Yesterday, I picked up from the new book shelf at the library a recent book by Jonathan Chait. It's full title is "The Big Con: The True Story of How Washington Got Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics".
The book is definitely worth reading, but the subtitle is somewhat misleading because it's only in the first chapter that Chait deals with the subject of economics as such. There he discusses the ill-famed "Laffer Curve" and the idea that taxes alone entirely determine economic growth. I'm not an expert on economics, but the very idea that one factor alone dictates how an entire economy functions seems very counter-intuitive to me. I would think that the "dismal science" if anything is very complicated. That one parabolic graph alone explains it all sounds like weird juju to me, like something I would have heard on Coast-To-Coast-AM with Art Bell.
The rest of the book is focused primarily on the Republican party, and here Chait's thesis, when boiled down, is rather simple: In his view, the GOP has been completely taken over by a league of crazy partisan ideologues who have a monomaniacal fixation on the "Laffer Curve". Consequently, by hook or by crook, they will do anything to enforce the party line, which is, before all else, that government largess should be dispensed to their plutocratic friends and to other wealthy supporters of the GOP, mainly in the form of ever-shrinking taxation on the richest people in our society. (However, the rest of us poor slobs really get nothing but deceptive lip-service.)
On the other hand, according to Chait, the Democrats have remained the party of centrism, moderation, and dispassionate reason, who along with liberal journalists in the MSM, and academicians in big-name think-tanks, have retained the classical ethos of calm scientific objectivity and scrupulous adherence to facts. In constrast, the "conservative" media is mostly a ranting, homogenous mob of mindless zombies who act only in accordance with the latest talking points as issued by the national Republican leadership.
Of course, Chait wouldn't put things in these exact words, although I don't think my summary is all that off the mark. Mind you, I am not a Republican, and anyone who has read Lunar Skeletons would know that I wouldn't be that unhappy if Dubya were impeached today. But I don't think I am being entirely unfair to Mr. Chait. However, his analysis of the situation is not as "dispassionately objective" as he likes to fancy himself being. Nonetheless, I found much that was informative in Chait's book, and none of it has increased my happiness with Bush or the GOP.
The least persuasive chapter in his book however was the last one entitled "The Mainstreaming of Radicalism". There Chait seems to make the mistake of viewing conservatives as one big, undifferentiated amassment. He doesn't seem to be aware that there are a big differences between groveling Bush lackeys, such as Fred Barnes† or Sean Hannity for example, and the various "paleocons," such as a Pat Buchanon or Daniel Larison, or the crunchier variety as typified by Rod Dreher, or even the truculent Michael Savage (who's almost a category of his own). Yet for Jonathan Chait, everybody who's not a nice reasonable, mainstream Democrat (like himself) must therefore be a nutball "conservative", who's out to slavishly serve the interests of the Plutocrats. Furthermore, Chait entirely discounts that the extreme leftists, and other neo-bolshevik types who tag along with the Democrats, have any substantial influence on that party. In my opinion, he really doesn't go to any great lengths to prove this assessment, which on its face looks rather astonishing to me. On the whole, this chapter in his book seemed strangely simple-minded and lacking in nuance.
Over all, despite the weakness of that chapter, "The Big Con" remained a very readable and interesting book. I just finished it today.
† In his book, Jonathan Chait reports that President Bush likes to call him "Barney". Bush's dog is also called by that name.
Friday, September 21, 2007
James Howard Kuntsler is sometimes called the Curmudgeon of Saratoga Springs.
Now I've read James Kuntsler's book The Long Emergency, and even if one doesn't agree with his basic thesis, he is nonetheless an interesting writer who has an important point worth considering¹.
His thesis is really quite simple: over the last fifty years or more, all of America's economy and infrastructure has been built on never-ending cheap energy, and everybody thought the party would last forever. However, the chickens are now coming home to roost, and we're already past the calendar date when "peak oil" finally happened, which was supposedly back in 2006.
Well, I can sympathize with Kuntsler's grumpiness. I for one also think that the U.S. is in deep kimchee, and its problems are only going to get worse as time goes on². And truely there are days when I wake up thinking that our entire American society is built upon nothing but sham, fraud, humbug, and greed, a house of cards ready to collapse. And I also think that Dubya's little Globalist adventure in "democratizing" Iraq may go down as the worst foreign policy disaster in all of American history, maybe even in world history. If Dubya's real objective was to ensure a supply of more cheap energy, well, it's not working.
It's just too bad, however, that Kuntsler lets his peevishness, and his occasional outbursts of obscenity and blasphemy, get the upperhand in how he writes³, because they detract from his points and also alienate some readers who might otherwise be very inclined to sympathize with his viewpoint.
As an example, consider his snide blog remarks of September 17th, where evangelical xtians are dismissed as "the greatest believers in unearned riches." Whatever else they may, the majority of evangelicals hold down jobs, support their families, and pay their bills and taxes; they have to work just like everybody else. (In fact, besides saying that we should pray, the Bible also commands people to work for a living, see 1 Thess. 4:11.) Therefore, what Kuntsler's little tirade in this case really accomplishes is to make him appear ignorant about how a whole category of people actually live. It makes one wonder about whom Kuntsler has for next door neighbors. Are they all grumpy atheists and agnostics? Does he even know any flesh-and-blood evangelicals? Or is he just reacting to some stereotype that exists only in his mind?
I'm sorry, Mr. Kuntsler, but not all of us sit around all day watching TBN Praise-a-thons, if that's what you're thinking.
This short article by Kuntsler in Orion Magazine, entitled "Making Other Arrangments," nicely summarizes the content of his book The Long Emergency.
¹ I also like Kuntsler's landscape paintings. They're fairly good.
² I entirely agree with Kuntsler that suburban sprawl is turning the United States into one enormous eyesore, from sea to shining sea. For example, Podunk City, here in Land-In-Between where I live, at one time was a fairly decent place to live, and retained many of its own regional characteristics. But lately, the real estate developers have cajoled, by hook or by crook, the local government into allowing them to turn much of the place into a hyper-expensive, transplanted version of Orange County. And anybody who has ever been in the "O.C." will understand what I mean.
³ Kuntsler's book The Long Emergency is not like this however. But that is probably because it had to pass muster by the publisher's editors, who would have knocked down anything that got too extreme.
Now I've read James Kuntsler's book The Long Emergency, and even if one doesn't agree with his basic thesis, he is nonetheless an interesting writer who has an important point worth considering¹.
His thesis is really quite simple: over the last fifty years or more, all of America's economy and infrastructure has been built on never-ending cheap energy, and everybody thought the party would last forever. However, the chickens are now coming home to roost, and we're already past the calendar date when "peak oil" finally happened, which was supposedly back in 2006.
Well, I can sympathize with Kuntsler's grumpiness. I for one also think that the U.S. is in deep kimchee, and its problems are only going to get worse as time goes on². And truely there are days when I wake up thinking that our entire American society is built upon nothing but sham, fraud, humbug, and greed, a house of cards ready to collapse. And I also think that Dubya's little Globalist adventure in "democratizing" Iraq may go down as the worst foreign policy disaster in all of American history, maybe even in world history. If Dubya's real objective was to ensure a supply of more cheap energy, well, it's not working.
It's just too bad, however, that Kuntsler lets his peevishness, and his occasional outbursts of obscenity and blasphemy, get the upperhand in how he writes³, because they detract from his points and also alienate some readers who might otherwise be very inclined to sympathize with his viewpoint.
As an example, consider his snide blog remarks of September 17th, where evangelical xtians are dismissed as "the greatest believers in unearned riches." Whatever else they may, the majority of evangelicals hold down jobs, support their families, and pay their bills and taxes; they have to work just like everybody else. (In fact, besides saying that we should pray, the Bible also commands people to work for a living, see 1 Thess. 4:11.) Therefore, what Kuntsler's little tirade in this case really accomplishes is to make him appear ignorant about how a whole category of people actually live. It makes one wonder about whom Kuntsler has for next door neighbors. Are they all grumpy atheists and agnostics? Does he even know any flesh-and-blood evangelicals? Or is he just reacting to some stereotype that exists only in his mind?
I'm sorry, Mr. Kuntsler, but not all of us sit around all day watching TBN Praise-a-thons, if that's what you're thinking.
This short article by Kuntsler in Orion Magazine, entitled "Making Other Arrangments," nicely summarizes the content of his book The Long Emergency.
¹ I also like Kuntsler's landscape paintings. They're fairly good.
² I entirely agree with Kuntsler that suburban sprawl is turning the United States into one enormous eyesore, from sea to shining sea. For example, Podunk City, here in Land-In-Between where I live, at one time was a fairly decent place to live, and retained many of its own regional characteristics. But lately, the real estate developers have cajoled, by hook or by crook, the local government into allowing them to turn much of the place into a hyper-expensive, transplanted version of Orange County. And anybody who has ever been in the "O.C." will understand what I mean.
³ Kuntsler's book The Long Emergency is not like this however. But that is probably because it had to pass muster by the publisher's editors, who would have knocked down anything that got too extreme.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Three Mysterious Numbers
There are three mysterious triangular numbers in the New Testament. The first is 153 which occurs in John 21:11. The second is 276 which occurs in Acts 27:37. And the third is 666 which occurs in Revelations 13:18.
These three numbers have certain curious relationships with each other, which I will endeavor to illuminate.
First, there are some elementary properties we should notice. Using the formula for the nth triangular number, T(n)=n(n+1)/2, it's easy to see that 153 is the 17th triangular number, 276 is the 23rd triangular number, and 666 is the 36th triangular number. And 36 is the square of 6.
Also, we note that the greatest common divisor of these three triangular numbers is 3. Notice also that 3 is the divine number, since it represents the Godhead.
The three largest prime numbers that divide each of the three without dividing the other two are 17, 23, and 37, for 153 is divisible only by 17, and 276 is divisible only by 23, and 666 is divisible only by 37.
Looking at the context of the verses cited above, we notice that the three triangular number have some sort of connection with water, which is one of the primordial elements mentioned in 2 Peter 3:5. The number 666 is of course the infamous "number of the Beast", and in Revelations 13:1 the Beast is said to come up out of the sea. As for the other two numbers' connection with water, that is left as an excercise for the reader.
The sum of the three triangular number is 1095, which when divided by 3 gives 365, the number of days in a year, the primary unit for measuring the seasons.
The three prime divisors 17, 23, and 37 that were mentioned are when added together the sum 77. The number 7 occuring very frequently in the Scriptures as the number of completion.
Using 7 as a modulus, and 3 as the base, the discrete logarithms of the three triangular numbers are respectively 9, 7, and 6. This is because under modular congruencies 3^9=153 and 3^7=276 and 3^6=666 under modulo 7. Furthermore, the product of 9×7×6 is the number 378. But the number 378 is itself the 27th triangular number, 27 being the cube of 3.
We can make the observation that (17+23+37)+(9+7+6)=99. However, the number 9 is the number peculiar to the angelic creation (whereas 6 is peculiar to Man). And 9 happens to be the square of 3.
That 2²+3²+5²+7²+11²+13²+17²=666 is also very curious. In other words, the "number of the Beast" is also the sum of the squares of the prime numbers up through 17, which was the prime divisor we associated with 153.
It was on the 17th day in the month that the Noachian Flood struck (Genesis 7:11). And it was also on the 17th day that Noah's Ark came to rest in the mountains of Ararat (Genesis 8:4). This is the first occurrence of the number 17 in the Scriptures. And here also is another connection with water. The last occurrence of 17 happens to be in Jeremiah 32:9, where Jeremiah the prophet redeems his inheritance in Anathoth for 17 shekels of silver.
The prime divisor 23 associated with 276 also has an odd connection with humanity. Supposedly there are 23 chromosome pairs in human cells. And there are 23 disks in the human spine.
The number pair 23 and 7, which are associated with 276, happen to occur together in 2 Chronicles 7:10, where it is recorded that the 23rd day of the 7th month marked the joyful ending of the dedication of the first Temple, which was built by Solomon.
As for 37, which is associated with 666, there are supposed to be 37 genes in the human mitochondrial genome. And it requires 37 skeletal muscles to move the human hand.
[I'll see what other things turn up about these numbers and add to this later]
These three numbers have certain curious relationships with each other, which I will endeavor to illuminate.
First, there are some elementary properties we should notice. Using the formula for the nth triangular number, T(n)=n(n+1)/2, it's easy to see that 153 is the 17th triangular number, 276 is the 23rd triangular number, and 666 is the 36th triangular number. And 36 is the square of 6.
Also, we note that the greatest common divisor of these three triangular numbers is 3. Notice also that 3 is the divine number, since it represents the Godhead.
The three largest prime numbers that divide each of the three without dividing the other two are 17, 23, and 37, for 153 is divisible only by 17, and 276 is divisible only by 23, and 666 is divisible only by 37.
Looking at the context of the verses cited above, we notice that the three triangular number have some sort of connection with water, which is one of the primordial elements mentioned in 2 Peter 3:5. The number 666 is of course the infamous "number of the Beast", and in Revelations 13:1 the Beast is said to come up out of the sea. As for the other two numbers' connection with water, that is left as an excercise for the reader.
The sum of the three triangular number is 1095, which when divided by 3 gives 365, the number of days in a year, the primary unit for measuring the seasons.
The three prime divisors 17, 23, and 37 that were mentioned are when added together the sum 77. The number 7 occuring very frequently in the Scriptures as the number of completion.
Using 7 as a modulus, and 3 as the base, the discrete logarithms of the three triangular numbers are respectively 9, 7, and 6. This is because under modular congruencies 3^9=153 and 3^7=276 and 3^6=666 under modulo 7. Furthermore, the product of 9×7×6 is the number 378. But the number 378 is itself the 27th triangular number, 27 being the cube of 3.
We can make the observation that (17+23+37)+(9+7+6)=99. However, the number 9 is the number peculiar to the angelic creation (whereas 6 is peculiar to Man). And 9 happens to be the square of 3.
That 2²+3²+5²+7²+11²+13²+17²=666 is also very curious. In other words, the "number of the Beast" is also the sum of the squares of the prime numbers up through 17, which was the prime divisor we associated with 153.
It was on the 17th day in the month that the Noachian Flood struck (Genesis 7:11). And it was also on the 17th day that Noah's Ark came to rest in the mountains of Ararat (Genesis 8:4). This is the first occurrence of the number 17 in the Scriptures. And here also is another connection with water. The last occurrence of 17 happens to be in Jeremiah 32:9, where Jeremiah the prophet redeems his inheritance in Anathoth for 17 shekels of silver.
The prime divisor 23 associated with 276 also has an odd connection with humanity. Supposedly there are 23 chromosome pairs in human cells. And there are 23 disks in the human spine.
The number pair 23 and 7, which are associated with 276, happen to occur together in 2 Chronicles 7:10, where it is recorded that the 23rd day of the 7th month marked the joyful ending of the dedication of the first Temple, which was built by Solomon.
As for 37, which is associated with 666, there are supposed to be 37 genes in the human mitochondrial genome. And it requires 37 skeletal muscles to move the human hand.
[I'll see what other things turn up about these numbers and add to this later]
Labels:
pococurante
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)