An Army of One-Issue Voters

Marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen hold radical opinions, sometimes crazily  contradictory opinions.

Many men and women in uniform I have known are one-issue voters.  So many soldiers I met in Iraq voted their guns.  There was no issue beyond guns that could sway them. The NRA rating of the candidate was like the score of an olympic gymnast.  That rating said winner or loser, loudly and finally.

People of Faith in the military tend to be radical. I knew one-issue anti-abortion voters in uniform, and I knew one-issue women's-right-to-choose voters in uniform who were really strong in their opinions.

One of the funnier categories for me was the libertarian soldier. I could understand libertarian soldiers when there was a draft, or in their first enlistment, but I have known many career soldiers who professed belief in small-government and were against socialism in any form--except their own lifelong government health care and VA benefits.  I knew one sergeant who was a libertarian and also a lobbyist working to get more money from the state and federal government for the National Guard.  He saw no contradiction. The money was for defense. That's good, he said.  It never occurred to him that every lobbyist thinks their own cause is good.

Because I served in the draft era, I have been a one-issue voter all of my life.  I won't vote for a draft dodger. I will vote for a person who chose not to serve, but not for a man who let someone else serve in his place. Since 1992 I have had a choice for President just once, in 2008. In that year, a combat veteran ran against a man who reached his 18th birthday long after the end of the draft.  I really did think about that choice in 2008, until John McCain nominated Sarah Palin as his vice president. The possibility that she would be President put me squarely on the other side. In every other election, there was at least one draft dodger running, so I voted the other candidate.

I voted today. The draft-dodger President said the vote today was about him. So I voted against him.

Physical Therapy, the Bible, and Fundamentalists

The Greek New Testament

This week I continued physical therapy after last week's knee operation. After some jokes about bones and joints, the therapist and I got into a discussion about Ancient Greek, Hebrew and the Bible.

He asked if Greek was like Hebrew because a fundamentalist family member of his often talked about those languages, though the family member does not know those languages.  I said they were not much alike at all, but they were two of the languages, along with Aramaic, that the Bible was written in.

Of course, the fundamentalist in his life bragged about taking the Bible literally.  Which led us to a conversation about what literal really means.

For Christians, the most important passages of the Bible are the words of Jesus.  Jesus is quoted throughout the four Gospel accounts. Each of those Gospels are written in Greek.  They are eyewitness accounts by four men who knew and followed Jesus during His brief, three-year ministry in Israel.  Jesus traveled, but only in Israel, then as now a very small country.  Jesus spoke to Jews and to people who lived in Israel, including Roman officials and soldiers.

All of the words Jesus spoke were in Aramaic and Hebrew.  Aramaic is very like Hebrew and was, at that time, the commonly spoken language of Israel and what is now the Middle East.

Fundamentalists believe there is a perfect autograph copy somewhere of every word of the Bible.  Therefore, they can take the Bible literally because every word is perfect.

If there is anything repellent to a fundamentalist, it is actual faith. They want certainty. The idea of perfect manuscripts fits with their need for certainty. But as with all of life, the reality is complicated, way too complicated for a fundamentalist.

Most of the words of Jesus recorded by the Gospel writers were spoken in  Aramaic. Jesus spoke Aramaic as He gave what is known as the Sermon on the Mount, also known as the Beatitudes.  This brief speech is recorded in the beginning of Chapter 5 of the Gospel of Matthew.  But Matthew did not write the speech in Aramaic, he wrote it in Greek.  Matthew translated the words he heard from Aramaic to Greek.

Most Americans speak just one language, so they don't deal with the problems of translation in their daily life.  Someone who speaks only English can think of translation as some kind of word-for-word swap from one language to another. But anyone who deals with multiple languages knows better.

In this case, Matthew's Greek version of what Jesus said is 87 words.  The closest I could get to Aramaic is a Hebrew version of the New Testament.  The Hebrew version has only 64 words.  A standard English translation has 121 words.

The fundamentalist version of Bible inspiration says Matthew was doing something akin to automatic writing. That he wrote 87 words of Greek that became the perfect original. Inspiration in this view is something akin to automatic or magic writing.

For this to be true, we have to imagine Matthew, a real human person, remembered the words of Jesus and wrote down the 87 Greek words that exactly corresponded to those 64 (or so) Aramaic words.  A real person translating those words would wonder "What about this word, what about this phrase?"

All language is culture which is why there can be a new translation of the Bible every year, in any language.  Matthew, the man, wanted to express what Jesus said, the best he could. In the process of writing the Gospel, he was not in a trance. He wrote, he thought about what he wrote, he changed what he wrote. As with anyone who has ever translated a sentence, or a paragraph, or a book, we must choose words, phrases and syntax to best express what we believe was said.

Matthew was also writing about a man he did not understand. Matthew knew Jesus, lived with Jesus, and like all the disciples, misunderstood Jesus.  How could it be otherwise? We never fully understand each other. Matthew heard the words of God in the form of man. Part of translation is trying to express not just the word, but the thought being expressed.  No translator has ever faced a greater challenge than a Gospel writer.

So Matthew was translating the words of Jesus from Aramaic to Greek and striving to pick the right words to represent the Words of God.  Matthew wrote by faith, not by dictation. Matthew had a different task when he was writing what Jesus did rather than what He said.  Then Matthew was turning his memories into words.  But, again, his task was not as straightforward as the same task would be for a native speaker of Greek.  Matthew, like every New Testament writer except Luke, was a native speaker of Aramaic. So he was writing in Greek even though Aramaic was the language of his early life and thought.  Matthew wrote good Greek, but not native-speaker Greek as Luke did.

Before the Bible was translated into English, the spoken words of Jesus were already translated from Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek. The idea of a perfect original copy fills many imaginations but simply does not exist. No one has the exact words spoken by Jesus. No one wrote down the exact Aramaic and Hebrew words Jesus spoke, so no one has what would be the true original copy.  What we have is the memory of four different men translated into Greek words. Those who can read Greek know that the four accounts differ greatly in tone. Luke wrote very good Greek. Mark wrote with a limited vocabulary using grammar and syntax strongly influenced by Aramaic and Hebrew.

Everything about real life makes a mockery of certainty.  We can only live by faith or make up a false certainty to hide behind.

The entire universe, from photons to galaxies, is at once too small and too vast to fully comprehend. The result is that those who reject all religion, such as Richard Dawkins, and those who reject all science, such as Ken Ham, are equally, extremely wrong.  Science of every kind opens new frontiers constantly because every aspect of life has new facets to discover. Faith flourishes in every culture despite all the skeptics.

The Bible itself can never be pinned down like a butterfly on wax by fundamentalists. Jesus left no writings. Every word of Jesus in Scripture recorded by the Gospel writers is a translation from Aramaic or Hebrew to Greek.  In English those words are two translations away from the original words.  And those words have ambiguities and connotations and shades of meaning even in the original language--which we don't have.

Accidentally Stumbling into Happiness

The Declaration of Independence

The pursuit of happiness is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, along with Life and Liberty, as the foundational rights we should have as Americans--and a good reason to rebel against the English King. 

Pursuit of happiness, like pursuit of wealth, is not the same a having it.  Annie Grace, author ofThis Naked Mind helps people get alcohol out of their lives and live happier lives as a result. She is brilliant and very much data oriented. When I heard about her, I was impressed. So who has a happy life?  

It turns out that the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence were doing many of the things that lead to real happiness. They were committed to a cause bigger than themselves; they had strong relationships (a real possibility of "hanging together" as Benjamin Franklin famously said); each one had a goal in life; and they were helping others. In their pursuit of happiness, they were doing the things that actually make people happy.

Annie Grace puts exercise and meditation at the top of her list of things that lead to true happiness and she uses a lot of data and brain science to show why this is true. Since I did not hear about Annie Grace until this week, I had not plan to follow her advice, but it turned I am doing most of the things she says lead to a happy life.

According to Grace people who have a happy life:

1.     Exercise, not just exercise but exercise with others toward a personal goal. Most of my rides are training rides with other racers.  When I was in the Army, I went to crowded gyms and trained to score high on the fitness test.

2.   Meditation. I started meditating this year. The program I use calls meditation, “a vacation for your mind.” They are right.

3.     Strong relationships.  It has been my immense good fortune to have a variety of strong relationships. I have Army buddies I am still in touch with from both the 70s and recent years. I have a wonderful family. I have friends from racing and friends who are as intensely into books as I am.  Recently I have added friends who share an intense interest in politics. I hang out with some of my former co-workers more than three years after I retired. Social media keeps me in touch with people I only rarely see in person.

4.     Having a goal in life. From the time I left home at 18, I have joined groups with shared goals and had goals of my own. In each of the four military organizations in which I enlisted, I was part of the mission. My professional jobs were in communications—my mission was to tell customers and other influential people that the place I worked is wonderful. I did far and away my best work when the communication goal was clear.

5.     Gratitude. Annie Grace recommends a gratitude journal, writing down five things I am thankful for each day. I am going to start.

6.     Helping others. I don’t do enough of this.

7.     Active leisure: Do sports, don't watch sports, at least while the sun is up. I am a member of book discussion groups and even had a couple of book groups in Iraq. My current college course is learning Modern Hebrew. 

8.     Belonging to something bigger than us. In real life, the Lone Ranger was miserable.

I really do have a happy life, but it’s nice to have data that confirms why I am happy.

I didn't start meditating or Yoga until this year. It's never too late to make changes. 

Marc Abrahams Turned Strange Science into an Event Known Around the World

Marc Abrahams, Ig Nobel emcee, 

Illumination by Human Spotlight

Marc Abrahams is the editor and founder of the Annals of Improbable Research and the co-founder and Emcee of the annual Ig Nobel Prize ceremony. Both the Ig Nobel Prizes and the magazine are approaching their thirtieth year of making people laugh and then think.

I met Marc Abrahams in 2006 when the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting was in St. Louis.  The AAAS meeting is always over President’s weekend in February.  During that weekend in 2006, the temperature in St. Louis never got higher than ten degrees Fahrenheit.  

We were introduced in a crowded bar in the conference hotel by the science writer Katharine Sanderson, then a science writer for Chemistry World magazine in the U.K. Sanderson had written about the history of the chemistry museum I worked for and thought Marc would like it.  

I had never heard of the Ig Nobel Prizes, but loved the idea from the moment Marc began explaining them.  The ten annual prizes mirror the actual Nobel prizes, though not strictly.  They are awarded for actual published scientific research about strange topics.  For example, this year, the Medicine Ig Nobel Prize went to a Japanese doctor who published a paper describing a self colonoscopy. 

-->

The winner of the 2018 Ig Nobel Prize 

in Medicine for Self Colonoscopy

Another 2018 Ig Nobel laureate received the prize in the Nutrition category—not a Nobel category. He showed from research based on DNA from three millennia ago that a cannibal diet is not as nutritious as diet based on eating other animals and plants.  His findings show it’s better to eat with your neighbor than to eat your neighbor.

The Ig Nobel Prizes are bestowed on the winners by actual Nobel laureates. People, who have been honored in Stockholm by the Swedish Academy for brilliant research, laugh along with everyone else as they hand out prizes for research on bras that become gas masks or frogs that levitate in magnetic fields. They even help to sweep up the paper airplanes.

This year, the woman who won the Nobel Prize in chemistry told Ira Flatow on Science Friday that she wanted an Ig Nobel Prize! It seemed as she was also quite happy with the Nobel Prize.

-->

Since 1991, Marc has donned a tux and top hat and acted as emcee for this annual ceremony that includes a comic opera and, to add nerdiness, a blizzard of paper airplanes.  

Paper airplanes fill the air in Sanders Theater

-->

After the September ceremony in Sanders Theater at Harvard each year, Marc travels the world talking about the Ig Nobels.  This year he was in a festival in Japan just a week after the ceremony in Cambridge.  He also puts on an abbreviated ceremony at the annual meeting of AAAS—the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which is always held on the President’s Day weekend in February. Sometimes the AAAS meeting also conflicts with Valentine’s Day and with the Daytona 500.  What this says about scientists, I leave to others to decide.

Marc speaks to audiences around the world.

-->

My first volunteer job with the Ig Nobel was ushering at the Ig Nobel ceremony at the AAAS meeting beginning in 2006.  However, after I returned from Iraq in 2010, Marc added me to the volunteer staff in Cambridge as a press wrangler. Each year I escort reporters in and out of the ceremony. Because of copyright and legal restrictions, broadcast reporters are limited in how much time they can record.  My particular job is to escort the reporter and cameraman from Channel One (ПервыйКанал) in Russia.  Camera crews from many countries have filmed the Ig Nobel ceremony over the years, but Channel One Russia and NHK Japan have been there every year since I have been a volunteer.

This year, for the first time, I was able to attend one of the Ig Nobel picnics. The picnics bring together volunteers who are running past each other on the day of the event. This year I arrived early enough to hear practice for the Opera. In addition to playing at the Ig Nobel ceremony and the picnic, one of the pianists, Ivan Gusev, will be playing a solo concert at Carnegie Hall next month.  

One of the best pieces of career advice I have ever received said that happiness at work depends more on who you work with than on what you do.  Marc Abrahams took this one step further: he created a ceremony that became an institution that attracts people who laugh and think and who want others to join in and do the same.

-->