seemed to get lower mileage as the weather got colder. We got our new Caravan in early spring. I was very pleasantly surprised when we seemed to be getting 24 or 25 mpg consistently, a little better than the old 95 Caravan had gotten. In fact we have averaged about 25 mpg over some 5000 miles now. But since late May we are getting about 28.

      I have thought for some years now that modern cars really are better than the older ones. But I have also thought for many years that EPA mileage estimates were exaggerated. I believe it was in the 70's when EPA mileage estimates were first given, and my impression was that real people in real cars got nowhere near the mileage the EPA said they should get. But, as I say, I don't trust people to actually know what mileage they get. I concluded after a few years that nobody really cares. I don't think they care much now. I was disappointed that magazines like Popular Mechanics and Consumer Reports also didn't seem to care. They would quote figures, but were never inspired to challenge the figures.

      I was appalled to learn that the EPA figures, apparently, have never been arrived at by doing actual road tests. But that was never a scandal. The publications that would report EPA estimates and not care about their accuracy, would also now and then devote a paragraph to two to explain that the numbers were arrived at by some formula, not by actual testing. That was just more evidence that nobody really cares much about gas mileage.

      But I am heartened by my figures. Some progress is real.

      “Blind into Baghdad” is a phrase that entered my consciousness some months back. It was the title of an article in the Atlantic Monthly. I don’t think I read the article, or if I did I probably didn’t read all of it. But it got me to thinking. Rather quickly I came up with similar phrases, which I think are valuable for perspective.

      blind into marriage

      blind into college

      blind into business

      blind into the military

      blind into North Dakota

      blind into religion

      blind into politics

      People go into marriage, into college, into business, and so on everyday. Do they always go blind into these things? That varies, of course. Many would claim to have a plan. A business plan can be a formal document, but that doesn't mean everything will go according to that plan. A college plan might be almost as formal. A young person might know just what he or she wants and how to pay for it. But that doesn't mean the plan will work.

      How about an "exit strategy"? We often hear that we should have an exit strategy for Iraq before ever going in. I'm not sure that makes any sense. Does one go into marriage with an exit strategy? I didn't. Does one go to college with an exit strategy? Or business? or a new job or a new career?

      I'm all in favor of planning. But in the real world there are limits to any planning.