Yogi's Wonderful Life

Schipperkes are a small dog. So it is a mystery how their leaving can drive such a huge hole through your heart.

Originating in Belgium, Schipperkes (skipper-kee) were originally bred in the sixteenth century, purportedly to provide security and discourage rodents on the many prevalent canal barges. They are boisterous and loyal, fearless and devoted, energetic and playful. They love their adopted families. They like the water, and to hike and to run. A rugged, hearty 15-20 pound package of explosive life.

A friend had had one, and we were captivated, but didn’t seriously entertain the notion of dog ownership at the time. Then our long time cat companion perished, leaving us in a funk. In search of a replacement kitten, calls to several shelters were unfruitful. So we visited a pet store in East Providence and struck pay dirt – a black and white tuxedo kitty reminiscent of our departed Spencer. Only one problem – his white littermate held him in a bear hug and wouldn’t let go. A simple solution – we ended up with two kitties.

But just before leaving, we turned and noticed a puppy. About eight weeks old, adorable, pitch black – it was a Schipperke, yipping for our attention. It was love at first sight. Looking like a tiny bear cub, it was an easy conclusion to name him Yogi. Our home quickly became a beehive of feline and canine activity.

It was a neighborhood spectacle as our three charges grew up together. When taking Yogi for a walk, his two kitty brothers would often parade behind to the considerable amusement of the neighbors.

Yogi quickly excelled in our passion for sailing. Wearing his own life jacket, he soon learned to ride the rails as white foam streaked by. His balance was impeccable. The boat was his second home, and when we stayed overnight, he would curl up and nap contentedly. He was a true sailor.

Schipperkes are long lived, typically 13-15 years. It was not unexpected, then, that Yogi outlived his kitty brothers. We settled into a long routine of comfortable existence, just the three of us. Long hikes in the Locust Valley woods, sailing on the weekends, trips to family reunions in Pennsylvania. Yogi was a constant companion. Vigorous into his teens, he didn’t start to slow down even a bit till he reached fourteen.

Very affectionate, we would often find him backing in between our feet and settling in while we sat and read or watched TV. But we could always get him aroused by the offer of dog biscuits, which were somehow like canine cocaine to him.

Slowly, as he turned fifteen, the long walks became a bit shorter, somewhat slower. But the sweet personality persisted, the joy of life remained, playing with his toys and begging for “cookies.”

Then, at sixteen, he began a more pronounced decline, sleeping most of the day away. Walks were still enjoyable, sniffing the smells of other dogs (we thought of this as him reading a doggy newspaper), but we no longer ventured into the woods. He could no longer negotiate stairs, so we carried him outside to do his business. We began to mentally prepare ourselves.

His typical strong appetite declined; he became quite picky. But we experimented and found some foods that he would eat.  Finally, within six weeks of his seventeenth birthday, a rapid change. He stopped eating and drinking, had trouble walking, seemed to be in a daze.

And then the signs of pain – whimpering, tense muscles. Was it time to help ease him out of this life which was no longer pleasant for him? Were we selfish in hanging on, hoping that it was transient and that he might improve?

But finally, we knew. It was time to let him go.

Yogi was our millennial dog, born at the turn of the century, and was a wonderful part of our lives for nearly seventeen years. The house is silent without him. No tinkling of dog tags on his collar. No clicking of toenails on the tile floor. No warm greeting at the door. It is an empty feeling. But at the same time, floods of warm memories and giving of thanks for him having somehow chosen us as his parents.

After some time to grieve, and to honor his memory, it is quite likely that another Schipperke pup will take up residence with us. The huge emptiness will recede, and a new love will ignite. That’s life with these wonderful little creatures, where the pain of their passing is more than compensated by the joy of their companionship.

Thank you Yogi. Your life was a blessing.

Is Math a Myth?

There are those who are calling for scaling back mathematics education. One “public intellectual” (whatever that is), Andrew Hacker, has even written a book on the subject: “The Math Myth.”  Hacker loves to use words like “inflict” rather than “teach,” and wonders why we torture young Americans with math education in these days of computers and smart phones. (More on Hacker later).

Here is one reason. Mathematics is the science of reasoning. You might think that of little use, but you must use reasoning to weed out the arguments of political hacks and charlatans every election season. Here is an example.

On November 2, many newspapers ran a political cartoon by Jim Morin of the Miami Herald. The target of Morin’s partisan jibe was those who are concerned about the increasing expense of “Obamacare” premiums.

In the cartoon, a large, rotund loutish fellow, labeled “Health Insurance,” holds the message  “George W. Bush Years (up) 100%.” Next to him is a small, rotund fellow with the message “Obamacare (up) 25%.” Finally, a frenzied character, apparently Republican, is shouting “OH NO, WE NEED TO REPEAL IT!”

Here is Morin’s reasoning:

• Health insurance premiums increased 100% over the Bush years,
• Obamacare premiums are projected to increase only 25%,
• Therefore those concerned about Obamacare increases are hyperpartisan, hysterical idiots.

But, in truth, Morin is either preying on your mathematical ignorance or is a mathematical ignoramus himself. Neither interpretation is flattering.

Over the eight years of the Bush presidency, health insurance premiums did indeed increase about 100%. However, Obamacare premiums are projected to increase 25% this year alone. These two numbers can’t be directly compared because they occur over two very different timeframes.

It’s like saying that Sally made 25 dollars this year and Joe made 100 dollars altogether over the past eight years and then claiming that Joe makes a lot more money than Sally. If we annualize those earnings, Sally makes $25 per year while Joe makes only $12.50 per year ($100 divided by eight).

To compare the two health insurance rates of increase, we must find a common time scale. With a few simple calculations, we find that health insurance premiums increased approximately 9% per year over the eight Bush years. In fact, the Obamacare increase is nearly three times that of Bush on an annualized basis. Morin’s thesis is bankrupt.

Back to Andrew Hacker, who believes that your children are wasting their time in mathematical training. Let’s see how that works in reality.

In late August of this year, Hacker was interviewed on the weekly NPR show “Science Friday.” A political scientist by trade, Hacker is teaching a course called “Numeracy 101” at Queens College which is intended to impart a minimal, but adequate, amount of mathematical training. As a practical exercise, working with his students, Hacker calculated the answer to this question: “What is the ratio of black people killed by police as opposed to white people?”

Hacker breathlessly announced their findings: ” We’re the only ones who’ve discovered it. It’s a public statistic. For every 100 people killed by police, white people, 270 black people are killed. OK?”

Here is mathematical dilettante Hacker crunching numbers to support his liberal belief in racist police officers who kill 2.7 black people for every white person. The NPR audience, surely, ate it up.

But the truth may be a hard master. The Washington Post has been maintaining a database of police shooting statistics for several years based on “public information, news reports, and social media.” They believe it to be not perfect, but quite representative.

In 2015, the Post reports that 494 whites were killed by police. Applying the Hacker ratio, we would expect that 1,334 blacks would have been killed. But such is not the case. The WaPo reported 257 black deaths, a regrettable number, but an order of magnitude less than Hacker’s claim.

In this day and age, it is vital that citizens and voters attain and maintain a modicum of mathematical literacy. It is required to detect and debunk the claims of those aiming to sway you. These claims will be many, and you must question them if they don’t pass the smell test.

We may yet regret our collective decision refusing to expand charter schools. Match Charter in Boston, for example, serving inner city kids, delivered the astounding result of 97% of 10^th graders proficient or advanced in math, compared to 54% of district students.

We need more of that, not less.

Classical Liberalism as a Voting Guide

Classical liberalism, as espoused by John Locke, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill, was based on the concepts of individualism, liberty, and equal rights. Our Declaration of Independence was conceived upon those same values. This was heady stuff and freed uncounted millions from under the heavy boots of dukes and kings.

It wasn’t until many years later that liberalism became associated with statism, that is, using the power of the state to regulate the affairs of her citizens. A more topsy-turvy reversal could not be imagined.

The upcoming election, only five days hence, offers some befuddling choices. Let’s take a look at it through the lens of classical liberalism, the very values upon which our country was founded.

Massachusetts ballot question one, expanded slot-machine gaming, is an easy start. Who are you to tell your neighbor that she can’t start a slot-machine business? Or order her potential customers to not gamble in any case? How Stalinist, Hitlerian. You have the free choice of not gambling nor supporting such an enterprise, but what business is it of yours to order others not to do so?

Now you’re beginning to get the hang of classical liberalism.

On to question two, charter school expansion. Public charter schools are subject to long waiting lists of parents anxious to get their children into them. Are they all deluded? Do they breathe noxious fumes? Nay, they anticipate a better outcome for dear Billy Joe than if he were to attend a district school. We need not question that belief, only recognize that it exists. Who are you to tell Billy that he can’t attend the school of his choice?

Competition is the natural adjudicator of such contests. If district schools demonstrate better results, then the charters will wither. Let this process play itself out.

Question three, conditions for farm animals, has many weepy supporters who seem fixated on feces. But perhaps, instead of mandating husbandry standards from folks who don’t even know what husbandry is, we take a different tack. The question, perhaps, should ask farm producers to report the conditions under which their animals were husbanded. This information would follow the animal products to the supermarkets, and shoppers could make their choices based on their family budget vs. highly held principles.

Another clear “no” for the classical liberal. You are getting the idea now.

And then there is question four, the legalization, regulation, and taxation of marijuana. This question is a bit more complex, and the classical liberal would vote “yes, but…”

The “yes” is clearly based on liberal principles – the freedom of the individual to choose. However the “but” is related to unintended consequences that would arise therefrom.  Human nature being what it is, once marijuana is legalized, the drug cartels will find some other way to make money. In January 2015, the Washington Post published a report entitled “Losing marijuana business, Mexican cartels push heroin and meth.” These guys aren’t stupid, and finding that marijuana was no longer profitable, they simply shifted to other drugs.

So the classical liberal would vote yes on question four, but would ask that we prepare for a flood of replacement illegal drugs. Perhaps the long term fix is to legalize them as well, a kind-of Swiss model.

And then finally to the presidential election.

What a farce. The Democratic candidate is a grifter, grown enormously wealthy through “public service.” The Republican candidate is a complete whack-a-doodle, adolescent, emotionally volatile.

What is a classical liberal to do?

First let’s recognize the growth of the regulatory state over the last fifty years. The inertia of the FRB, FDA, FCC, FDA, EPA, FTC, NLRB, OSHA, and SEC will be scarcely influenced by whomever wins the next election. It is a sad fact that the bureaucratic, unelected mass of the federal regulatory apparatus is little affected by whoever is president.

But we do need to recognize the importance of Supreme Court nominations. The court can reinterpret our constitution at will, and, as classical liberals, we would hope that that interpretation would favor individualism, liberty, and equal rights.

In the end, our choice as classical liberals must be to defend the rights of the individual citizen. Take a big gulp, cross yourselves, and vote for Mr. Trump.

God knows we have the best intentions at heart.  Fingers crossed.