Monday, January 30, 2012
NH Mental Health Lawsuit
I suspect that professionally, as I work for the mental
health system of the State of NH, I am not allowed to have a public opinion on
certain aspects of the the Department of Justice bringing suit against us. Which is fine, as I have mixed opinions
anyway, and don’t have enough real information to comment on most of it. The standard hopefulness is that this might
be a good thing from the POV of funding, as it took lawsuits to close Laconia
State School (for the developmentlly disabled) and improve prison conditions,
both decades ago. That’s just how the
system works, that reasoning goes. It
could be. I don’t know if there are
important differences or not. I am also, and always, suspicious of any group
that claims to have only the best interest of patients at heart. Whatever side of the argument, I’m not buying
that, and I find it offensive for people to even say that out loud.
But you know me and reasoning – it bothers me when someone
makes a bad argument, even if it’s for a good cause. So I will just highlight, in intentionally
imprecise manner, a line of argument that keeps making the papers but I think
obscures some important information. Numbers are being put forward that
readmission to the state hospital is higher in NH than in other states, and
this is considered evidence that the community mental health centers aren’t
doing their jobs.
Well of course it’s higher.
We have a condidtional discharge law that no other state in the union
has, which allows us to readmit some patients (who have been through a special
probate court proceeding) before they have decompensated. They might be brought back if they have
stopped medication or stop going to appointments, for example. The idea is to prevent a longer
hospitalization by nipping it in the bud.
I don’t know if that difference in the law fully explains the difference
between NH admission rates and national averages or not. I could probably get the data and work it
out, but I doubt I could release it publicly.
That’s for the state’s lawyers to do anyway. I also don’t know if the statute actually
does what it is designed to do, avoiding long-term stays by having a low bar
for shorter ones. Again, I could
probably find that out but not tell you.
Just be alert for apples-to-oranges comparisons on
this. This is also an area where I
wonder if the adversarial system at law is the best, with one side’s attorneys
making things look as good as possible, obscuring the need for improvement, while
the other side makes things look as bad as possible, obscuring important
explanations. And playing it out in the
newspapers, the political game being seen as important as the legal one.
Note on Wayfinding
I left the autumn discussion on Wayfinding unresolved as to whether full overhead mapping was at all hardwired or merely a recent variant of sense of direction (as opposed to landmark navigation.) I had felt strongly there must be something of a heritable spatial ability, but the evidence for it was elusive. Dead reckoning seemed to have more experimental evidence behind it. Jennings makes several references in Maphead to navigating as if from above eye level, but not looking down at a flat 90 degrees as on a map.
Something between 10 and 30 degrees seems to come automatically to some folks when picturing medium-distance navigation, rather like an actual bird’s-eye view, elevated but looking forward, rather than what we usually call a bird’s-eye view. I don’t know of any research on it, but it seems likely. It would be the view one would have from a mountain or rise of land, or even from climbing a tree. Extrapolating that to picturing an area in one’s head, even things which could not actually be seen from any earthly point, seems entirely plausible. A slight angle of elevation would be more closely related to dead reckoning and compass orientation, but once the concept of getting off the ground was in place, once that seal was broken, exagerrating it to full 90 degree overhead doesn’t seem so odd.
Something between 10 and 30 degrees seems to come automatically to some folks when picturing medium-distance navigation, rather like an actual bird’s-eye view, elevated but looking forward, rather than what we usually call a bird’s-eye view. I don’t know of any research on it, but it seems likely. It would be the view one would have from a mountain or rise of land, or even from climbing a tree. Extrapolating that to picturing an area in one’s head, even things which could not actually be seen from any earthly point, seems entirely plausible. A slight angle of elevation would be more closely related to dead reckoning and compass orientation, but once the concept of getting off the ground was in place, once that seal was broken, exagerrating it to full 90 degree overhead doesn’t seem so odd.
Fondness For Maps
The Muensterberger theory got me thinking. I don’t know if the association he notes would hold up under scrutiny, but it at least makes some intuitive sense and becomes worthy of subjective comment.
I learned something new about maps and myself when I first went to Romania – how much I valued, and indeed depended on, knowing where I am in space. We would go out every morning to one village or another for medical clinic and return late, and I would try to keep intuitive sense of how far we had traveled and in what direction. The only map I had was rather pathetic, small-scale, showing few towns or roads. I sought better maps on market day, but encountered an even larger problem. This was 1998, and most maps were still based on communist-era data and unreliable. Roads, even paved roads, would be marked where no roads existed, because they were proposed, and should be there. Towns would be unrecorded because they were scheduled to be emptied to relocate people (gypsies, usually). Text size was only whimsically related to population because a) population was often secret and/or highly approximate, and b) importance is an elastic concept under communism. All this in addition to unfamiliar spelling and pronunciation, so that “We are going to shtay” actually meant Ştei, a small city to the SE. We would go somewhere and come back, and I would be unable to discover where we had been, even though it was in a 50-kilometer* radius and I had name, direction, travel time, and landmarks. It was powerfully uncomfortable for me. I might go somewhere and not be able to navigate myself out. Relatedly, I was conscious that I could in no way drive to my family, no matter how much time and effort I put in. I would have to go up in a plane (and thus at someone else’s mercy and under their control) at some point. I had been aware of this can’t-drive-home feeling on previous trips abroad, but I was in each instance with my family, solving the major dislocation and fear. Even after returning to the states I kept looking for reliable maps of Transilvania, hoping to find a town just off the E60, maybe near Tileagd that I could point to and say there!
A second map fasination is wondering where the roads used to be. Was this always the route from Brown’s Corner or was there another, now disused? Did that barred lane used to be important, or just a short jaunt for the farmer to a back field? This in turn is part of further history – was this area field or forest? Did the Pennacooks use this spot much? Rather like Schliemann and the seven levels of Troy. Included in that is the streamlining of routes, cutting off windings and corners. I once did a road rally puzzle based on an obsolete map of Bedford, with locations glaringly marked, but on roads that had moved a bit or were no longer approached in the same way. I wonder these things with historical maps as well. My boys came from around Marghita, which would be about there on this map of 15th C Transilvania. Does the blood of that invading tribe run in their veins, then? Karrde mentioned something similar in the previous comments.
*At the end of two weeks I naturally thought of Romanian distances in km rather than converting them to miles. For Bihor County, I still do, but everything else I have to switch back and forth.
I learned something new about maps and myself when I first went to Romania – how much I valued, and indeed depended on, knowing where I am in space. We would go out every morning to one village or another for medical clinic and return late, and I would try to keep intuitive sense of how far we had traveled and in what direction. The only map I had was rather pathetic, small-scale, showing few towns or roads. I sought better maps on market day, but encountered an even larger problem. This was 1998, and most maps were still based on communist-era data and unreliable. Roads, even paved roads, would be marked where no roads existed, because they were proposed, and should be there. Towns would be unrecorded because they were scheduled to be emptied to relocate people (gypsies, usually). Text size was only whimsically related to population because a) population was often secret and/or highly approximate, and b) importance is an elastic concept under communism. All this in addition to unfamiliar spelling and pronunciation, so that “We are going to shtay” actually meant Ştei, a small city to the SE. We would go somewhere and come back, and I would be unable to discover where we had been, even though it was in a 50-kilometer* radius and I had name, direction, travel time, and landmarks. It was powerfully uncomfortable for me. I might go somewhere and not be able to navigate myself out. Relatedly, I was conscious that I could in no way drive to my family, no matter how much time and effort I put in. I would have to go up in a plane (and thus at someone else’s mercy and under their control) at some point. I had been aware of this can’t-drive-home feeling on previous trips abroad, but I was in each instance with my family, solving the major dislocation and fear. Even after returning to the states I kept looking for reliable maps of Transilvania, hoping to find a town just off the E60, maybe near Tileagd that I could point to and say there!
A second map fasination is wondering where the roads used to be. Was this always the route from Brown’s Corner or was there another, now disused? Did that barred lane used to be important, or just a short jaunt for the farmer to a back field? This in turn is part of further history – was this area field or forest? Did the Pennacooks use this spot much? Rather like Schliemann and the seven levels of Troy. Included in that is the streamlining of routes, cutting off windings and corners. I once did a road rally puzzle based on an obsolete map of Bedford, with locations glaringly marked, but on roads that had moved a bit or were no longer approached in the same way. I wonder these things with historical maps as well. My boys came from around Marghita, which would be about there on this map of 15th C Transilvania. Does the blood of that invading tribe run in their veins, then? Karrde mentioned something similar in the previous comments.
*At the end of two weeks I naturally thought of Romanian distances in km rather than converting them to miles. For Bihor County, I still do, but everything else I have to switch back and forth.
Same-Sex Marriage
There is a conflict of values for Americans on this issue. On the one hand, we want things to be fair and equal for everyone, at least at law. We have bound ourselves to a constitution under which we may not agree with what someone does, but “people have a right to do what they have a right to do,” a tautology that actually does have meaning in an American context, because in most places it isn’t true.
OTOH, every culture gets to define marriage – that’s Social Anthropology 101 – and Americans tend to believe that our culture has been part of our success, and don’t like to mess with it unnecessarily. At the loudest places of argument, in fact, we could break the conflict into those two groups, those who believe we have a great culture, dammit, and you’re trying to screw it up versus those who believe we have a deeply flawed culture which we’re determined to fix.
That said; let’s look at two basic facts about the conduct of the discussion. Gay marriage was not even on the radar 20 years ago. Ten years ago, it was still considered a radical idea even among most liberals, and five years ago, was considered too hot to touch publicly even by liberal Democratic politicians. Because, you may note, their black, ethnic Catholic, and trade union constituents were still (and largely are still) opposed to it. For those already formulating their argument against my little rant here, you must at least cast your mind back to 1992 and the candidacy of Bill Clinton. Thousands were dying of AIDS, and research funding took up most of the energy of gay advocacy. Civil unions were not a topic of discussion, let alone gay marriage. Not so very long ago.
Secondly, the history of every tribe and race until very recently is that marriage was between males and females. The main difference was whether multiple wives were allowed. Bending of historical and anthropological data in select times and places to suggest that some same-sex relationships that sometimes had cultural sanction could therefore be described as marriage is just stretching the truth beyond what it can bear. It ain’t so. Similarly, comparing the forbidding of same-sex marriage to the forbidding of inter-racial marriage is also not accurate. Many cultures discourage or even forbid marriage to members of other groups, and the penalties can be ostracism, exile, symbolic death, or even actual death. This includes the period in the American South when some localities, some of the time, had laws against what they called “miscegenation.” But in no instance I know, and certainly not in any American context, was it ever stated that such marriages were a fiction. They were possible but forbidden, like murder or theft, not impossible at their root, like flying or breathing water. Some, at least, of those opposed to SSM are so on the basis of its impossibility, not its distastefulness to them. They believe the thing does not occur, no matter what the laws of the nation say.
These are powerful facts, but they are not necessarily determining facts. That an idea is new may not mean it is wrong, and the fact that all of history is against it doesn’t mean that history is right. Most of history counted men as more valuable than women, or allowed for slavery in some form, and we’ve been pretty comfortable with discarding those. Americans, in fact, have something of a tradition of embracing rights that other cultures don’t. Yet both the newness and universality are important to keep in mind in the current rhetoric of debate. The wrist-to-forehead horror, the eye-rolling and condescension displayed by SSM advocates of how impossibly ignorant and bigoted those yahoos are, in this day and age, to be against gay marriage, is rather astonishing. Over at Tigerhawk, it immediately made one young person think of Matthew Shepard. Because that’s what this being opposed to gay marriage leads to, apparently, murdering gay men in bars. And you social conservatives should be ashamed of yourselves for contributing to murders in that way. Murders like Robert Eric Wone (which I only heard of because of the W&M connection) , lead to no social and political conclusions, whatsoever, apparently. (FRT, I believe neither has much to tell us about social legislation; but if anything, approximately equal.)
So, really? A right which you did not recognise yourself ten years ago and would have considered ridiculous twenty years ago you now consider obvious? And you think it is your opponents who haven’t really thought this through and are reacting tribally? That’s a red flag for me.
I still might be convinced to go along with allowing same-sex marriage, BTW. Civil unions, certainly. It’s not going to involve that many people - the percentage of people who are gay and lesbian is usually inflated, and many of them have no interest in marriage anyway. I think that in America, even if your judgement is absolutely correct that something will cause harm to others, you have to be able to demonstate it conclusively, not merely opine. (Yeah, I know, that’s the exact opposite of what we say about environmental and safety legislation, but that’s liberals for you.) Opponents of SSM are rather hampered in what they might prove, as they have little data to draw from on something so new, but it remains true that they have not submitted good evidence that gay marriage will be damaging, only a lot of co-occurrence and it-stands-to-reason stuff. In America, that’s usually not enough.
OTOH, every culture gets to define marriage – that’s Social Anthropology 101 – and Americans tend to believe that our culture has been part of our success, and don’t like to mess with it unnecessarily. At the loudest places of argument, in fact, we could break the conflict into those two groups, those who believe we have a great culture, dammit, and you’re trying to screw it up versus those who believe we have a deeply flawed culture which we’re determined to fix.
That said; let’s look at two basic facts about the conduct of the discussion. Gay marriage was not even on the radar 20 years ago. Ten years ago, it was still considered a radical idea even among most liberals, and five years ago, was considered too hot to touch publicly even by liberal Democratic politicians. Because, you may note, their black, ethnic Catholic, and trade union constituents were still (and largely are still) opposed to it. For those already formulating their argument against my little rant here, you must at least cast your mind back to 1992 and the candidacy of Bill Clinton. Thousands were dying of AIDS, and research funding took up most of the energy of gay advocacy. Civil unions were not a topic of discussion, let alone gay marriage. Not so very long ago.
Secondly, the history of every tribe and race until very recently is that marriage was between males and females. The main difference was whether multiple wives were allowed. Bending of historical and anthropological data in select times and places to suggest that some same-sex relationships that sometimes had cultural sanction could therefore be described as marriage is just stretching the truth beyond what it can bear. It ain’t so. Similarly, comparing the forbidding of same-sex marriage to the forbidding of inter-racial marriage is also not accurate. Many cultures discourage or even forbid marriage to members of other groups, and the penalties can be ostracism, exile, symbolic death, or even actual death. This includes the period in the American South when some localities, some of the time, had laws against what they called “miscegenation.” But in no instance I know, and certainly not in any American context, was it ever stated that such marriages were a fiction. They were possible but forbidden, like murder or theft, not impossible at their root, like flying or breathing water. Some, at least, of those opposed to SSM are so on the basis of its impossibility, not its distastefulness to them. They believe the thing does not occur, no matter what the laws of the nation say.
These are powerful facts, but they are not necessarily determining facts. That an idea is new may not mean it is wrong, and the fact that all of history is against it doesn’t mean that history is right. Most of history counted men as more valuable than women, or allowed for slavery in some form, and we’ve been pretty comfortable with discarding those. Americans, in fact, have something of a tradition of embracing rights that other cultures don’t. Yet both the newness and universality are important to keep in mind in the current rhetoric of debate. The wrist-to-forehead horror, the eye-rolling and condescension displayed by SSM advocates of how impossibly ignorant and bigoted those yahoos are, in this day and age, to be against gay marriage, is rather astonishing. Over at Tigerhawk, it immediately made one young person think of Matthew Shepard. Because that’s what this being opposed to gay marriage leads to, apparently, murdering gay men in bars. And you social conservatives should be ashamed of yourselves for contributing to murders in that way. Murders like Robert Eric Wone (which I only heard of because of the W&M connection) , lead to no social and political conclusions, whatsoever, apparently. (FRT, I believe neither has much to tell us about social legislation; but if anything, approximately equal.)
So, really? A right which you did not recognise yourself ten years ago and would have considered ridiculous twenty years ago you now consider obvious? And you think it is your opponents who haven’t really thought this through and are reacting tribally? That’s a red flag for me.
I still might be convinced to go along with allowing same-sex marriage, BTW. Civil unions, certainly. It’s not going to involve that many people - the percentage of people who are gay and lesbian is usually inflated, and many of them have no interest in marriage anyway. I think that in America, even if your judgement is absolutely correct that something will cause harm to others, you have to be able to demonstate it conclusively, not merely opine. (Yeah, I know, that’s the exact opposite of what we say about environmental and safety legislation, but that’s liberals for you.) Opponents of SSM are rather hampered in what they might prove, as they have little data to draw from on something so new, but it remains true that they have not submitted good evidence that gay marriage will be damaging, only a lot of co-occurrence and it-stands-to-reason stuff. In America, that’s usually not enough.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Around The Clock
The 4 and 5AM songs that were available didn't thrill me much. I'm pretty sure I'm not going to be too strict about going precisely around the clock, because there are plenty of songs I don't like.
Even this one is sort of meh.
Even this one is sort of meh.
3:34 (or 3:35) AM
I was never a big Chicago fan, but band friends were thrilled that brass had made it big in Rock 'n Roll, and they were needed to perform these songs right. Few bands had brass players who could manage this, so they had a short run of being much in demand. "Blood, Sweat, and Tears" and "Earth, Wind, and Fire*" songs were also done by those bands.
For years I missed what the reference was to in the song title, and found it merely puzzling. "Waiting for the break of day" was apparently not enough of a clue for me. It was an age of overinterpreting songs to find drug, political, or religious meanings in them, while neglecting the obvious in mildly poetic language.
*What fun those two groups would have been in concert, eh? "Blood, Earth, Tears, Fire, Wind, and Sweat." Or something.
For years I missed what the reference was to in the song title, and found it merely puzzling. "Waiting for the break of day" was apparently not enough of a clue for me. It was an age of overinterpreting songs to find drug, political, or religious meanings in them, while neglecting the obvious in mildly poetic language.
*What fun those two groups would have been in concert, eh? "Blood, Earth, Tears, Fire, Wind, and Sweat." Or something.
Love of Maps
Werner Muensterberger, a psychiatrist who wrote about collecting and collectors, noticed that those fascinated by maps often came from broken homes or moved around a great deal as children. It makes an intuitive sense, that such children would be attracted to the stable world that maps seem to present. I love maps, I came from a broken home, and while we did not move around much, I did go to three separate first grades (three houses, three towns, three states) in the year of my parents' divorce. For this purpose, it is important to note that the pleasure I get from maps feels very much like what is described.
I learned about this observation from Ken Jennings' (all-time Jeopardy! champ guy. You've heard of him) book Maphead, which covers many things map-related, and covers them well: geography bees, geocaching, history of maps, wayfinding. Recommended.
I learned about this observation from Ken Jennings' (all-time Jeopardy! champ guy. You've heard of him) book Maphead, which covers many things map-related, and covers them well: geography bees, geocaching, history of maps, wayfinding. Recommended.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Creating Space
An excuse to create space for Retriever, who has to avoid her own blog because it's being watched by family who don't want to see anything negative about themselves going public. Creating space is a soccer concept - perhaps other flowing team sports as well. I'm not sure that's the exact image I want. Potempkin Post didn't seem quite right, though.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Tim Thomas
I thought he should have gone to the White House ceremony. I likely share some political views with him, but I don't think it's a particularly effective protest. Just irritating people and bad feeling all around.
Sports radio hasn't been brilliant on the subject, with some thorough misunderstandings and some fairly bigoted generalisations. But at least it's an appropriate topic for them.
Then, I thought Cam Neeley handled it badly after when interviewed live. He clearly only half gets what protest, free speech, and individual versus corporate expression is. Well, he's Canadian - they do free speech just a bit differently up there.
But most inappropriate of all was the Governor of Massachusetts weighing in. Absolutely an intrusion. None of his damn business. His opinion should be irrelevant. Massachusetts is heavily Democratic, the governor is a Democrat, and perhaps he felt he needed to make sure that everyone knew that dissing Obama - which is what everyone's impression is in Mass, because they are rather clueless - isn't cool with the people here. As a political move for him, it probably works. And because a lot of folks in Mass agree with his politics, they'll agree with him, not getting the underlying principle.
But Deval Patrick should in no way be making any pronouncements on this subject.
Sports radio hasn't been brilliant on the subject, with some thorough misunderstandings and some fairly bigoted generalisations. But at least it's an appropriate topic for them.
Then, I thought Cam Neeley handled it badly after when interviewed live. He clearly only half gets what protest, free speech, and individual versus corporate expression is. Well, he's Canadian - they do free speech just a bit differently up there.
But most inappropriate of all was the Governor of Massachusetts weighing in. Absolutely an intrusion. None of his damn business. His opinion should be irrelevant. Massachusetts is heavily Democratic, the governor is a Democrat, and perhaps he felt he needed to make sure that everyone knew that dissing Obama - which is what everyone's impression is in Mass, because they are rather clueless - isn't cool with the people here. As a political move for him, it probably works. And because a lot of folks in Mass agree with his politics, they'll agree with him, not getting the underlying principle.
But Deval Patrick should in no way be making any pronouncements on this subject.
Elite Empathy For The Ruled
Ilya Somin at Volokh Conspiracy has some discussion about Charles Murray's quiz for elites, whether they understand and empathise with the middle and lower classes whose lives they rule in a general sense. Somin has several objections to the quiz and the concept.
I think Ilya has it right here. It is pretty clear what Murray is driving at. We do sense that it is better that the elites of a society understand the lives of the non-elites. Yet I agree that Murray has not captured it, nor is it an easily-defined quality. There are rulers who have great understanding of the lives of the great mass of their subjects – Ceausescu was a cobbler, I believe – yet are horrible; there are pure aristocrats with little identification with the proles who are nonetheless excellent rulers. Victoria, perhaps. Or Churchill. The common touch, valued everywhere but nowhere so much as in America, is an advantage but not strictly necessary. I don’t think the questions tell us much. Perhaps in aggregate they begin to point to something real.
Also, we are not quite clear what this quality is that we should hope for, but only a theory as to how it is acquired. If it is empathy we seek, should we not simply say so? Are we perhaps describing the impression that the lower and middle class have that an upper-class person does understand them? We would then want to measure something in their heads, not in the elites. Pollster questions sometimes ask: On a scale of 1-5, how much do you think the following candidates understand people like you? John Kerry was accused of being aloof and remote, raised in upper echelons and private schools and unable to identify with most Americans. Even his hunting – one of the things politicians do to show they are men of the people – was of the gentlemen’s club sort that has nearly vanished. But Kerry may have understood the perspective of the little guy just fine, I don’t know. He played hockey, which is in some areas a blue-collar endeavor and in others a rich kid’s sport. Impressions.
Is everyone who worked a few summers in a mill able to identify with the less well-off forty years later? Many of the New England well-off have experience sailing, climbing around in the White Mountains and living rather primitively for stretches, fishing in hard-to-get-to areas. Tragedies or medical conditions are great levelers.
In making such cultural divisions, we often find we aren't talking about anything very clearly. Folk music is on one side and country music on the other, except for bluegrass. And maybe classic country music, like Les Paul, and okay, Willie Nelson, and gee, what about Johnny Cash and Emmylou Harris, and, okay, I have no I idea what I'm talking about...
I think Ilya has it right here. It is pretty clear what Murray is driving at. We do sense that it is better that the elites of a society understand the lives of the non-elites. Yet I agree that Murray has not captured it, nor is it an easily-defined quality. There are rulers who have great understanding of the lives of the great mass of their subjects – Ceausescu was a cobbler, I believe – yet are horrible; there are pure aristocrats with little identification with the proles who are nonetheless excellent rulers. Victoria, perhaps. Or Churchill. The common touch, valued everywhere but nowhere so much as in America, is an advantage but not strictly necessary. I don’t think the questions tell us much. Perhaps in aggregate they begin to point to something real.
Also, we are not quite clear what this quality is that we should hope for, but only a theory as to how it is acquired. If it is empathy we seek, should we not simply say so? Are we perhaps describing the impression that the lower and middle class have that an upper-class person does understand them? We would then want to measure something in their heads, not in the elites. Pollster questions sometimes ask: On a scale of 1-5, how much do you think the following candidates understand people like you? John Kerry was accused of being aloof and remote, raised in upper echelons and private schools and unable to identify with most Americans. Even his hunting – one of the things politicians do to show they are men of the people – was of the gentlemen’s club sort that has nearly vanished. But Kerry may have understood the perspective of the little guy just fine, I don’t know. He played hockey, which is in some areas a blue-collar endeavor and in others a rich kid’s sport. Impressions.
Is everyone who worked a few summers in a mill able to identify with the less well-off forty years later? Many of the New England well-off have experience sailing, climbing around in the White Mountains and living rather primitively for stretches, fishing in hard-to-get-to areas. Tragedies or medical conditions are great levelers.
In making such cultural divisions, we often find we aren't talking about anything very clearly. Folk music is on one side and country music on the other, except for bluegrass. And maybe classic country music, like Les Paul, and okay, Willie Nelson, and gee, what about Johnny Cash and Emmylou Harris, and, okay, I have no I idea what I'm talking about...
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Purists
It's hard not to admire purists, if they are on your side, and sometimes even if they aren't. They appeal to first principles, they try to imagine long trajectories of human behavior, to choose wisely the precise word today that will bear fruit many tomorrows from now.
Today I read someone who really hoped we could get back to being a republic, and phrases like "principles of limited government" or "derived directly from the Constitution" have been popping up in conservative circles the last few decades. The liberals have their own purist rhetoric - I'll pick on them some other day.
I can't object to these ideas. I agree that we need to stick to them as closely as we can, teach them to our children when we rise up and when we lie down and all that. But there's an important hip-check of reality we need to keep in mind. It's not ever going to happen, not very much. At most, we can yank the needle backward or forward a few ticks. Great forces, not especially under government control, and under control of one group or another only temporarily, are going to move the barge, not Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich with a paddle, even if they are intent, and pure, and radical. I mention Kucinich as a reminder to conservatives not to despair. The other side has the same problem. I think Obama is a milk-and-water socialist by the standards of Europe's last generation, which is still way too much for me. But even if he were a flat out Trotskyite and could get a bunch of similar guys elected with him, he's not going to change things much. He can't, no matter how badly he wants to. It's 300,000,000 people, with a thousand major industries and a million small ones, interacting in a world economy of 6 billion - a number which is essentially meaningless to all of us.
I'm not just being cynical here. It is the nature of governance and power. How did our Founding Fathers create such a remarkable document designing a government according to first principles, far-seeing, wise? Because for the most part, they weren't governing at the time. They were given a space for wisdom and abstract principle and justice-in-theory, unrelated to immediate boundary disputes, or need to regulate shipyard repair costs, or tariffs on dried fish. That will not occur again. The closest we came to ever again rethinking great principles about how we govern ourselves was the Civil War, then more mildly and gradually in the World Wars and Great Depression.
It's not going to happen. Now that we know that, now that we accept the point that changes from here on in will be gradual, unless some catastrophic events allow a brief radicalism - - - what do we do with this? Once we abandon the fantasies of what they really, really should do down in Washington, what do we do?
Today I read someone who really hoped we could get back to being a republic, and phrases like "principles of limited government" or "derived directly from the Constitution" have been popping up in conservative circles the last few decades. The liberals have their own purist rhetoric - I'll pick on them some other day.
I can't object to these ideas. I agree that we need to stick to them as closely as we can, teach them to our children when we rise up and when we lie down and all that. But there's an important hip-check of reality we need to keep in mind. It's not ever going to happen, not very much. At most, we can yank the needle backward or forward a few ticks. Great forces, not especially under government control, and under control of one group or another only temporarily, are going to move the barge, not Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich with a paddle, even if they are intent, and pure, and radical. I mention Kucinich as a reminder to conservatives not to despair. The other side has the same problem. I think Obama is a milk-and-water socialist by the standards of Europe's last generation, which is still way too much for me. But even if he were a flat out Trotskyite and could get a bunch of similar guys elected with him, he's not going to change things much. He can't, no matter how badly he wants to. It's 300,000,000 people, with a thousand major industries and a million small ones, interacting in a world economy of 6 billion - a number which is essentially meaningless to all of us.
I'm not just being cynical here. It is the nature of governance and power. How did our Founding Fathers create such a remarkable document designing a government according to first principles, far-seeing, wise? Because for the most part, they weren't governing at the time. They were given a space for wisdom and abstract principle and justice-in-theory, unrelated to immediate boundary disputes, or need to regulate shipyard repair costs, or tariffs on dried fish. That will not occur again. The closest we came to ever again rethinking great principles about how we govern ourselves was the Civil War, then more mildly and gradually in the World Wars and Great Depression.
It's not going to happen. Now that we know that, now that we accept the point that changes from here on in will be gradual, unless some catastrophic events allow a brief radicalism - - - what do we do with this? Once we abandon the fantasies of what they really, really should do down in Washington, what do we do?
The Future Of Us All
There has been a fair bit of discussion on Adam Davidson‘s Atlantic article on manufacturing employment, and on David Brook’s related comments. There are a few problems with both: Brooks still reads some things wrongly, and the examples don’t quite fit what Adam wants them to say. *
Nonetheless, let’s say for the moment that they are essentially on point. We will continue to have manufacturing jobs, some of them good ones, but they will continue to decrease in number. Of those that remain, there will be downward pressure on wages. Where will jobs for people – American Dream type jobs – come from?
Megan McArdle’s and Charles Murray’s recent essays bear on this topic as well. (In fact, McArdle touches on a lot of interesting apects of this – teen jobs, where folks will live, what services we can afford, and Murray’s got a new book covering the waterfront on this ) It has become commonplace for sociologists and economists to note that two-parent families have become less necessary over the last few decades. They describe different reasons for this: increased safety net, women in the workplace, less stigma. As it becomes increasingly clear that the success-track has a higher concentration of two parent families, should we start reverting to our old claim that two parents are necessary? What do we do with those folks who didn’t get the memo? If delaying gratification becomes the A-1 necessary virtue for a decent life in America, how do we teach that?
If you are a conservative, what the hell do you do about this?
If you are a liberal, what the hell do you do about this?
Repeat for Christian, libertarian, carpenter, humanist, parent, atheist, school superintendent…welcome to a new age of conflicting roles.
Add these pieces together and project them forward: What if there are only decent full-time jobs for 50% of the people who want to work a generation from now, with the rest having part-time or intermittent employment – or none at all – a generation from now? What if only 50% of the population is qualified to fill the jobs? Remember that there is still a lot of talent in that 50%. They can drive cars, make jokes, play an instrument, read a report, build a shed, care for a child, bake bread, play cards, or grow flowers. They just can’t do so at an exceptional enough level to get paid for it. So far, we have been able to switch over to value-added goods and services over the last 100 years. Specialty foods, decoration, entertainment, enhancement, all manner of spas and self-improvers and craftspersons. How far can that be stretched?
Perhaps it can go on forever. Perhaps a hundred years from now when a permanent cheap energy source fuels the food, clothing, and shelter machines without much attention we can all just entertain each other all day, with the very few at any given moment raking in the dough because their specialty is popular this year, but many having a shot at their day in the sun at some point in their lives. How the human spirit deals with such a social order I don’t know. Science fiction writers sometimes take a stab at imagining that. The Moon Moth, and The Marching Morons provide contrasting visions. Douglas Adams has a go at it as well, but with more humorous results.
Yet why should it go on forever? What if it doesn’t work? Let’s look at some complicating problems.
They can all still vote.
All groups will have special needs kids, or will contract unusual diseases, or get hit by drunk drivers – but the bottom 50% are going to have many more, and they will expect equal treatment. This happens with school districts now. We’ve been arguing about that in NH for two decades.
The meritocracy aspect is going to be uneven, perhaps even highly uneven. Of the 50% who have the good jobs, what if a good chunk of those don’t deserve them, but got them via affirmative action, good old-fashioned nepotism and connection, corruption, or dishonest charm? The capable among the other 50% are going to be significantly resentful.
If the economy does adapt in a value-added direction, Non-Asian Minorities may do just fine. If personal energy, charm, creativity, adaptability, and service all do come to count for more and more relative to g-factor, that’s one less ground for social unrest. There might not be much racial difference in those qualities. But if current trends continue, NAM’s are going to be significantly overrepresented.
*The seeming unfairness of Maddie’s plight is highlighted by her claim, seemingly supported by the data and the opinion of those around her, “I am smaaart.” She graduated with honors, but it is later revealed that she not only doesn’t have calculus, she doesn’t have trigonometry. Those aren’t absolutely necessary for “smart,” but they are usual, and their absence calls for some substitute subject of excellence – a facility with languages, a flair for writing, something. Among the actual smart kids who weren’t especially good at math, they found a way to crawl through Algebra II acceptably even if they were relieved that this was the end of their math careers. Next, she made all sorts of good decisions as a high-schooler, but she did get pregnant early in her senior year by someone who turned out not to be an acceptable husband and father. Now, she feels unable to go to school because of mothering responsibilities, and the article seems to support her idea of the hopelessness of this because she can’t go out in the evening. Well, these days there are online courses, and you can take them one at a time. These types of life decisions are a whole ‘nother kind of smart, but she doesn’t seem to have more than average abilities here, either. She doesn’t seem to be stupid. She seems hardworking, and the description of her is that she is small and cute and charming. Those are excellent qualities, and it would be a shame if we became a country where such folks didn’t have an employable place. But let’s not overdraw unfairness here. There were girls who were a little less pretty, a little less hardworking, a little less socially graceful, who didn’t get pregnant and are now passing her in life, at least for the moment. That’s not a federal problem, a societal problem, to fix. If they all can’t find good jobs, maybe.
Nonetheless, let’s say for the moment that they are essentially on point. We will continue to have manufacturing jobs, some of them good ones, but they will continue to decrease in number. Of those that remain, there will be downward pressure on wages. Where will jobs for people – American Dream type jobs – come from?
Megan McArdle’s and Charles Murray’s recent essays bear on this topic as well. (In fact, McArdle touches on a lot of interesting apects of this – teen jobs, where folks will live, what services we can afford, and Murray’s got a new book covering the waterfront on this ) It has become commonplace for sociologists and economists to note that two-parent families have become less necessary over the last few decades. They describe different reasons for this: increased safety net, women in the workplace, less stigma. As it becomes increasingly clear that the success-track has a higher concentration of two parent families, should we start reverting to our old claim that two parents are necessary? What do we do with those folks who didn’t get the memo? If delaying gratification becomes the A-1 necessary virtue for a decent life in America, how do we teach that?
If you are a conservative, what the hell do you do about this?
If you are a liberal, what the hell do you do about this?
Repeat for Christian, libertarian, carpenter, humanist, parent, atheist, school superintendent…welcome to a new age of conflicting roles.
Add these pieces together and project them forward: What if there are only decent full-time jobs for 50% of the people who want to work a generation from now, with the rest having part-time or intermittent employment – or none at all – a generation from now? What if only 50% of the population is qualified to fill the jobs? Remember that there is still a lot of talent in that 50%. They can drive cars, make jokes, play an instrument, read a report, build a shed, care for a child, bake bread, play cards, or grow flowers. They just can’t do so at an exceptional enough level to get paid for it. So far, we have been able to switch over to value-added goods and services over the last 100 years. Specialty foods, decoration, entertainment, enhancement, all manner of spas and self-improvers and craftspersons. How far can that be stretched?
Perhaps it can go on forever. Perhaps a hundred years from now when a permanent cheap energy source fuels the food, clothing, and shelter machines without much attention we can all just entertain each other all day, with the very few at any given moment raking in the dough because their specialty is popular this year, but many having a shot at their day in the sun at some point in their lives. How the human spirit deals with such a social order I don’t know. Science fiction writers sometimes take a stab at imagining that. The Moon Moth, and The Marching Morons provide contrasting visions. Douglas Adams has a go at it as well, but with more humorous results.
Yet why should it go on forever? What if it doesn’t work? Let’s look at some complicating problems.
They can all still vote.
All groups will have special needs kids, or will contract unusual diseases, or get hit by drunk drivers – but the bottom 50% are going to have many more, and they will expect equal treatment. This happens with school districts now. We’ve been arguing about that in NH for two decades.
The meritocracy aspect is going to be uneven, perhaps even highly uneven. Of the 50% who have the good jobs, what if a good chunk of those don’t deserve them, but got them via affirmative action, good old-fashioned nepotism and connection, corruption, or dishonest charm? The capable among the other 50% are going to be significantly resentful.
If the economy does adapt in a value-added direction, Non-Asian Minorities may do just fine. If personal energy, charm, creativity, adaptability, and service all do come to count for more and more relative to g-factor, that’s one less ground for social unrest. There might not be much racial difference in those qualities. But if current trends continue, NAM’s are going to be significantly overrepresented.
*The seeming unfairness of Maddie’s plight is highlighted by her claim, seemingly supported by the data and the opinion of those around her, “I am smaaart.” She graduated with honors, but it is later revealed that she not only doesn’t have calculus, she doesn’t have trigonometry. Those aren’t absolutely necessary for “smart,” but they are usual, and their absence calls for some substitute subject of excellence – a facility with languages, a flair for writing, something. Among the actual smart kids who weren’t especially good at math, they found a way to crawl through Algebra II acceptably even if they were relieved that this was the end of their math careers. Next, she made all sorts of good decisions as a high-schooler, but she did get pregnant early in her senior year by someone who turned out not to be an acceptable husband and father. Now, she feels unable to go to school because of mothering responsibilities, and the article seems to support her idea of the hopelessness of this because she can’t go out in the evening. Well, these days there are online courses, and you can take them one at a time. These types of life decisions are a whole ‘nother kind of smart, but she doesn’t seem to have more than average abilities here, either. She doesn’t seem to be stupid. She seems hardworking, and the description of her is that she is small and cute and charming. Those are excellent qualities, and it would be a shame if we became a country where such folks didn’t have an employable place. But let’s not overdraw unfairness here. There were girls who were a little less pretty, a little less hardworking, a little less socially graceful, who didn’t get pregnant and are now passing her in life, at least for the moment. That’s not a federal problem, a societal problem, to fix. If they all can’t find good jobs, maybe.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Around The Clock - Walking After Midnight
I noticed that lots of songs center on times of day or night. Let's see if I can go around the clock. I suspect late morning is going to get tough.
And some of the songs I have already found suck, so I won't put them in just to fill a space.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)