It turns out it is more controversial than I thought. A year ago I might have taken the CDC's numbers at face value, but their reputation has taken a hit, to say the least. The link includes how it is that they arrive at those numbers. It all seems reasonable, except...well, it's pretty soft. I can accept that there is a lot of range (29-59K for last year, for example), but this goes beyond even that. A lot of those deaths attributed to influenza are not solid, nailed-down diagnoses. I'm not telling you I've got better ones. There are sites out that that put the number much, much lower, claiming that pneumonias and rhinoviruses are the actual culprits some of the time, and pointing out (technically accurately, but perhaps misleadingly) that few of the deaths meet all criteria of positive influenza test and clear evidence that it was the overwhelming reason for death. As some of those sites seem to have a bias toward selling you some health ideas and programs, I do not link to them, but at least a couple looked legit.
This interests me because a lot of people who are claiming C19 is oversold and not that big a deal are making the same argument about that virus - that people who are dying of something else but also test positive for, or just look like, C19, are being counted as CoVid deaths. I think we have to bring the same amount of suspicion to both numbers. One can't say "it's exaggerated and not worse than the seasonal flu" when the seasonal flu numbers may be exaggerated in much the same way. Upon examination the validity of either set of numbers may change. I'm not trusting much of anyone to get it right at present. But at the outset, I think you if you provisionally accept or reject one you have to do the same for the other.
Saturday, April 18, 2020
Friday, April 17, 2020
Typo
Total C19 deaths for NH are 37, not 374. We did not have 340 new deaths today. I mention this to remind people to be cautious. It's just a typo, which has been repeated in other sources. We'll see what they say tomorrow.
Cassius Clay
Sometimes you watch an early fight of his, and it's amazing that his opponent got in any punches at all.
Archie Moore was no bum, he had been light heavyweight champion for five years. This was, admittedly, late in his career.
Archie Moore was no bum, he had been light heavyweight champion for five years. This was, admittedly, late in his career.
Convinced
Update: I have wondered about long-term effects, and even mentioned them occasionally, but I am also guilty of overlooking the other difficulties, even if you don't die. I had forgotten the neurotoxicity as well.
Most of the sites I frequent include a fair number of people who have concluded we have overreacted to C19 and caused unnecessary damage economically. Several of them, both posters and commenters, no longer engage in much discussing, just keep making the same assertions, regardless of what arguments are offered. As a consequence, I no longer read anything they write. I haven't got the time.
They may be right, of course. Right that we overreacted, that is. They are less likely to be right in blaming the economic problems on that.
I think we still lack enough information to make pronouncements and are all still guessing our way through. The knowledge that both Chinese researchers (who would be tempted to lie in the opposite direction), and the South Koreans (who I think are regarded as reliable) have both found that some who have recovered now show few - even "barely detectable" - antibodies is cause for concern. The South Koreans claim they are also seeing re-infection. That may turn out to be a non-issue. We don't know.
There is evidence than many more people have been exposed and would test positive. Is it a good thing if the population is 40% on its way to saturation? I don't know. Does that mean that an enormous percentage of people who get the virus aren't going to be much bothered? Does it mean there are multiple strains? Does it tell us anything about immunity come autumn?
Update: Then there is this out of Hokkaido, Japan. Please understand, I am not saying that this is about to happen here or will happen at all, only that the information we currently have is uncertain, and likely to remain so for some time. It is the people pushing everyone aside to get up on the dais and proclaim what they are certain is the truth who are increasingly becoming the problem, creating a political pressure that is only loosely tied to reasoning and evidence.
Some of them come perilously close to saying "the risk of deaths is worth it in order to have a good economy and not have government officials telling me what to do, because that really pisses me off." If that is what they mean, then they should actually say that. If that is not what they mean, then they should take more care to make that clear.
I will add, as I have noted before, that there is a lot of energy being expended in to criticising the government parts of the shutdown, as if that were the major, if not the only reason people have lost their jobs and the economy has taken such a heavy blow. It is the virus, not the government that has done that. In some cases one could argue that it is the fear of the virus. I have no objection to that reasoning. But that is still not the government, and yelling at your fellow citizens that they are fools, cowards, and sheep who don't love liberty as much as you do isn't going to have any good effect. Most of the economic damage is not due to the government shutdown. Sports leagues did not shut down because the government told them to. One difficult part of the recovery is going to be disengaging from China, which makes an enormous number of component parts - because it was cheaper and we wanted it that way.
As to what has had the biggest effect in slowing the growth of the illness, I will only note that in discussions of distancing and reduced contact, I don't think the closing of the schools has gotten as much notice as it should. When considering the schools, all the energy is going into the difficulty of teaching and the discussions of when to reopen. It is a long-know fact that a community's schools are one of its primary reservoirs for infectious disease. Oh, I work at a school. I catch everything that goes around. Please note I am not claiming that's the key. I am simply stating that it's a big item that isn't mentioned much. Churches may be a big community spreader as well, but in New England, not so much.
Most of the sites I frequent include a fair number of people who have concluded we have overreacted to C19 and caused unnecessary damage economically. Several of them, both posters and commenters, no longer engage in much discussing, just keep making the same assertions, regardless of what arguments are offered. As a consequence, I no longer read anything they write. I haven't got the time.
They may be right, of course. Right that we overreacted, that is. They are less likely to be right in blaming the economic problems on that.
I think we still lack enough information to make pronouncements and are all still guessing our way through. The knowledge that both Chinese researchers (who would be tempted to lie in the opposite direction), and the South Koreans (who I think are regarded as reliable) have both found that some who have recovered now show few - even "barely detectable" - antibodies is cause for concern. The South Koreans claim they are also seeing re-infection. That may turn out to be a non-issue. We don't know.
There is evidence than many more people have been exposed and would test positive. Is it a good thing if the population is 40% on its way to saturation? I don't know. Does that mean that an enormous percentage of people who get the virus aren't going to be much bothered? Does it mean there are multiple strains? Does it tell us anything about immunity come autumn?
Update: Then there is this out of Hokkaido, Japan. Please understand, I am not saying that this is about to happen here or will happen at all, only that the information we currently have is uncertain, and likely to remain so for some time. It is the people pushing everyone aside to get up on the dais and proclaim what they are certain is the truth who are increasingly becoming the problem, creating a political pressure that is only loosely tied to reasoning and evidence.
Some of them come perilously close to saying "the risk of deaths is worth it in order to have a good economy and not have government officials telling me what to do, because that really pisses me off." If that is what they mean, then they should actually say that. If that is not what they mean, then they should take more care to make that clear.
I will add, as I have noted before, that there is a lot of energy being expended in to criticising the government parts of the shutdown, as if that were the major, if not the only reason people have lost their jobs and the economy has taken such a heavy blow. It is the virus, not the government that has done that. In some cases one could argue that it is the fear of the virus. I have no objection to that reasoning. But that is still not the government, and yelling at your fellow citizens that they are fools, cowards, and sheep who don't love liberty as much as you do isn't going to have any good effect. Most of the economic damage is not due to the government shutdown. Sports leagues did not shut down because the government told them to. One difficult part of the recovery is going to be disengaging from China, which makes an enormous number of component parts - because it was cheaper and we wanted it that way.
As to what has had the biggest effect in slowing the growth of the illness, I will only note that in discussions of distancing and reduced contact, I don't think the closing of the schools has gotten as much notice as it should. When considering the schools, all the energy is going into the difficulty of teaching and the discussions of when to reopen. It is a long-know fact that a community's schools are one of its primary reservoirs for infectious disease. Oh, I work at a school. I catch everything that goes around. Please note I am not claiming that's the key. I am simply stating that it's a big item that isn't mentioned much. Churches may be a big community spreader as well, but in New England, not so much.
Some Previous Posts About Language
Perhaps this belongs in the You Ungrateful Bastards category. When I am searching for something on my own blog, it uncovers other things I wrote that I still like.
Language Myths December 2013
Shall Vs. Will June 2008
The Bearded Pig and His Rights March 2016 Not about language, though. I just liked it.
Pedantic Language Lesson January 2007
Language Change June 2013
Language Change June 2008
Language Myths December 2013
Shall Vs. Will June 2008
The Bearded Pig and His Rights March 2016 Not about language, though. I just liked it.
Pedantic Language Lesson January 2007
Language Change June 2013
Language Change June 2008
Walking in "My Woods" Again
Once the old house is sold, I won't have a driveway near the section of "my woods" that I usually start in, so I elected to hike up there yesterday while I was back in the neighborhood picking up mail and a few last items. Those who have followed this blog a while know that I very painstakingly made a map of the trails in the area, learning along the way that I have little sense of distance and even less of direction. I have been proud of the map, rendering sections in different colors, such as the parcels owned by the Forest Society. I have given copies to a select few.
Fifty yards in, there has been some minor logging done. Just one sweep, but the map is already outdated. There is a path underneath this somewhere. (As before, click to improve)
And a little further on, the path is under here. Or might be, because I may have already gotten muddled and the path be to the right or left of this.
Yet it is only the interruption of a few dozen yards - you can see in the background that the forest resumes presently, and the path has to be in there, just where it used to be, once I pick my way through the felled pines. (They leave the white pines because there's so much of it here. You wouldn't have to go this far into the woods to get some, there's plenty by the side of the road. they only cut them out of the way to get at the hardwoods with the heavy equipment.) Nice new habitat for some creatures. Small ones have new places to hide.
There is a lesson about impermanence in this. As CS Lewis wrote in The Four Loves, "Everything not eternal is eternally out-of-date."
The"prohibited" sign is a longstanding irony. I never see footprints back here, just the very occasional ATV track. There used to be a guy with a fat-tire bicycle and before that, some dirt bike tracks. They do unintentionally clear the trail some for hikers, less than a dozen of us in a year.
This is new.
That stone wall is a boundary, so this deer stand is just at the edge of legality. It's bowhunters almost exclusively in this bit of territory. I keep hearing there's a moose in there as well, but I've never seen it. I'll be more likely to enter from the far side of the forest from here on in, so I don't know when I will be back here. Or what changes there will be, even in an unchanging place.
Fifty yards in, there has been some minor logging done. Just one sweep, but the map is already outdated. There is a path underneath this somewhere. (As before, click to improve)
There is a lesson about impermanence in this. As CS Lewis wrote in The Four Loves, "Everything not eternal is eternally out-of-date."
The"prohibited" sign is a longstanding irony. I never see footprints back here, just the very occasional ATV track. There used to be a guy with a fat-tire bicycle and before that, some dirt bike tracks. They do unintentionally clear the trail some for hikers, less than a dozen of us in a year.
This is new.
Thursday, April 16, 2020
Y'all
There is a weakness in English that we do not have a second person plural that differentiates well, and so the regional dialects have invented them. You all, you guys, youse, youse guys, you'ns, yinz, or even just ye. Most languages, and all Indo-European languages, have this item in some form. If you want the technical discussion on how we got that way on our journey from Middle English to early Modern English, there is The Development of the Second Person Pronoun by Sara Moulton.
The part that is more likely to be interesting to readers is that two of these are pushing the others out. You all and Y'all have spread beyond the South, and you guys has made it out of the Northeast. The others are disappearing. Language is unpredictable, so there's no predicting whether one will win out. I grew up with you guys and it seems natural to me, but I sometimes use y'all for effect. It is very good at communicating that someone has gotten ahead of himself and is too smart by half. Y'all're gonna find that its not as simple as it looks. I especially like the construction Y'all'll for "you all will." You guys has recently come under fire as implying masculine preference, even though cheerleading squads will refer to each other in those terms up here. Still, I can see how it looks that way from the outside.
Speaking of Middle English, I learned today that Geoffrey Chaucer's various characters have accents. He uses differing vocabularies and pronunciations for people of different rank and region. It is not as strong and obvious as would be done today, but it is useful to linguists in identifying what different accents were at the time. It is very hard to get a handle on these things, because even into the 20th C in England one valley might have a dialect difficult to understand even twenty miles away Yorkshire is notoriously difficult for outsiders, as it still has Old Norse influence. Notice the dropping of the definite article and that some y-sounds did not make the change to "g" that occurred in the rest of English.
The part that is more likely to be interesting to readers is that two of these are pushing the others out. You all and Y'all have spread beyond the South, and you guys has made it out of the Northeast. The others are disappearing. Language is unpredictable, so there's no predicting whether one will win out. I grew up with you guys and it seems natural to me, but I sometimes use y'all for effect. It is very good at communicating that someone has gotten ahead of himself and is too smart by half. Y'all're gonna find that its not as simple as it looks. I especially like the construction Y'all'll for "you all will." You guys has recently come under fire as implying masculine preference, even though cheerleading squads will refer to each other in those terms up here. Still, I can see how it looks that way from the outside.
Speaking of Middle English, I learned today that Geoffrey Chaucer's various characters have accents. He uses differing vocabularies and pronunciations for people of different rank and region. It is not as strong and obvious as would be done today, but it is useful to linguists in identifying what different accents were at the time. It is very hard to get a handle on these things, because even into the 20th C in England one valley might have a dialect difficult to understand even twenty miles away Yorkshire is notoriously difficult for outsiders, as it still has Old Norse influence. Notice the dropping of the definite article and that some y-sounds did not make the change to "g" that occurred in the rest of English.
Wednesday, April 15, 2020
1619 Half-Truth
The 1619 Project is even less than half true, but "half-truth" is a concept we recognise that captures the connotation I am looking for, so I will stick with it here. Half-truths are more dangerous than complete fabrications. While there are some who believe that 5G cell towers create measles, or at least our current equivalent, they are few in number, they don't run anything, and they don't cause us much danger. The larger number of more powerful people who believe that Hillary Clinton just had another email and set up good equipment for it, occasionally forgetting which account she was on and talking with some government friends about meetings and stuff are much more dangerous.
But there is some truth to the idea that slavery and the treatment of black people has been more central to American history than is typically credited. In school texts, there is the big balloon of the immediate lead-up to the Civil War, a bit about Reconstruction, then the Civil Rights Movement, and some nods to whatever the authors think young people need to be indoctrinated about with regards to the last decade or two. Those events are given disproportionate emphasis in discussions of 1840-1880, the 1960s, and the present day. One would think nothing else happened in the 60s, except maybe the Beatles and Woodstock.
Yet it is fair to note that in the other decades slavery and the treatment of blacks doesn't get mentioned much at all. At one level that is unsurprising, as history texts record changes, developments, and deteriorations. Things that are the same don't get mentioned. Lots of black people were slaves in 1720. Boy that's a suck of a way to live, and deeply unjust. Lots of black people were slaves in 1730. Boy, that's a suck of a way to live... It does come down to questions of what we think history texts are supposed to record. Are they supposed to be archives, annual yearbooks, treating all information of equal importance? I doubt anyone thinks so. Yet an uninteresting life, or a million of them, does matter as much as an interesting one. Human beings have value, but is it the job of history books to enforce that? It has come up a good deal in discussing women's history. The lives of women were more circumscribed, and thus changed less and were less dramatic. The intense effort to study their lives has produced some interesting new perspectives, looking more closely at food preparation, marriage customs, child-raising, home production and the like, which I at least have found worth knowing. Wars sometimes don't really change much, however dramatic they are to diagram and read about.
In the podcast I have been listening to about American presidential elections, slavery or black rights was the dominant issue, or one of the two (the other being tariffs) in every single election for the first hundred years of the republic. Other issues, such as corruption or fears of tyranny would be important some of the time, but slavery was the overriding issue, time and again. As new states came in it mattered to the original states how they would stand on the issue, and what would be allowed. Whether slaves had to be returned, whether freed slaves would have their rights protected, whether owning another person was going to be allowed at all - these were dominant in one form or another every election.
That is not to say that it was the most important issue at all times to most Americans. We go about our lives worrying about this year's crops, or our daughter's pregnancy, or that group down at the church who is trying to bring in the wrong sort of pastor. In that sense we are not much involved in our national history even as we live through it. We have other things to do. In the South, slavery was there and that was that, in the North it wasn't and that was that. Some people thought about where their money came from and everyone had an opinion what the rights of other people were, but these weren't dinner conversation night after night.
So what is the history text supposed to record? Is it supposed to give equal voice to everyone whoever lived here or just tell us the cool and interesting stuff?
Let me note two errors - and they were not accidental in the 1619 Project right off the bat. It was not named the 1519 project, even though that was closer to the time when slavery came to the New World. The idea was to focus on "us," on America. But there was no America in 1619 nor would there be for many decades. Retroactively fitting current boundaries and institutions back onto disconnected colonies is not fully honest. Why not discuss what was happening in Santa Fe then as well? Or what the Apaches were doing to other tribes at the time? Secondly, before 1776, questions about slavery were either my business or not my business. No unifying theme, really.
No, 1619 was chosen to beg the questions right from the start. They have a point that slavery and black rights have not been the consistent themes of our understanding ourselves in the sense of page after page. Fair enough. But then in other eras, those issues have loomed very large in our understanding, pushing out other issues that might deserve a hearing as well. Does it balance?
It depends on what you mean by balance, and then we are right back to the question What is history supposed to record?
But there is some truth to the idea that slavery and the treatment of black people has been more central to American history than is typically credited. In school texts, there is the big balloon of the immediate lead-up to the Civil War, a bit about Reconstruction, then the Civil Rights Movement, and some nods to whatever the authors think young people need to be indoctrinated about with regards to the last decade or two. Those events are given disproportionate emphasis in discussions of 1840-1880, the 1960s, and the present day. One would think nothing else happened in the 60s, except maybe the Beatles and Woodstock.
Yet it is fair to note that in the other decades slavery and the treatment of blacks doesn't get mentioned much at all. At one level that is unsurprising, as history texts record changes, developments, and deteriorations. Things that are the same don't get mentioned. Lots of black people were slaves in 1720. Boy that's a suck of a way to live, and deeply unjust. Lots of black people were slaves in 1730. Boy, that's a suck of a way to live... It does come down to questions of what we think history texts are supposed to record. Are they supposed to be archives, annual yearbooks, treating all information of equal importance? I doubt anyone thinks so. Yet an uninteresting life, or a million of them, does matter as much as an interesting one. Human beings have value, but is it the job of history books to enforce that? It has come up a good deal in discussing women's history. The lives of women were more circumscribed, and thus changed less and were less dramatic. The intense effort to study their lives has produced some interesting new perspectives, looking more closely at food preparation, marriage customs, child-raising, home production and the like, which I at least have found worth knowing. Wars sometimes don't really change much, however dramatic they are to diagram and read about.
In the podcast I have been listening to about American presidential elections, slavery or black rights was the dominant issue, or one of the two (the other being tariffs) in every single election for the first hundred years of the republic. Other issues, such as corruption or fears of tyranny would be important some of the time, but slavery was the overriding issue, time and again. As new states came in it mattered to the original states how they would stand on the issue, and what would be allowed. Whether slaves had to be returned, whether freed slaves would have their rights protected, whether owning another person was going to be allowed at all - these were dominant in one form or another every election.
That is not to say that it was the most important issue at all times to most Americans. We go about our lives worrying about this year's crops, or our daughter's pregnancy, or that group down at the church who is trying to bring in the wrong sort of pastor. In that sense we are not much involved in our national history even as we live through it. We have other things to do. In the South, slavery was there and that was that, in the North it wasn't and that was that. Some people thought about where their money came from and everyone had an opinion what the rights of other people were, but these weren't dinner conversation night after night.
So what is the history text supposed to record? Is it supposed to give equal voice to everyone whoever lived here or just tell us the cool and interesting stuff?
Let me note two errors - and they were not accidental in the 1619 Project right off the bat. It was not named the 1519 project, even though that was closer to the time when slavery came to the New World. The idea was to focus on "us," on America. But there was no America in 1619 nor would there be for many decades. Retroactively fitting current boundaries and institutions back onto disconnected colonies is not fully honest. Why not discuss what was happening in Santa Fe then as well? Or what the Apaches were doing to other tribes at the time? Secondly, before 1776, questions about slavery were either my business or not my business. No unifying theme, really.
No, 1619 was chosen to beg the questions right from the start. They have a point that slavery and black rights have not been the consistent themes of our understanding ourselves in the sense of page after page. Fair enough. But then in other eras, those issues have loomed very large in our understanding, pushing out other issues that might deserve a hearing as well. Does it balance?
It depends on what you mean by balance, and then we are right back to the question What is history supposed to record?
Tuesday, April 14, 2020
Snake Handling
After being bitten by a snake and taking no harm, Paul did not then decide to change his ministry into looking for snakes to bite him so he could demonstrate God's power. He thought an actual ministry might be a better idea.
Something to Watch For
There is still noise about Hillary Clinton somehow, magically, bursting through and becoming the nominee. At this point Biden would have to have a stroke or something, but HRC's version of "She Persisted" actually translates to "And yet, she is still obsessed." She is still trying to kick Trump, partly out of personal resentment, most likely. But also, just in case...maybe...you never can tell...
Once that door is closed this year something of interest re-emerges: what Bill Clinton really thinks of events over the last twenty years and going forward. He will have his biases, of showing how much of all good things we owe to him, and not wanting to tick off his wife any more than he has to. But he will tell us a good deal more of what he really thinks than we have seen to date. He has a history of going against party wishes for his own reputation, and sometimes, though rarely, in spite of his own reputation. He did defend Bush at times, reminding us that it is actually quite difficult to sit in that chair, which he knows firsthand, dammit, in case you've all forgotten! He wouldn't balk at throwing Obama under the bus, nor Biden, nor Sanders, nor any number of Democratic hopefuls.
Free Willy.
Once that door is closed this year something of interest re-emerges: what Bill Clinton really thinks of events over the last twenty years and going forward. He will have his biases, of showing how much of all good things we owe to him, and not wanting to tick off his wife any more than he has to. But he will tell us a good deal more of what he really thinks than we have seen to date. He has a history of going against party wishes for his own reputation, and sometimes, though rarely, in spite of his own reputation. He did defend Bush at times, reminding us that it is actually quite difficult to sit in that chair, which he knows firsthand, dammit, in case you've all forgotten! He wouldn't balk at throwing Obama under the bus, nor Biden, nor Sanders, nor any number of Democratic hopefuls.
Free Willy.
Distinctions
All of us get into sloppy habits of mixing together clumps of people who are actually different. Though I don't think I have written it anywhere, I have gotten into the habit of thinking of all the newly unemployed or under-employed people as having gotten there because of the governors and president's shutdown of non-essential industries. Yet this is not so. Many are shut down by the very natural reaction to the circulation of the virus. Even if there were no government forbidding travel to China or Italy (more importantly, travel back from there), most people wouldn't be going anyway. No government officials made the NBA shut down, it was the decision of many leagues not to have either fans or athletes close to each other. Knowing about the contagion, many restaurants would not be open even if allowed to be. So travel, entertainment, and restaurant businesses have not been hurt so much by Trump or any governor or mayor as by the virus itself. Anyone who has direct contact with others might be in the same shoes even if next week they are allowed to restart. Most of this economic hit is from the virus, not the government. Remember that if we are looking at government to blame for everything we slowly fall into the trap of looking to it for rescue. Not fully, or not among the crew here, anyway. Yet a little more, even among us. The ratchet does tend to move in only one direction.
Interestingly, the implied seal of safety that the government is giving to industries reopening may actually be an advantage. It shouldn't be, but people do think that way. Under a voluntary system, people might have been more reluctant to decide on their own "it's safe now." That's just speculation on my part and it does cut both ways. Having been declared an unsafe business by a government, however temporarily, might have a depressing effect on business for a long time to come. Even though people are eager to get back to church, a lot of folks may not go the first few weeks they are allowed. We have entered a world of greater risk whatever we do, because of C19. The tradeoffs are neither offsetting nor clear. A lot of us think that a shutdown that applied mostly to urban areas might have been a better choice. Yet if that, those city people would drive out to the neighboring towns for their bars, or head for the safer areas that were not shut down for a vacation, inviting the virus out of the cities, at least somewhat. People in tourist areas have very mixed feelings about people arriving From Away, as we say up heah.
There are next those who have losses because of secondary effects: they have less business because there are fewer people with money to spare to buy their product or services. Those are only partly the result of government restrictions, as above. A lot of them would be having diminished business in any event.
Interestingly, the implied seal of safety that the government is giving to industries reopening may actually be an advantage. It shouldn't be, but people do think that way. Under a voluntary system, people might have been more reluctant to decide on their own "it's safe now." That's just speculation on my part and it does cut both ways. Having been declared an unsafe business by a government, however temporarily, might have a depressing effect on business for a long time to come. Even though people are eager to get back to church, a lot of folks may not go the first few weeks they are allowed. We have entered a world of greater risk whatever we do, because of C19. The tradeoffs are neither offsetting nor clear. A lot of us think that a shutdown that applied mostly to urban areas might have been a better choice. Yet if that, those city people would drive out to the neighboring towns for their bars, or head for the safer areas that were not shut down for a vacation, inviting the virus out of the cities, at least somewhat. People in tourist areas have very mixed feelings about people arriving From Away, as we say up heah.
There are next those who have losses because of secondary effects: they have less business because there are fewer people with money to spare to buy their product or services. Those are only partly the result of government restrictions, as above. A lot of them would be having diminished business in any event.
Crude Reality
I apologise for the inelegance, but it is necessary to the story.
I am making many trips to the dump these days, in the context of clearing out things left at the new house plus clearing things from my old one. I like going to the dump, generally. Getting rid of things or cleaning things up gives me a sense of accomplishment. And these days, it's an errand I can do without compromising social distancing, so I can get out and about. It is good to greet people at the dump, minor pleasantries about weather or observations on what they have been working on. I like them, because they are people who have been working, getting something done, being responsible adults.
But sometimes one comes upon things done wrongly, of people cheating the system out of laziness or avoiding fees. When I talk to the dump guys I find that these things happen a lot, of people frustrated that they have come after hours and just throwing their trash over the fence, of throwing household trash in the metal recapture bin because they couldn't be bothered to make a second stop thirty yards away. The line is Arlo Guthrie's "Alice's Restaurant" was a set-up for humor, but saying Well, we had never heard of a dump being closed on Thanksgiving before is equivalent to saying "We are new to this business of being responsible adults." Of course the dump is going to be closed on Thanksgiving.
Because it is often a garbagey, smelly mess left in an inappropriate place it is easy to recall a line a psychologist told me years ago: The goal of therapy is for everyone to be able to wipe his own ass. I would substitute in simply "adulthood" for the therapy part, but the concept still holds. He was a friend and admirer of Fritz Perls , so Fritz may be the originator of the idea. I am not an admirer of Perls myself, but it does sound like him.
I am making many trips to the dump these days, in the context of clearing out things left at the new house plus clearing things from my old one. I like going to the dump, generally. Getting rid of things or cleaning things up gives me a sense of accomplishment. And these days, it's an errand I can do without compromising social distancing, so I can get out and about. It is good to greet people at the dump, minor pleasantries about weather or observations on what they have been working on. I like them, because they are people who have been working, getting something done, being responsible adults.
But sometimes one comes upon things done wrongly, of people cheating the system out of laziness or avoiding fees. When I talk to the dump guys I find that these things happen a lot, of people frustrated that they have come after hours and just throwing their trash over the fence, of throwing household trash in the metal recapture bin because they couldn't be bothered to make a second stop thirty yards away. The line is Arlo Guthrie's "Alice's Restaurant" was a set-up for humor, but saying Well, we had never heard of a dump being closed on Thanksgiving before is equivalent to saying "We are new to this business of being responsible adults." Of course the dump is going to be closed on Thanksgiving.
Because it is often a garbagey, smelly mess left in an inappropriate place it is easy to recall a line a psychologist told me years ago: The goal of therapy is for everyone to be able to wipe his own ass. I would substitute in simply "adulthood" for the therapy part, but the concept still holds. He was a friend and admirer of Fritz Perls , so Fritz may be the originator of the idea. I am not an admirer of Perls myself, but it does sound like him.
There Are Places I Remember
One of the interesting bits about moving is that random associations of people with places at the old house will now disappear. There is a spot in mowing the front lawn where I automatically think of Paul Remus from my church. There is a place where I snowblow at the top of the driveway at which my young friends the Siffermans suddenly occur to me. Sometimes I can piece together how the association came to be, sometimes not.
Thinking of Tim King every time I cut sweet onions will probably remain, even though I will be cutting on a different surface now.
Thinking of Tim King every time I cut sweet onions will probably remain, even though I will be cutting on a different surface now.
Monday, April 13, 2020
Imagination
Because our primary experience of God is to imagine Him - and that is a good thing, exercising our deepest humanity in the service of understanding His divinity - we are always in danger of thinking Him imaginary. Heheheh. His existence is in no way dependent on what we think about Him.
Rational
I like John Hindraker and Powerline very much. But you know how I feel about people wrapping themselves in the mantle of truth, rationality, fairness, justice, and the like. Let us be the judge of that, thank you. If you have to stomp your little foot and declare that you are being the rational one in this conversation - and I have been guilty of that more than once myself - it is a clear sign you are no longer listening to other people.
Some Rational Perspectives on CoVid 19. He may even be right, but I no longer waste my time when people start off like that. I do sometimes grant that the headline-writer may not be the author, and extend a paragraph's grace, or even two. "Hundreds of millions" of Americans lives might be being "devastated" by the government actions, John? A plural means at least two, so more than 200 million out of the 320 million of us are being "devastated?" Your reputation is eroded by that comment.
I write that as one who knows people whose lives are devastated by the economic shutdown, and I take their lives seriously.
Some Rational Perspectives on CoVid 19. He may even be right, but I no longer waste my time when people start off like that. I do sometimes grant that the headline-writer may not be the author, and extend a paragraph's grace, or even two. "Hundreds of millions" of Americans lives might be being "devastated" by the government actions, John? A plural means at least two, so more than 200 million out of the 320 million of us are being "devastated?" Your reputation is eroded by that comment.
I write that as one who knows people whose lives are devastated by the economic shutdown, and I take their lives seriously.
Chesterton Prescient
From the Daily News 1905
"Earnest Freethinkers need not worry themselves so much about the persecutions of the past. Before the Liberal idea is dead or triumphant we shall see wars and persecutions the like of which the world has never seen."
And also, from 1907 in The Illustrated London News. "When people impute special vices to the Christian Church, they seem entirely to forget that the world (which is the only other thing there is) has these vices much more. The Church has been cruel; but the world has been much more cruel. The Church has plotted; but the world has plotted much more. The Church has been superstitious; but it has never been so superstitious as the world is when left to itself."
"Earnest Freethinkers need not worry themselves so much about the persecutions of the past. Before the Liberal idea is dead or triumphant we shall see wars and persecutions the like of which the world has never seen."
And also, from 1907 in The Illustrated London News. "When people impute special vices to the Christian Church, they seem entirely to forget that the world (which is the only other thing there is) has these vices much more. The Church has been cruel; but the world has been much more cruel. The Church has plotted; but the world has plotted much more. The Church has been superstitious; but it has never been so superstitious as the world is when left to itself."
Sunday, April 12, 2020
Experts
It shouldn't need saying, but just to get everyone to take a breath here. Just because experts are sometimes wrong, and in recent cases often wrong, does not mean that the reverse of their ideas is true, nor that non-experts are automatically right. While no one says this directly, recognising that of course this is quite stupid, something very closely related is occurring often. When an expert is cited in support of an idea, a general rejection of experts is deemed sufficient argument to dismiss any of them. Talented amateurs, especially those who are accomplished in some other field, may be able to see as clearly or more clearly than experts, especially when things are new and uncertain. And also, talented amateurs are useful in the opposite case, when a field is hidebound and ossified, needing a fresh look.
But even the wisdom of talented amateurs isn't all that common. And untalented amateurs have a very poor record indeed. That experts get things wrong - and in the case of C19, many of them gave clear indications that their assessments were provisional and could change in the face of new data - does not mean that the field is now open and all bets are off.
I challenge experts, live and online, all the time. I enjoy it. Yet it is usually on the basis of other experts whose reasoning seems better to me. Seldom is it some idea I have worked out entirely on my own. If it were entirely my own creation, I would be almost certain it was false. At most, I can make an original recombination of others' ideas.
But even the wisdom of talented amateurs isn't all that common. And untalented amateurs have a very poor record indeed. That experts get things wrong - and in the case of C19, many of them gave clear indications that their assessments were provisional and could change in the face of new data - does not mean that the field is now open and all bets are off.
I challenge experts, live and online, all the time. I enjoy it. Yet it is usually on the basis of other experts whose reasoning seems better to me. Seldom is it some idea I have worked out entirely on my own. If it were entirely my own creation, I would be almost certain it was false. At most, I can make an original recombination of others' ideas.
If We All Band Together
In my History of English podcast, we covered the Anglo-Saxon invasion quite a few episodes ago. The pattern was that when the Britons, Celts were fighting amongst themselves about who was going to be king of whom, the various North Sea tribes (which we call Angles, Saxons, and Jutes but likely included others) were able to not only successfully raid against them, but gradually settle and eventually become kings over all of them. The pattern repeated when the Danes were invading in the 9th C. The Anglo-Saxons, now the reigning groups, kept slugging it out over who was going to be king of Mercia, who of Northumbria, who of Wessex, so the Danes came in and became kings of most of them. It would have been all of them but for Alfred the Great, who succeeded in unifying what was left against the invaders. In a generation or so the roles were reversed. The Danes broke into factions - most significantly, they would have little to do in coordinating with the Norwegian Vikings who were operating in the North and West of the British Isles - and Alfred's descendants were able to subdue them and reclaim rulership.
It is a repeated pattern everywhere. Groups that think of themselves as distinct find that some invader is even more an enemy than the tribes nearby, and a good leader is able to unify them for a common cause. Yet they mostly only trust the very local original group. The Dwarves are for the Dwarves. Alfred stressed the importance of a common language, of laws held in common, drawing from the practices of all the factions, and national pride based on scholarship and learning. This is how nations are built out of duchies. Yet as a group gets more powerful, getting to run it becomes an ever-greater prize.
The Native American tribes did not think of themselves in that "We are Native Americans, these Europeans are a common enemy" way, but as separate groups of Narragansetts, Penobscots, MiqMaqs. There is nothing especially stupid or shortsighted about this. It's just the way that humans think.The English, French, Dutch, Spanish, and Portuguese in the New World thought of themselves this way as well. Roman emperors neglected their borders and the invaders, because the more pressing danger was a personal rival.
Yet banding together is not only difficult, but dangerous. Unwieldy alliances tend to have follow-up betrayals and even wars after they succeed. There have been strong attempts over the past century to have pan-Slavic or pan-Arabic powers, yet the internal rivalries seem to eventually win out. The Anglosphere is nowhere enforced, yet retains significant meaning.
It is a repeated pattern everywhere. Groups that think of themselves as distinct find that some invader is even more an enemy than the tribes nearby, and a good leader is able to unify them for a common cause. Yet they mostly only trust the very local original group. The Dwarves are for the Dwarves. Alfred stressed the importance of a common language, of laws held in common, drawing from the practices of all the factions, and national pride based on scholarship and learning. This is how nations are built out of duchies. Yet as a group gets more powerful, getting to run it becomes an ever-greater prize.
The Native American tribes did not think of themselves in that "We are Native Americans, these Europeans are a common enemy" way, but as separate groups of Narragansetts, Penobscots, MiqMaqs. There is nothing especially stupid or shortsighted about this. It's just the way that humans think.The English, French, Dutch, Spanish, and Portuguese in the New World thought of themselves this way as well. Roman emperors neglected their borders and the invaders, because the more pressing danger was a personal rival.
Yet banding together is not only difficult, but dangerous. Unwieldy alliances tend to have follow-up betrayals and even wars after they succeed. There have been strong attempts over the past century to have pan-Slavic or pan-Arabic powers, yet the internal rivalries seem to eventually win out. The Anglosphere is nowhere enforced, yet retains significant meaning.
Saturday, April 11, 2020
The Forgotten Women of the Gulag
A review of Monika Zgustova's book over at The American Interest. Linked by Powerline blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)