Archive for November, 2014

RESPECTING THE OFFICE MATTERS, REGARDLESS OF THE INDIVIDUAL

November 23, 2014

I didn’t like Senator Jon Kyl, when he represented Arizona.  I might have even hated him.  When he was in office, I wanted a bill mandating a national medical safety reporting system.  This is beginning to happen now, but in 2001, when I began, nobody considered the idea.

I called Mr. Kyl’s office, requesting what I wanted, and instructed to go to their Phoenix office to meet with a staff member there.  I put on a coat and tie.  I almost never put a coat and tie on in Arizona.  I do for funerals, when many, incredibly, do not; I went years without wearing a coat and tie.  Why would I dress up to visit to a senator’s office, when I detested the man?

I had respect for the office.

There is a huge difference between respect for the office and respect for the man or woman holding that office.  The office must be honored.  I honored the office of US Senator by dressing up.  I ended up talking to a nurse, who to this doctor was insulting, since I knew more about medicine than she did.  I said nothing about the snub, presented my program, and heard nothing afterwards, which annoyed me greatly, and indeed, showed great disrespect for me.

I had respect for the office.  Don’t forget that.  When a South Carolina Congressman yelled “You lie” to Mr. Obama during a State of the Union address, it was a massive breach of protocol and courtesy.  One simply does not denigrate the office regardless of what one thinks of the man. Those who don’t know how to deal with the issue properly should either avoid the situation or remain quiet.

In what follows, my wife disagrees with me, but perhaps my military background colors my opinion.  Everybody who has served in the military knows the difference between respect for the office and respect for the man.  I was put down by enlisted people who used “Sir,” “Doctor,” or “Lieutenant,” in a tone of voice making it abundantly clear they detested me.  I did the same to senior officers.  Later on, I would do it to lawyers, a powerful technique, for arguing with somebody who keeps calling you “Sir” is difficult.

Dartmouth students recently “flamed” (a Dartmouth expression) Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, asking him many sexually explicit questions about Perry’s opposition to Gay Rights and similar issues.  Gov. Perry was asked:  “In your campaigns you have received hard-money campaign contributions of $102 million, half of which came from 204 donors. Would you have anal sex for $102 million?”

The defense in The Dartmouth, which I once served on the editorial board, was this:  “When confronting those in power who actively disrespect the rights and humanity of others, any demand to civility is ironic…”

No, I don’t agree with this.  If you become those whom you despise, what have you become?  What made Iraq so awful was that we Americans did what we criticized others for, being inhumane.  Any demand for civility is appropriate, not ironic.  You figure out how to get your point across without being disrespectful.  

Personally, I would have asked one of these questions: 

  1. “Mr. Perry,  why did you ask people to pray that Hurricane Rita turn around in the Gulf of Mexico and go backwards, when all the weather models predicted landfall near Houston?  Would you abolish NOAA, NWS, and the NHC?”  
  2. “Do you think we can pray our way out of global climate change or cure cancer?  How do you view science, Sir?”    Add the Sir.  It matters.
  3. What is your stance on prayer vs. human action, Governor?”  Frankly, that is one of the best questions I can think of to ask a religious person.

From the editor again: Respect in this context is not a paramount or meaningful concept. I’m not advocating disrespect per se — rather, that incivility can be an effective and appropriate tool for such circumstances.

I don’t agree.  Mr. Perry is a sitting governor of Texas.  I don’t like him personally, and I don’t like Texas very much either.  The latter is irrelevant, but the former calls for civility.  By being disrespectful, you have advocated disrespect.  Incivility is a shocking tool that will do exactly the opposite of what you intend.  As a Dartmouth alumnus, I was ashamed of my school; I feel if LGBT people continue on this path, it will harm their cause, not enhance it.  You mentioned the icky factor.  A lot of us support your rights without wanting to hear details.  Can you understand that?

My questions were disrespectful, but I reject the notion that I should respect a man who holds power simply because he holds it. It should matter what he does with that power, and what he does is oppress people he finds icky.

Mr. Perry holds power because he was elected, a bad, ugly, legal money driven process now, and Mr. Perry won.  I don’t like the elections process in this country; changing the election rules in Texas would also have been a good question to ask Mr. Perry, along with voting rights in general.  Nobody is asking you to respect him, but your questions should not be disrespectful.  If you treat a governor that way, would you treat an elder in society that way, too?  Yes, it matters what Mr. Perry does with his power, and you could have stated exactly those words to him.  You could have said that his stance against gay individuals was in your view an abuse of his power, and while you respected his office you could not possibly respect him as a man.  I’m not sure he is oppressing people; here, at least; people can leave Texas and stay in the country.  If you want a definition of oppression, go to My Stealthy Freedom on Facebook and see how Iranian women get arrested or have acid thrown at them for showing too much of their hair in public.  Or be sentenced to jail for a year because they saw a volleyball game.  Or be hanged for killing their rapist.  

I have been very vocal in the 300 posts I have on this blog.  I think it is time for a national reality check about politeness and respect.  We can start with the office, even if we don’t like the person.  Trust me, Mr. Perry knows you don’t like him, and Mr. Obama knows that a lot of folks don’t like him either.  Your dislike isn’t going to change either.  What would change him, if anything, would be respect for the office, stated; dislike of his policies, stated; and cogent reasons why you feel he is on the wrong side of history.

If The Dartmouth editor can’t figure out a way to say that, I would wonder how she got accepted.  I am not nearly as articulate as she, and I got accepted.  Maybe it was because my mother taught me to be polite.

OREGONIAN

November 22, 2014

A year ago, I went to my last party in Tucson, saying to myself that with the exception of two people present, I would never see anybody there again.  I said that a lot my final year in Tucson.  It was odd that the day I drove to Oregon, I never did a last walk around of the house, because I thought I would be back to help sell it.  I didn’t have to return, so I never said goodby to the saguaros, chollas, barrel cacti, prickly pear, the pyrrhuloxias, the phaniopeplas, the place where I did my astronomy for 15 years, and all the rooms.  We had a good house.

I said good-by to three people.  I hinted at it to a neighbor, but he didn’t say a word.  I arrived in Tucson quietly and I left quietly.  It was like I never existed.  I wrote an astronomy column for 20 years, and never heard a word when I was let go.  If the medical community were sad to see me go, only the Executive Director of the Medical Society said it.  I never heard a word from others.

The party was in early December, one of the few months I liked in Arizona, where one can be outside in Arizona in the evening.  I sat down, talking to a couple with whom I used to ride the bike.  Another man came up, whom I did not know, and began berating me about moving to Oregon in general and Eugene itself.  I was stunned, since the conversation hadn’t been at all about me but about the couple.

I am amazed that while I consider myself not particularly skilled in social behavior, I would never behave the way some of those influential in social circles do.  Apparently, he and his wife spent time every summer in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, but his wife couldn’t stand the rain and couldn’t wait to get back to Tucson.  More power to them if they were happy.

He told me “it rains in Oregon,” which is kind of obvious, and I replied, “Yeah, great, isn’t it?”  I didn’t tell him I was leaving a state that had 30 years of above normal temperatures since 1984, a 20-year drought, serious water issues, and the most dysfunctional legislature in the country.  Nor did I mention I bet a major career change to statistics on helping the medical community but missed the course on marketing.  In any case, when I crossed the Colorado at Parker, I knew the car would never roll back into the state.  In the past 8 months, neither have I.  There are times when I truly wonder if I will ever return to the state.  I haven’t missed it.

So, what has been my experience to date in Oregon?  Well, yes, it rains.  From April to June, we got 6 inches, almost all at night, a lot of it brief showers, with sunshine afterwards.  From June through September, we got hardly any.  The darkness, dreary days with rain all the time I have yet to see, although I’m assured I will see them.

Last night, my wife and I walked to see the men’s basketball game at Matt Knight Arena, walked to dinner afterward, put on our rain suits, head lamps and reflectors, and walked 2 miles home in moderate rain.  It was a great day.  I often take a rain jacket but don’t expect to wear it.  We are still drier than we should be, although a 3 inch soaking sure helped the stream flow on Spencer Butte; The Sisters and Mt. Jefferson are again snow covered.  I can identify the major Cascade peaks now. I have not given up a day of running because of rain, because it rarely rains hard, and then only briefly.

Hot?  Sure.  Eugene hit 101 and had 36 days over 90, a record, but high temperature records are the new norm in America.  Unlike Tucson, Eugene cools off at night.  I didn’t use cooling the whole summer.  In Tucson, we used to open the house half the nights in summer; the last summer we closed up from May through September. One can ride a bike 12 months a year in Tucson, but they do the same in Eugene, just well lit up, wearing rain gear, although not as many wear helmets as I would like.  We have a river walk along a real river, swollen by autumn rains, not a dry river bed that once ran most of the winter.  Hiking is year round in Oregon.  The high Cascades are now closed except for snowshoes, but the coast is available, although it will be wet.  In Arizona, the hiking season is from maybe October to maybe March.  The hiking in Oregon is wonderful.

I’m useful here, a new feeling.  I volunteer 2 days a week at a community college, teaching math, and love it.  They like having me.  I volunteered 9 years in the schools in Tucson and was never busy enough.  When I left, I never heard a word. I’d go to Lane 5 days a week, but I’d miss my 6 mile weekly hike with the Obsidian Hiking Club, climbing 1500 feet to the top of Spencer Butte, trailhead 6 miles from my house.  I help read to young kids, because Oregon businesses realized that poor reading skills in their children needed to be addressed.  I’ve led 2 hikes into the Cascades, and next month will lead at least two in the Coast Range.  I’ve taken more than 60 hikes within a day’s drive of Eugene, a third with a climb of 2000 feet or more.

My recycling garbage bin is larger than my regular garbage; it was the opposite in Arizona.  Property taxes are double; there is no sales tax.  There’s a Dutch Brothers about a mile away, and I can walk to Track Town Pizza every week for German Stammtisch.  I’ve been to a bunch of track meets and walked to each one.  I ride the bus downtown, because it is free for me and easy.  I never once rode the bus in Tucson.  Shameful.

No place is perfect, and Oregon is no exception.  The rural areas are red,  crazies run for Congress, ones who have names of the nearly 32,000 scientists who deny climate change, but don’t list the degrees and don’t update the list.  Besides, last I heard, science wasn’t decided on numbers of scientists but on facts.  We have homeless and Whovilles here and graffiti, like any other place.  We debate what to do.  The newspaper has printed two of my letters, one of which may lead to my helping with the Death With Dignity Act.  There is a good chance I will help with the Oregon Patient Safety Program.  They wrote me back and followed through.  I couldn’t get past the dugout in Arizona with that.  Marijuana will be legal next July, and the Wayne Morse Free Speech Plaza downtown is just that.  There’s a Farmer’s Market every week during the spring and summer.

I run daily on Pre’s Trail, and when we walked home last night in the rain, I told my wife she was finally an Oregonian.

I’ve been one for some time.  I love it.

NATIONAL DISGRACE

November 21, 2014

At a recent Tuesday evening Stammtisch, over at Track Town Pizza, where I get my weekly chance to listen and speak German, I had just explained, in German, the story behind our having a rather large number of house cats, all former strays.

One man, nice enough, commented that the local humane society was euthanizing animals and had a “red list” for dogs that at the end of the week: if they hadn’t been adopted, they were going to be euthanized.  He used as an example that a lady friend of his turned her cat over to the organization, offering to pay for everything, then had her check bounce.  The next day, the lady returned, paid again, and saw her former cat in a truck.  She wanted to say “good by” again, and related to the man who was telling me all this that her cat was going to be taken to be euthanized.

I listened, stunned.  I wasn’t so stunned, however, to wonder why the lady turned the cat over to the organization in the first place.  One reason to relinquish a cat is one’s inability to care for it.  If the lady could drive and pay, but her check bounced, perhaps she was a little demented and her memory inaccurate.  Since the story was being retold, the chance of inaccuracy increased.  I stayed silent.

The second issue was the “Red List”; the third was the man had once wanted a husky, and the society didn’t have any.  He got one from an ad in the newspaper.

I am a strong animal lover.  I was bummed and I left the Stammtisch shortly after, deciding I  would check his story out.  There is too much of what I call Fox News behavior, where poorly unsubstantiated rumors or outright lies are treated as fact.  I am a strong supporter of two Humane Societies in two states and wanted to learn if there were substance to these allegations.

Regarding the husky, the local humane society doesn’t have control over animals that are brought in; it isn’t their fault that they didn’t have what he wanted.  Stated less politely, obtaining an animal through a newspaper ad strongly suggests (although not completely) that the man paid for the dog, which were it the case, I find reprehensible, given that we euthanize 2.7 million a year in the United States.  Yes, read that number again.  I wonder how many were healthy huskies.

I learned that the local society transported cats only if the animal needed a higher level of care or had a better chance of being adopted at another facility.  They also euthanize on site, so the man’s story was wrong.  The Red List once existed, but with a former control facility, which no longer exists.  The current society has no such list.  In addition, if you sign over an animal, the animal is no longer yours.  If the animal has kidney failure, arthritis, or is FIL positive, it won’t be adopted, and it will be euthanized.  Adult cats are not very adoptable. Fact.

To summarize, when one checks facts carefully, many rumors are found to be partially or completely unfounded.  Keep that in mind, when reading or hearing shocking things.  There are facts, and there are unsubstantiated opinions.  A lot of the latter rule the day; the former tend not to be what people want to hear.

There is a huge problem with companion animal overpopulation, entirely the fault of irresponsible people in this country, and completely within our control to solve as a people.  The 2.7 million animals I mentioned are 55% cats, 45% dogs.  This number, of course, does not count the number of homeless animals poisoned, shot, run over, drowned, starve, die of hypothermia, disease, or other causes.  I do not have those data.  I assume in my county 5000 animals are euthanized annually and another 5000 die from homelessness.

Perhaps, we ought to ban breeding.  Period.  There are far too many “designer dogs” bought, when a mutt has hybrid vigor and can be a loving animal.  Fact: a group of pit bulls recently attacked a horse, requiring the latter to be euthanized. However, some solutions cause new problems:  spaying and neutering requirements might lead to people hiding their animals to avoid what I would charge: $1000 a year for an unneutered animal. Portland, Oregon, euthanizes 30% of animals that come into their shelters.  Birmingham has more than double the rate, as do Charlotte and Memphis.  Yet, in Atlanta, some shelters went from 85% being euthanized to 20% by adoption programs and other measures.  It is no coincidence that most of our house cats came from rural Arizona, red as red can get, where litters were dumped, healthy cats were tossed out to fend for themselves, because of divorce, moving, “they don’t allow animals,” “they are too much work,” “I became allergic,” and other examples of boorish, non-thinking people who would do the same to their kids if they could.  Come to think of it, they do.  This is the God, guns, and guts group, who shame the country and their Bible, where in at least six different places speaks to the need for us to care for animals.

We ought to publicize the numbers of euthanized animals in the county each month as part of my definition of how healthy my city is and the state of society.  The government does not fund humane societies.  These organizations exist through donations and charges for animal adoption and care.  It will get worse in Tea Party America, where people should be left alone, because people do such a good job of taking care of themselves.  It’s no secret that the five worst states for health insurance, a basic need, are Texas, Nevada, New Mexico, Florida, and Georgia.  The five best are Massachusetts, Vermont, Hawaii, Washington D.C., and Connecticut.  The worst for teen pregnancy are New Mexico, Mississippi, Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana.  The five best are New Hampshire, Vermont, Minnesota, Massachusetts, and Utah.  When people regulate themselves effectively, we won’t need government to do it.  I’m not holding my breath.

Americans need a whopping big dose of the ugliness here about our treatment of animals.  If a thin stray cat or dog that is eating garbage here doesn’t arouse something sad, then some of our humanity has been lost.  Nearly all of these stray animals will remain homeless, dying slowly by a host of conditions, none pretty.  Frankly, the lucky ones will be euthanized.  To think euthanasia of healthy cats and dogs does not happen in one’s community is to deny reality of an ugly, sad, unnecessary, completely treatable condition, a national disgrace.  Want to fix it?  Ask for monthly counts of euthanasia to be publicized, to keep the issue before the public. Donate money, work to ban breeding, and make crimes against animals severely punishable, for animal abuse correlates very strongly with human abuse.

We rank livability of cities using climate, median income and cultural opportunities, certainly not mentioning how many animals are dumped at the local shelter.  I am not surprised.  Healthier golf courses, excellent medical care and more cultured rich people rank higher than the stray animals population and euthanasias performed on animals who could give more love than one can imagine.

ERROR IS SCIENTIFIC; SO IS CONFIDENCE

November 13, 2014

“Would you like to see the Senator’s paper on the projection for Social Security for 2035?” a student asked a statistics professor friend of mine, who taught in DC.

“Is there a confidence interval mentioned?” replied my friend.

“No.”

“Then I don’t want to see it.”

Nearly every prediction we make about a parameter or phenomenon has some uncertainty.  We make the prediction based upon evidence we have gathered; the evidence we gather may not be accurate, especially predicting the future status of Social Security, which is unknown.  SSI may not even exist in 2017, for if a significant number of powerful people have their way, and enough people decide not to vote, because “it never matters,” SSI will be dumped to save money, to be used to make wealthier people wealthier, because these powerful people want no debt, believing recipients are freeloaders.  I don’t agree, but I am one person.

Even if SSI is unchanged, the funding model may, the economy will, world conditions will, and the number of people receiving it will.  Laws may modify it. All of these conditions are unknown.  They are estimated, using a variety of techniques, but these estimates have error: a word, like theory, that has a different meaning in science than it does in regular speech.

A scientific theory is a system of ideas intended to explain something.  “Your theory (thought, guess, idea) is wrong,” is in the general vernacular. Neither is wrong, except when the vernacular is used to denigrate a scientific theory.  We have a theory of gravitation, but I doubt anybody would jump off a building.

Errors in estimation occur, and they don’t mean that scientists are careless, obtain false, or don’t understand data.  Those are uses of “error” in the vernacular.  Errors in science occur because we use samples to estimate uncountable totals, like the percentage of people who plan to vote for a certain candidate, or any quantity that we may have modeled.  Let’s look at the former.  We don’t talk to every voter.  We choose people at random, and there are a variety of ways to do that.  A perfect sample is difficult to obtain; online samples, the ubiquitous surveys that B-school grads have inflicted on the country, are examples of bad sampling techniques.

If we take a second sample, we get a different result.  Same for a third and all samples we might take.  Typically, we sample only once and use the result as our point estimate, the best value we know.  Are we completely certain?  No, we aren’t, unless we take a census, measure every individual, which is not feasible.  We can quantify the error, however, depending upon the sampling approach and the sample size.  The error decreases as the sample size increases, the decrease of the error approximately proportional to the square root of the sample size.  That’s powerful stuff, done right.  A random sample of a 100 people in the nation, on a yes-no question, has an error of plus/minus 10%.

From a sample, we may construct a confidence interval, using the sample result and size.  This interval we believe to contain the exact value of what we are trying to measure.  Does it ?  We don’t know, because the true value is unknown.  Can any value be possible?  It depends upon what one considers possible.  If one considers anything possible, like the probability of winning the lottery every week for a year, then yes.  If one considers the likelihood of the sample’s being wrong at no more than 5%, typically used in science, then no, everything is not possible.

The concept of a confidence interval allows us to state a range where we think the true value lies. It is either in the interval or it is not, which is a not useful probability statement (0 or 100%).  Therefore, we call it confidence, and typically, high confidence is 95%.  It isn’t perfect, but it is considered significant evidence.

This explanation is why I was upset when the Republican candidate for the Congressional District where I live, a scientist, published the names of nearly 32,000 scientists who did not believe in global climate change.  First, scientists who matter are climate scientists (133), not people like him or me.  Second, science is not done by voting, but rather gathering evidence.  Science is not shouting at somebody, threatening them, or vilifying them in print.  One cannot discount the almost unanimity of articles that state there is manmade climate change occurring, and then use a number of disbelieving scientists to support their claim.  The database is not updated for deaths or opinion changes, which speaks to sloppiness, too, frankly.  If the database is important, it should be correct.

The publication that this candidate used to publish his list was one for which I was once a volunteer reviewer in statistics.  It is a right-wing publication, purportedly scientific, but the articles are replete with non-scientific terms and name calling.  That is fact.  I have read it; moreover, I was asked to review the statistics for articles.  If one has read this blog, one knows that I am a liberal.  I volunteered to help a right-wing journal.  I would be interested in examples where right-wing people volunteer to help a left-wing journal. I did this for free.  Truth matters.

On the basis of statistical evidence, I recommended against the publication of an article that claimed that low dose radiation was healthy (used skewing wrong), which the Congressional candidate believed in, that vaccines caused autism (regression analysis failed to check assumptions), and that the FDAs not approving drugs caused 10,000 deaths a year in the US (using correlation to conclude causation).  I stopped receiving articles for review.  I didn’t know why, suspecting that the journal didn’t like my opinion.  I cannot prove that, and I have no confidence interval.  However, I am 100% certain I stopped receiving articles to review; I later resigned.

Putting “scientist” after a name is easy; look at “creation science”.  Good science, however, is difficult.  I apply science to my life, but that is not being a scientist.  A scientist, and I will grant the candidate was once one, researches or studies something and draws conclusions, even if the conclusions are not what he hoped or expected.

Rule 2 of my approach to climate change is to look at the confidence intervals of both sides:  one side states with high confidence that their interval does not contain zero or a negative number regarding global temperature rise.  The other side does not give any such interval.  This is not scientific, and I am being polite.  If one is completely certain global climate change can’t be occurring, given the complexity of the atmosphere and oceans, such knowledge would be sought after by every climate scientist in the world.

What disturbs me is that the leadership of Congress admits they are not scientists, yet they quote both sides equally, which they are not.  They use such reasoning not to act, for acting might cost jobs, an unproven assumption.  In other words, non-scientists are deciding scientific issues in the country, and I am highly confident they threaten our future.

VETERANS’ DAY

November 12, 2014

I wasn’t a war hero.  I was just a ship’s doctor.  Some doc had to be on the larger Navy ships, and I got chosen. I didn’t do much, since young sailors were healthy, other than getting drunk or gonorrhea.  This was in the era when STD meant “something to do,” rather than “sexually transmitted disease.”

Still, I did two appendectomies at sea, under my own spinal anesthesia.  I did a few other useful things, like untwist a testicle (a testicular torsion), something that will make most men cringe to think of it.  I had never seen one before, but when I saw the poor sailor writhing in pain, I knew what it was.  I didn’t know exactly what to do, but warm soaks, intravenous diazepam, and twisting the proper direction unwound the wounded member like a rubber band.

I don’t celebrate Veterans Day, for to me, it is for those who served on the front lines, which I didn’t. I got a haircut and tipped the woman more than I usually do.  She did a good job, I already get a discount for being old, and it made her day better.  An hour later, I got a free triple chocolate Mocha from Dutch Brothers for being a veteran, so I learned what goes around comes around.  Nice lesson.  The real vets to me are the guys and gals at war.  I bet they don’t think of themselves as heroes, just sailors, soldiers, and airmen sailors serving their country.

One of my hiking buddies was a Marine in Vietnam, who fought at Hue.  If you know how to pronounce it properly, you know what that battle meant.  My friend never said more; he didn’t have to, and I was smart enough not to ask.  He has a Disabled Veteran License Tag on his truck, but he can out hike me easily.  He’s quite a guy.  He’s seen hell and come back. I haven’t done that.  But I did help one man during my service.

There was a ship’s executive officer (XO) in my squadron, a Type I diabetic.  I knew that and asked my boss whether a diabetic’s serving on a ship was allowed in the Navy.  Apparently for this officer, it was, so I didn’t say anything more.

The ship had no doctor aboard; an independent duty corpsman was in charge.  I soon learned his ship had failed medical inspection for the upcoming deployment. I was ordered to go over and make everything shipshape, literally.

I volunteered to go aboard for 3 days, when the ship went to sea briefly.  I don’t remember what my wife thought about it, but work was work, and 3 days at sea gave me a lot of time to get things done.  I took a break the first morning and went topside to the bridge wing to get some fresh air.  I don’t remember whether we could still see the southern California coast, but in any case the Captain soon walked up. I saluted, he didn’t, and without a hi, reamed me a new one for trying to torpedo the career of his executive officer.  I didn’t know what he meant and asked him such.  In no uncertain terms, he said, his XO was being handled by a Captain-doctor at the Navy hospital in San Diego, who knew a lot more about diabetes than I did.  I was ordered to stay out of the issue.  He left, not returning my salute.  That’s a bit rude, but I wasn’t about to argue.  The doctor in San Diego did know more than I.  And I don’t argue with Captains.  I also became more careful what I told my boss.  Word gets around.

The ship subsequently passed inspection, and we deployed together, until Hawaii, when we went south and they went west.  It wasn’t until mid-November, 6 weeks into the deployment, in Subic Bay, when we were together.  This would become only time of the whole 8 month deployment we would be.  They were moored on the opposite side of Subic, but I figured I ought to go over and see how things were going.  Whether I walked or took a cab, I don’t remember, and it isn’t important.  When I went aboard, the corpsman practically ran me down.  “Quick, the XO”!!  I knew immediately what was wrong, and when we barreled up 3 decks to the XO’s stateroom, he was sweating, confused, and staggering around the room.  A vial of insulin and a glass of orange juice were on the desk.

To this day, I don’t remember what the corpsman would have done, but diabetics without insulin do not crash in a few minutes the way TV portrays them.  Diabetics with too much insulin do crash suddenly.  I took out a syringe of 50 cc 50% glucose, which I made sure the ship had before they left port, and gave it to the XO IV.  Within seconds, he was normal.

But, in the space of an hour, his career as a seagoing officer was over.  The Chief Staff Officer (CSO), the Commodore of the Squadron’s right hand man, drove the XO to the Navy Hospital at Subic; I sat in back. The XO didn’t need hospitalization, but he could no longer stay on the ship.  Fourteen years of service, and at best, he would do his 20 years and retire, maybe as head of a shore duty facility.  To this day, I don’t know if he was mustered out.  I hope not.

On the way back to my ship, the CSO, whose name I still remember, told me that I was right in wanting the XO off the ship before deployment. I learned a lot that day: first, that I was needed.  Had the XO been given insulin, which might have happened had I not been there, he would have died or been permanently brain-damaged from hypoglycemic encephalopathy.

But I learned something far greater: this was an “I told you so” moment, and I did not gloat.  Instead, I had a pronounced feeling of sadness.  The man should not have been aboard ship; that was clear.  I didn’t know as much about diabetes as the doctor in San Diego, but I knew a lot more about shipboard medical issues.

I learned that being right comes with a price of being sad about it.  If I am right about climate change, I bet I will be sad, and won’t gloat, for how does gloating fix the problem?

Today, for the first time, I wondered how the CO of the ship felt.  I never saw him again.  In any case, sir, I hope your career was successful.  The main point was that your XO didn’t crash at sea, where things would have been a lot worse.  We were lucky that day.

To the CSO, I salute you and your wise words.  Your calmness helped me learn that doing the right thing is far more important than gloating about it.

Happy Veterans Day.

WEATHERING THE STORM

November 6, 2014

“As soon as they started covering over those graves with dirt, the hurricane moved north.  Now, was that a coincidence, or was it due to the desecration of those graves?”

The exact wording was probably a little different, but the meaning was not. This TV show was not on some sci-fi network but rather The Weather Channel (TWC), which formerly discussed the weather throughout the US, not century-old hurricane folklore.  TWC has shows about prospectors mining gems, staying on mountains during thunderstorms, exceedingly unwise.  Storm Chasers shows people outside in the middle of thunderstorms, filming or looking, extremely dangerous; lightning is one of the biggest weather killers in the US.  The towing company series in the Canadian Rockies didn’t belong on TWC but with “Ice Road Truckers,” a good show, when most of the dialogue wasn’t edited out because of profanity.

Weather Co. CEO David Kenny:  “The bottom line is, reality television on TWC needs to be based in science and storytelling.”  How about basing it on current weather and teaching people at the same time?

Science, I like; storytelling to make the supernatural appear “it really could have happened,” I don’t. Storytelling about “It could happen tomorrow,” makes some think that their lives will be snuffed out any second.  We need to inject a little reality, probability, and science into the discussion. We do not have to be afraid of everything every second.  Nature is not out to get us, regardless of what some may think.  There is no right or wrong in nature, only consequences.

Tonight, the discussion was about California prospectors in the 19th century; the only mention of weather being that “storms could form in a moment,” which isn’t true.  Storms give warning.  No mention was made of the historic drought in California, the warmest October on record in parts of Oregon, or snow in Charleston.  The US has more interesting weather than any other place in the world.  Why aren’t they discussing it?

TWC used to be thorough, reporting and discussing national weather.  While there was often unexplained jargon, it was interesting. I could have done without the notion “rain is bad, sun is good,” because I lived in a place with a 20 year drought (not mentioned), where eventually people notice it hasn’t rained for 4 months, plants are dying, reservoirs are drying up, and fires are burning.

Years ago, a local Arizona weatherman gave 5-day forecasts.  He eschewed longer ones, appropriately, because the probability of a 7-day forecast’s being correct was about 50%.  One day, he suddenly started using 7-day forecasts. I wrote him and asked him why he had changed.

“I was at a meeting of TV weathermen,” he replied, “and I learned the public wanted 7-day forecasts.”

So?  The public wants forecasts that have a 50-50 probability of being accurate, and we should give them?  No wonder people complain about forecasts!  Why do we give exact temperatures in forecasts, rather than a range of 5 degrees?  Why are apps telling us what the weather will be at every hour for the next day?  If busy people need to know the weather, have them look at the sky on the way to work and learn something about probability and margin of error.  Both of these need to be taught in the schools, by the way.

“The public wants answers, and they want the bottom line.”  Sometimes, there is no simple answer, and we can’t summarize a complex problem in 30 seconds.  Weather forecasting is one of the great triumphs of technology, but it still is inaccurate.  Cold fronts can stall, the rain-snow line may change a few miles, and models can suddenly change on a new run.

We would do well to remember that the world is subject to natural laws that we understand only partially.  We can predict a few things with certainty and others with some degree of probability less than 100%.  If people don’t like that, then perhaps they should vote for those who will fund science better.  I don’t believe a lot of economic forecasts, because they don’t have probability or confidence intervals.  I’d like to hear that “there is a 35% chance the stock market will reach a new record high in the next 6 months, based upon modeling of investor behavior.”  We don’t have that ability.  Instead, pundits are bullish and bearish about behavior that depend highly upon unpredictable world events.  Slight market changes are explained by behavior other than random noise, which is often the reason.  I would remind people that on 1 January, nobody dreamed two Malaysian airliners would be lost, one not found, and one shot out of the sky.  Nobody predicted there would be Ebola in the US, the Ukraine, the rise of ISIS, or sea stars dying off the US West Coast.  Nobody predicted in 2008 that the unemployment would be almost halved and the Dow would reach a new high by 2014.  At least the Republicans didn’t.  That is a fact.

While 5 day forecasts have unpredictability, we can be much more confident about climatic conditions on Earth.  Indeed, we have a confidence interval greater than 95% that man is changing the Earth’s climate.  That is statistically and realistically important.

Yet, TWC stopped discussing climate change several years ago.  Heidi Cullen, climate scientist at not-profit Climate Central (note the adjective), was on TWC for 2 years, before it was cancelled by NBC, after it bought the channel.  She got a lot of hate mail, and that hurts ratings.

Dr. Cullen didn’t state her message properly, however.  On The Colbert Report, she used examples floods in Pakistan and the coming displacement of Bangladeshis due to ocean rise.  The reality is that most Americans don’t care about those countries.  A high percentage of high school students can’t find Bangladesh on a map and I would bet 95% couldn’t name its capital, and even more don’t know what it was once called.  Why didn’t she talk about the drought in Texas, that was with high confidence due to climate change, or the changing migration pattern of birds in the US?

“It’s business.”  Yep.  It is.  Give the public what they want, and you will get rich.  Give them what they need, and you have a more enlightened society.  How rich do you have to be?  That has an upper bound.  How enlightened should a society be?  There is no upper bound.

I quit watching TWC.  I’ll look at the models myself and make my own forecasts, rather than worrying about what will happen if an asteroid crashes into the Earth.  Sure, the latter may happen, but I’m more concerned about tomorrow’s weather, if I should decide to go hiking and actually see the real, and not virtual world.

I’d rather be enlightened than super rich.