(Abrahamic) Religion explained via Politics

[A fairy tale.]

In the beginning was the contract.

Also known as the covenant, it was a mutual aid agreement between some Egyptians and almighty God. As such, it was a bit lopsided. The Egyptians — now known as Jews — weren’t very good at sticking by their side of it. Fortunately, God didn’t actually need their help. On the other hand, he did preserve them, through thousands of years, but not very comfortably. Constitutionally, therefore, we can identify the Jews as traditional (“small c”) conservatives. Certainly, they believe in contracts and property law, but leavened with repeated reminders that “Your God is a Compassionate God”: if you can’t stick with an agreement with God, then you should keep that in mind enforcing other contracts.

Now, for the following keep in mind that Liberals are attracted by equality and fairness, while Conservatives prefer authority, loyalty and purity. Certainly, for one (demonstrably fallible) people to have a contract with God while others didn’t seem very fair, and undoubtedly, it wasn’t equal. Perhaps it was just an archetype of some general principles, that applied to all, such as:

  1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.
  2. Love your neighbor as yourself.

Transforming God’s contract with a specific group into something that anyone could partake was a very liberal thing to do. However, like many liberal ideas, it proved difficult in practice: building your kingdom on “my kingdom is not of this world” is like building a castle in the clouds.

More galling still to those on the eastern frontier of the Roman empire was the cynical cooptation of Christianity by Constantine and his successors. They had no wish to be Roman, and the behavior of the Romans (Byzantines) seemed rather the antithesis of what Jesus was said to have stood for anyway. But how to distill the essence of this will to purity and self-determination in a transcendental vessel?

Muhammad organized Islam around Neoconservative lines: accepting the universality (we are not Jews), but stressing authority, loyalty and purity, rather than equality and fairness. Islam was by design more practical: let the liberals have their “without love I am nothing but a resounding gong” which they obviously don’t believe in (“they” were Byzantines, remember). The Caliphate was a political entity and Muhammad made laws to organize and perpetuate it as such.

Author’s note:
I do think religions should have some ontological differences. I have always sensed “why” there was a difference between Judaism and Christianity. The abstraction away from the covenant on the one hand, and “the identification of man and God” on the other. But what about Islam? Yes, ok — there was the prophet. But how come? What is new in the new prophesy? This is my first stab at understanding it… (enlightening) comments appreciated!

Apropos software patents

Apropos: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/01/business/supreme-court-seems-wary-of-a-software-patent-case.html

There are two ways software can be novel: it can be a new way to do something, whose embodiment is a software program, and it can be a new way to get a computer to do something (which itself isn’t necessarily novel).

In the first case, the computer might be a practical necessity, but the process must be novel even if it were performed by an army of accountants. In the second, the process could be mundane, but involved elements which no expert before knew (or could easily have known if they set their mind to it). In the latter case, the process itself is not properly patented, but the elements that make it novel.

Thoughts on “Value” of Inflation and Unemployment

Inflation is like overeating, whereas unemployment is like starvation. Obviously, the latter is worse. The best circumstance is that you have plenty of money, but put it to good use — eat well and exercise.

Unfortunately for the Fed, it controls the amount of money, but not the amount of exercise, which depends on how well trained the workforce is, what the incentives are to work, the state of the infrastructure, the state of the global economy (is there anyone to play with, or do I have to work out on my own?).

The focus on inflation is a symptom of the public’s lack of trust in government, and ultimately, their lack of trust in themselves.

Is Justice Roberts a Mystery?

I just read Linda Greenhouse’s article on John Roberts. My take is this: when justice Roberts was a youth, and some of his peers were wearing “question authority” pins, Roberts, were he the pin-wearing type, would have worn a “question lack of authority” pin.

He has upheld the authority of government whenever possible, and is very persnickety about questions of the standing necessary for plaintiffs to challenge its authority. He has upheld the right of people (shareholders) to authorize collectives (corporations) to speak on their behalf.

I think his reference to the duty of the court to find a law constitutional if there is any possible interpretation that doesn’t rule it out was not just a political calculation, but an expression of a strongly held principle.

Why don’t tornados dig holes?

It seems like we are off to another record year for tornados. When I see pictures of tornado devastated land, everything above ground is ripped up, but the ground itself is always pretty much intact.

If a tornado were to strike a desert, one would expect sand to be redistributed pretty extensively. Perhaps not actually creating holes very often, as that would require a counterintuitive overall lowering of entropy. But certainly sand dunes would not be in at all the same places once the tornado passed.

This doesn’t seem to happen in the areas where tornados actually strike. I suspect that the surface tension of the water in the rain-soaked ground binds it together so that it can’t be lifted (except as a very heavy, elastic whole). I wonder if architects have thought of taking advantage of this effect? Perhaps turf roofs together with vents designed to allow rapid pressure equalization would allow many more structures to remain standing….

Binocular Beauty or Do It Right the Second Time

I was taken to the dogshed by my lead developer the other day. We have been building a web service api, and a javascript analytics client, both at the same time. He’d been grumbling about the service interfaces for some time; I’d resisted changing them. Finally, I noticed he was getting more and more sullen. It turned out that he was not just annoyed but really upset about the interfaces.

Certainly, they could be improved. As he said, they were “RPC-style” interfaces, despite our stated goal of following REST principles. Indeed, I had cooked them up in 45 minutes one evening. They did support the client fairly succinctly, but would almost almost certainly break if we made any design changes, or tried to write a second application (which we will soon).

So I gave him the go ahead to rewrite the interface. He spent the day writing it anew along REST principles. I haven’t reviewed it yet, but I’m sure its much better; also, having created it, he’ll be much more productive writing the client.

So why did I drag my feet? Because I believe in Doing It Right (or putting in significant effort to get it right) the Second Time. Not the first time, and not the third. In particular, for an interface, thinking hard about what the best abstractions are is best done in conjunction with writing the 2nd client. Its often worth *not* doing for the first client, even if this means parts will have to be rewritten.

This isn’t a hard rule (note that I caved to my developer rather than argue). Also, for tasks you have already done before and know how to do, by all means do them right. But for new, exploratory work, it is nevertheless a good tenet. The intuition is the same as for pairwise testing and binocular vision. To tell the difference between phenomena and epi-phenomena often requires more than one perspective; much more rarely, for the main outlines at least, does it require more than two.

Socio-Economic Content In Sex-Ed

My older son’s school offers sex-ed in two tranches: at the end of fifth grade, and in seventh grade. The first part seems to have explained the biology fairly well, and let him at least talk about sex — so pretty good, I would say.

The school also has some policies regarding sexual behavior. For instance, certain types of clothing are not allowed, as they are deemed inappropriately erotic for young teenagers. Fine. But does the justification for this rule follow from anything they are taught in class? I would venture to say — almost certainly not.

And yet, would it be that difficult to add a bit of socio-economic (or cultural) content to sex-ed? It is not hard to grasp that, if monogamy and promiscuity are the extremes of human sexual strategy, they make uneasy neighbors. Also, we needn’t teach Freud (or not very much) to illuminate how social structure is built out of units — like couples and families — whose glue is often sexual relationships.

Tolerance is taught; but prudence seems to be only taught in terms of the dangers of unsafe sex, and the need to respect oneself and others. Nothing is said about why a social system (such as a school) might want to constrain even safe sex. Or, on the other hand, why a larger society might be more stable if its members follow diverse strategies. (Or individuals follow mixed strategies.)

Beyond economics, there is a great opportunity to teach how sex fits together with culture, but I don’t suppose that many schools will be wading into that soon. Nevertheless, for young minds starting to think not only about sex, but to think for themselves in general (though not necessarily at the same time as speaking — alas a difficult art), tools for thinking about their own sexuality on the basis of their biology are good. They should also be given tools to think about how their sexuality is part of how they relate to their community, and economics could provide a “neutral” framework for this discussion.