Friday, June 30, 2006
All In The Mind III - The Carnival of the Psychosphere
The new carnival is up. I didn't contribute this time, for which I am heartily ashamed.
No One Is Minding The Store
I will likely be returning to this idea of diffuse power over the next few days - or weeks - as it is new and enchanting to me. I have browsed into similar ideas before, but this variation has shown considerable explanatory power for events that were puzzling.
Short version: no one is running the world. The 60's fantasy of trying to figure out who is behind it all - and the idea that it was the phone company was pretty funny - of tracing the military-industrial complex, blaming Nixon, or otherwise speculating who had the power to move society, is completely off reality. Even the modified version, of multinational corporations, advertising, Big Oil, Microsoft, etc is wildly exagerrated. Because people feel powerless, they speculate that Someone Else must have the power to do things. There is no danger of American fascism, or theocracy, or empire. Even if there were a determined collection of the rich and powerful who somehow decided to act cooperatively for evil, it wouldn't change things much. The types of power are too varied, and overall power simply too diffuse, for them to have much effect. Worry about something else.
As interested as I am in political events, I have long maintained that what happens at that level is almost never the strong force in making your life what it is. The births, marriages, and deaths of friends and family have far greater impact. Health, employment, finances, and how well your relationships are going all have more effect on you. Government is more like the weather. Though it affects all of us in common, it is usually in minor ways. Occasionally, a major negative event in government or weather will overwhelm all other events, but this is rare.
Even the most politically obsessed person, unless his job is dependent on an election, is not going to think of national events when asked "How's it going?" On a particularly contentious issue, or right at election time, some few might answer for a day or two "I'm really very depressed about this Supreme Court thing."
While everyone's job is affected by the government in some way, it is only rarely the determining factor in business prospects or job satisfaction.
Conservatives can get just as bent about this as liberals. Whether the Ten Commandments are posted in a courtroom, even the courtroom you work in every day, is not going to have a measurable effect on your life. Even if the worst fears of the anti-Gay Rights crowd are true, and sexual orientation is malleable at young ages and the gays are just recruiting, one Gay Pride parade is not going to change much of anything.
This is not to say that we shouldn't stand up for what we believe and try to influence events in the way that we want. In fact, it's an encouragement to do that, because there isn't some enormous force working against you to keep you down; do your bit. You do have influence, though you don't perceive it. But all the "bigs" that are running things - Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big Labor, Big Tobacco, Multinational Corporations, the teacher's unions, the Religious Right, Big Media, Alternative Media, Oprah, Microsoft - they can't all be big, right? In extreme circumstances, under extreme autocracies or oligarchies, a few people do wield enormous power. That's rare. The way the US is structured, it's never going to happen. Other bad things may happen, but not that.
More to follow.
Short version: no one is running the world. The 60's fantasy of trying to figure out who is behind it all - and the idea that it was the phone company was pretty funny - of tracing the military-industrial complex, blaming Nixon, or otherwise speculating who had the power to move society, is completely off reality. Even the modified version, of multinational corporations, advertising, Big Oil, Microsoft, etc is wildly exagerrated. Because people feel powerless, they speculate that Someone Else must have the power to do things. There is no danger of American fascism, or theocracy, or empire. Even if there were a determined collection of the rich and powerful who somehow decided to act cooperatively for evil, it wouldn't change things much. The types of power are too varied, and overall power simply too diffuse, for them to have much effect. Worry about something else.
As interested as I am in political events, I have long maintained that what happens at that level is almost never the strong force in making your life what it is. The births, marriages, and deaths of friends and family have far greater impact. Health, employment, finances, and how well your relationships are going all have more effect on you. Government is more like the weather. Though it affects all of us in common, it is usually in minor ways. Occasionally, a major negative event in government or weather will overwhelm all other events, but this is rare.
Even the most politically obsessed person, unless his job is dependent on an election, is not going to think of national events when asked "How's it going?" On a particularly contentious issue, or right at election time, some few might answer for a day or two "I'm really very depressed about this Supreme Court thing."
While everyone's job is affected by the government in some way, it is only rarely the determining factor in business prospects or job satisfaction.
Conservatives can get just as bent about this as liberals. Whether the Ten Commandments are posted in a courtroom, even the courtroom you work in every day, is not going to have a measurable effect on your life. Even if the worst fears of the anti-Gay Rights crowd are true, and sexual orientation is malleable at young ages and the gays are just recruiting, one Gay Pride parade is not going to change much of anything.
This is not to say that we shouldn't stand up for what we believe and try to influence events in the way that we want. In fact, it's an encouragement to do that, because there isn't some enormous force working against you to keep you down; do your bit. You do have influence, though you don't perceive it. But all the "bigs" that are running things - Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big Labor, Big Tobacco, Multinational Corporations, the teacher's unions, the Religious Right, Big Media, Alternative Media, Oprah, Microsoft - they can't all be big, right? In extreme circumstances, under extreme autocracies or oligarchies, a few people do wield enormous power. That's rare. The way the US is structured, it's never going to happen. Other bad things may happen, but not that.
More to follow.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
The Survival of Western Culture
Jerry Bowyer over at Tech Central Station, has an interesting article abour the survival of Western Culture entitled The Renewal of the West. He takes as a jumping-off point Pat Buchanan's comment that if the ideals of Madison and Jefferson survived another 200 years in America, but by that time most Americans were brown and yellow and black, it would be a "disaster and a tragedy."
Buchanan is just nuts on this point. If I get brought to the future, see an America with few white people, but the citizens are largely Christian, market-believing, eccentrics who like reading to their children (or whatever the equivalent is then), I'm just tickled pink. Or brown. I might have some curiosity what my own legacy was, and where my descendants are, but if some genealogical tracer-bot identifies "those two brown families over there are part you," I'm fine with that. If one of them is wearing a Hawaiian shirt or is very big on C. S. Lewis, my life is complete.
One of the reasons why I care so little for preserving "the environment" according to some artificial standard that bobos have left over from their stays at summer camp, it's because I value the other legacy - the legacy of ideas - so much more.
Buchanan is just nuts on this point. If I get brought to the future, see an America with few white people, but the citizens are largely Christian, market-believing, eccentrics who like reading to their children (or whatever the equivalent is then), I'm just tickled pink. Or brown. I might have some curiosity what my own legacy was, and where my descendants are, but if some genealogical tracer-bot identifies "those two brown families over there are part you," I'm fine with that. If one of them is wearing a Hawaiian shirt or is very big on C. S. Lewis, my life is complete.
One of the reasons why I care so little for preserving "the environment" according to some artificial standard that bobos have left over from their stays at summer camp, it's because I value the other legacy - the legacy of ideas - so much more.
Diffuse Power
Wandering over to comment on some left-leaning blogs, I was puzzled yet again by the accusations of tyranny, of fascism, and of the new pet phrase Unitary Authority, referring to Bush, of course. This rhetoric is so common on the left, with frequent mentions of how the Republicans "control" all branches of government, worries of imposed theocracy, and fear of multinational corporations (or "corporate interests").
Conservatives see this as merely bizarre, that anyone could think that Chavez, the Saddam of yore, and Bush differ in national authority only in small degree. Liberals think conservatives blind for not seeing it. It is for this reason that protestations that the left is being paranoid and hyperbolic fall on deaf ears. They really believe that a president wields enormous power, and any move by the Bush administration to assert authority in an unclear area is an attempt to capture that last few percentage points of power and bring us close to autocracy.
Power is quite diffuse in American society. The power of a president, or a Supreme Court Justice, or a Senator is much less than - I suspect - liberals know. The TV news likes to use phrases such as "the most powerful leader in the world," but that gives a very false impression. There are many kinds of power, and many players in the game. There is power to do as one pleases, there is power to influence, there is power to be left alone; cultural power, financial power, political power, military power. Bush is limited in his power not because of the unceasing efforts of progressives fighting brilliant rearguard actions, but because of the basic structure of American society. No one has that much power, and none of us are without some power.
Libertarians understand this better than conservatives, conservatives better than liberals. I wish I could penetrate why this is. Small businessmen perhaps have a realistic understand of the contradiction between having great freedom and limited power. It is hard to influence others, hard to make the world work the way you would like it. Government employees, on the other hand, may see themselves as powerless to change top-down authority, and see politics as working in much the same way. They may believe that some few get to tell others what to do, and the trick is to become one of the few, or band together to push one of the few around. Perhaps this is particularly strong in African-American and other minority communities, which believe that only by banding together do they have any power at all.
Bringing up children teaches both the hugeness and limitation of individual power; multiple children even more. I have had enormous influence on my sons - but they are who they are and they go their own way. And they in turn have influenced me, from their earliest days.
Do liberals feel personally powerless? Or more subtly, do they believe they have a measure of control over their destiny but the great mass of American society does not (the rubes)? They believe advertising drives purchasing more than personal choice. This would go some way to explaining why they believe that elections are stolen from them or that Darth Rove tricks the public.
If they believe that some few pull most of the strings, it would explain their paranoid reactions to the normal ebb and flow, checks and balances of political life. As I'm writing off the top of my head here, I welcome comments to help clarify this.
Conservatives see this as merely bizarre, that anyone could think that Chavez, the Saddam of yore, and Bush differ in national authority only in small degree. Liberals think conservatives blind for not seeing it. It is for this reason that protestations that the left is being paranoid and hyperbolic fall on deaf ears. They really believe that a president wields enormous power, and any move by the Bush administration to assert authority in an unclear area is an attempt to capture that last few percentage points of power and bring us close to autocracy.
Power is quite diffuse in American society. The power of a president, or a Supreme Court Justice, or a Senator is much less than - I suspect - liberals know. The TV news likes to use phrases such as "the most powerful leader in the world," but that gives a very false impression. There are many kinds of power, and many players in the game. There is power to do as one pleases, there is power to influence, there is power to be left alone; cultural power, financial power, political power, military power. Bush is limited in his power not because of the unceasing efforts of progressives fighting brilliant rearguard actions, but because of the basic structure of American society. No one has that much power, and none of us are without some power.
Libertarians understand this better than conservatives, conservatives better than liberals. I wish I could penetrate why this is. Small businessmen perhaps have a realistic understand of the contradiction between having great freedom and limited power. It is hard to influence others, hard to make the world work the way you would like it. Government employees, on the other hand, may see themselves as powerless to change top-down authority, and see politics as working in much the same way. They may believe that some few get to tell others what to do, and the trick is to become one of the few, or band together to push one of the few around. Perhaps this is particularly strong in African-American and other minority communities, which believe that only by banding together do they have any power at all.
Bringing up children teaches both the hugeness and limitation of individual power; multiple children even more. I have had enormous influence on my sons - but they are who they are and they go their own way. And they in turn have influenced me, from their earliest days.
Do liberals feel personally powerless? Or more subtly, do they believe they have a measure of control over their destiny but the great mass of American society does not (the rubes)? They believe advertising drives purchasing more than personal choice. This would go some way to explaining why they believe that elections are stolen from them or that Darth Rove tricks the public.
If they believe that some few pull most of the strings, it would explain their paranoid reactions to the normal ebb and flow, checks and balances of political life. As I'm writing off the top of my head here, I welcome comments to help clarify this.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Where's The Study?
Via Pajamas Media, the headline suggests that there's a new study about Immaturity In Adults. I read the article. Where's the study? Some guy has an opinion that adult immaturity is increasing. He's probably correct in his observations. But no data, no study.
Do people at Discovery not know what the word means?
Do people at Discovery not know what the word means?
That Religious Left That Doesn't Exist
or
The Great Karnak Knows Without Reading
Randall Balmer has an essay in the most recent Chronicle of Higher Education entitled Jesus Is Not A Republican.
Balmer is a professor of religious history at Barnard College. The Assistant Village Idiot puts his fingers to his temples and makes some guesses: (Full disclosure: I read the opening one-sentence blurb, so I did see the phrase “drunk on power.” Therefore I made no predictions about what would be written about that, figuring I had an unfair hint.)
Scoring is in bold type.
1. Balmer will use black-and-white rhetoric to decry the black-and-white thinking of the Religious Right. Their approaches will not be criticized for being unwise or inadequate, they will be condemned as completely without merit. Other sides to any religious argument will simply not exist, because he knows the Bible better than you. Arggh! I missed one right at the beginning: raised as an evangelical. Minus 1 point Otherwise, perfect score (The Bible I read…) 9 out of 10
1A. Oh, and we’re closed-minded, too. Perfect 3 bonus points
2. Ballmer will note that God loves the poor. Therefore, we know the Religious Right has perverted the gospel, because they are in favor of cutting the poor off without a farthing. There will be no mention in Ballmer of what conservative evangelicals want to do for the poor, because it is so obviously a sham that it doesn’t bear mentioning. The RR doesn't want to do what the liberals want, therefore they don't care about the poor. Too easy. 10 out of 10
2A. He will believe every liberal spin of economic statistics as if they are unassailable. Tax cuts for the rich and corporate greed will both be mentioned at least twice each. This will prove that the Religious Right hates the poor. Perfect 3 bonus points
3. He will complain how today’s public Christians are rotten, not like the Christians in the Good Old Days when he was a boy, and were involved with the Civil Rights movement and the anti-war protests. I was pretty much wrong on this one. There are only hints with the McGovern reference. 1 out of 10 points. Ouch
3A. The 50-50 chance of mentioning the abolitionists will rise to 90-10 because he’s a religious history professor. “City on a Hill” will be mentioned. perfect 3 bonus points
4. He will explain that the war in Iraq is unjust because it doesn’t adhere to “just war” doctrine, by which he will mean “We didn’t get final approval from the UN.” The extended examinations of Just War doctrine by other Christians who reached different conclusions, such as over at First Things, will not be mentioned. Conveniently, they won’t have to be refuted, either. “…would not meet even the barest of just war criteria…” Score! He doesn’t mention the UN (I suspect it’s in his head though), which keeps me off full credit. 8 out of 10 points
5. We will learn that he has a book coming out. Being published in a Respectable Magazine, getting paid for having a captive college audience for his ideas, and having a book published will not alter his claim that the Religious Right unfairly dominates the public religious discourse. Dead on.Perfect 10 out of 10
6. Ruining the environment for corporate interests – what the rest of us would call “jobs” – will be mentioned in vague terms 4-7 times. The terms will be vague because he doesn’t really know much science. But he knows we’re ruining the environment. He mentions it a lot in one paragraph, but I don’t think that’s the same as 4-7 times. 5 out of 10 points.
7. He will start and end his essay in kindly language that has the condescension buried quite deep. More full-throated sneering will occur in the body of the essay.The disdain isn’t well buried at the beginning and end: “minions of the right” in the second paragraph and “…not even Karl Rove and James Dobson lie beyond the reach of redemption.” In the second-to-last. But the middle does have even more intense sneering. The obligation to the poor has not trickled down (sneer) into public policy. “their machinery of vilification strikes with ruthless, dispassionate efficiency.” 9 out of 10 points.
8. Balmer will hate abortion, but not enough to do anything about it. I mean, he really, really hates it, like you just don't know how much he hates it, but that doesn't mean we should do anything except look sad. "I have no interest in making abortion illegal; I would like to make it unthinkable." Really? Does he want to apply that persuasion-only approach to poverty, war, and the environment, too? Nah. The government should listen to wise people like him and make people do the right thing. Perfect 10 for 10 points here.
I will come back shortly with the scoring: up to 10 points on each prediction, with up to 3 bonus points for the sub-predictions. Points will be deducted for things I should have predicted, but missed.
Deduction points: things I should have seen coming:
Theocracy. How could I miss that? minus 2
Theology in the schools minus 1
injustice and bondage minus 1
people on the margins of society no penalty, because I got the related concepts.
Hypocrisy of some on the the RR I never should have missed that. minus 2
Pluralism minus 1
"Seamless garment" of life issues. minus 1
Final score: 64 out of a possible 80. Not bad.
The Great Karnak Knows Without Reading
Randall Balmer has an essay in the most recent Chronicle of Higher Education entitled Jesus Is Not A Republican.
Balmer is a professor of religious history at Barnard College. The Assistant Village Idiot puts his fingers to his temples and makes some guesses: (Full disclosure: I read the opening one-sentence blurb, so I did see the phrase “drunk on power.” Therefore I made no predictions about what would be written about that, figuring I had an unfair hint.)
Scoring is in bold type.
1. Balmer will use black-and-white rhetoric to decry the black-and-white thinking of the Religious Right. Their approaches will not be criticized for being unwise or inadequate, they will be condemned as completely without merit. Other sides to any religious argument will simply not exist, because he knows the Bible better than you. Arggh! I missed one right at the beginning: raised as an evangelical. Minus 1 point Otherwise, perfect score (The Bible I read…) 9 out of 10
1A. Oh, and we’re closed-minded, too. Perfect 3 bonus points
2. Ballmer will note that God loves the poor. Therefore, we know the Religious Right has perverted the gospel, because they are in favor of cutting the poor off without a farthing. There will be no mention in Ballmer of what conservative evangelicals want to do for the poor, because it is so obviously a sham that it doesn’t bear mentioning. The RR doesn't want to do what the liberals want, therefore they don't care about the poor. Too easy. 10 out of 10
2A. He will believe every liberal spin of economic statistics as if they are unassailable. Tax cuts for the rich and corporate greed will both be mentioned at least twice each. This will prove that the Religious Right hates the poor. Perfect 3 bonus points
3. He will complain how today’s public Christians are rotten, not like the Christians in the Good Old Days when he was a boy, and were involved with the Civil Rights movement and the anti-war protests. I was pretty much wrong on this one. There are only hints with the McGovern reference. 1 out of 10 points. Ouch
3A. The 50-50 chance of mentioning the abolitionists will rise to 90-10 because he’s a religious history professor. “City on a Hill” will be mentioned. perfect 3 bonus points
4. He will explain that the war in Iraq is unjust because it doesn’t adhere to “just war” doctrine, by which he will mean “We didn’t get final approval from the UN.” The extended examinations of Just War doctrine by other Christians who reached different conclusions, such as over at First Things, will not be mentioned. Conveniently, they won’t have to be refuted, either. “…would not meet even the barest of just war criteria…” Score! He doesn’t mention the UN (I suspect it’s in his head though), which keeps me off full credit. 8 out of 10 points
5. We will learn that he has a book coming out. Being published in a Respectable Magazine, getting paid for having a captive college audience for his ideas, and having a book published will not alter his claim that the Religious Right unfairly dominates the public religious discourse. Dead on.Perfect 10 out of 10
6. Ruining the environment for corporate interests – what the rest of us would call “jobs” – will be mentioned in vague terms 4-7 times. The terms will be vague because he doesn’t really know much science. But he knows we’re ruining the environment. He mentions it a lot in one paragraph, but I don’t think that’s the same as 4-7 times. 5 out of 10 points.
7. He will start and end his essay in kindly language that has the condescension buried quite deep. More full-throated sneering will occur in the body of the essay.The disdain isn’t well buried at the beginning and end: “minions of the right” in the second paragraph and “…not even Karl Rove and James Dobson lie beyond the reach of redemption.” In the second-to-last. But the middle does have even more intense sneering. The obligation to the poor has not trickled down (sneer) into public policy. “their machinery of vilification strikes with ruthless, dispassionate efficiency.” 9 out of 10 points.
8. Balmer will hate abortion, but not enough to do anything about it. I mean, he really, really hates it, like you just don't know how much he hates it, but that doesn't mean we should do anything except look sad. "I have no interest in making abortion illegal; I would like to make it unthinkable." Really? Does he want to apply that persuasion-only approach to poverty, war, and the environment, too? Nah. The government should listen to wise people like him and make people do the right thing. Perfect 10 for 10 points here.
I will come back shortly with the scoring: up to 10 points on each prediction, with up to 3 bonus points for the sub-predictions. Points will be deducted for things I should have predicted, but missed.
Deduction points: things I should have seen coming:
Theocracy. How could I miss that? minus 2
Theology in the schools minus 1
injustice and bondage minus 1
people on the margins of society no penalty, because I got the related concepts.
Hypocrisy of some on the the RR I never should have missed that. minus 2
Pluralism minus 1
"Seamless garment" of life issues. minus 1
Final score: 64 out of a possible 80. Not bad.
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Picking On An Old Friend
A psychiatrist I have known for over twenty years sent me this email, his most recent Letter To The Editor. This is an extremely intelligent person, from whom I learned a great deal about psychiatry years ago. A man of wit and humor, he holds positions of responsibility and a respected reputation in forensic psychiatry. He has had a long-standing tendency to argue via sneer and condescension - which I imagine he would describe as being unwilling to suffer fools gladly - but he is not incapable of constructed arguemnt. And yet... And yet this is what he is currently reduced to under the influence of BDS (Krauthammer 2004).
This is simply embarrassing to submit before the public. You will note that the little parable lacks a certain literary delicacy which is recommended when imitating Swift. It is ham-handed, over-obvious. Stupid George, for example, is the name that a sixth-grader would give. By highschool, students would at least attempt the irony of George the Genius or some such. Perhaps my friend believes that a large percentage of his readers - the ones he hopes to persuade - will be unable to understand unless it is spelled out. Well, even intelligent people miss satire from time to time; but why alienate the portion of your audience that has wit?
I think the analogy of the bear and the hornets inapt, but such things are permissable in the genre. If I don't like it I can go write my own fable with my own analogy I like better. No objections there. But the use of "coward," as if this is an accusation that Bush has come anywhere near making is a straw man; or worse, a projection.
My response was brief
His response was also brief, echoing the style of my comment.
This is merely lunatic, however common it is currently. (Note: if it is already clear to you why this sort of hyperbole has no place in serious argument, you may skip to the end. It's going to be tedious otherwise.) "...arrest whoever you want who says it aint so..." is there even one example in the last five years of someone being arrested for disagreeing with George Bush, or for disagreeing with anyone? I think the accusation may stem from two current issues. People suspected of aiding terrorists, including two American citizens, are being held under premises that some Americans consider insufficient. The rhetoric of hyperbole accompanies the complaint, so that terms like fascist get dragged in, but that is the point of contention. There are offered constitutional and legal justifications for the surveillance, arrest, and incarceration of these individuals. Courts have upheld some of these interventions and disallowed others, and the legal decisions are being appealed by everyone. But the assertion "...arrest whoever you want," as if neocons were patrolling the streets pointing out folks they wanted locked up is just ludicrous. The left might predict that such things are next if we let Nefarious George proceed unchecked - and I welcome that trivially easy debate - but there is nothing like that now.
The second issue tied in may be that George Bush has answered his critics publicly, and this is thought to be a chilling silencing of dissent. People disagree with Bush and he has the temerity to answer back. And some of his friends even call names, too!
"...make up your own laws...," I imagine, refers to those places where the administration has claimed constitutional authority that precedes the legislative authority of Congress on a related but not identical issue. In making this claim, the current White House is following the precedents of all previous holders of the office, including most especially his immediate predecessor Bill Clinton. As to degree, Dubya does not come close to the overreach of authority attempted by Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, and Roosevelt - the most recent Democratic presidents. He is not even on the scoreboard with those guys.
"...the beauty of dictatorship." Does this even need comment? These days, I suppose it does. I would hope that even the most deranged Kossack does not believe we are currently in a dictatorship.* The argument must be that we are on the path to dictatorship, which is gradually coming upon us unawares. Creeping fascism, perhaps. My brief scan of the rise of dictators in the past century suggests that they come to power amidst a good deal of violence and bloodshed. Pol Pot, The Russian Revolution, Castro, Pinochet, Mao - they didn't quietly assume power and then methodically strip the citizens of rights. Even the major exceptions, Hitler and Mussolini, were bumping people off pretty regularly within a year. If Bush 43 is trying to become a dictator, he's running out of time.
"...make up your own facts..." In light of the above, that shoe seems to be on the other foot.
*I was wrong here. There was a poll over at Daily Kos that over 80% of those who answered believe we are under fascism in all but name. The words fascism and dictatorship now officially have no denotative meaning. They are now meres words of connotation: Bad. Category: Political.
Stupid George
There once was a village where the town fool was called Stupid George. One year a bear attacked and ate one of the villagers. A few years later Stupid George ran into the town square and announced that he had heard the man-eating bear snoring up in a tree. The villagers followed stupid George into the woods with their guns.
Stupid George went in some bushes and shot his shotgun, yelling “I shot the bear.” The villagers followed and saw that Stupid George hadn’t shot a snoring man-eating bear but instead had shot a buzzing hornet’s nest out of a tree. Stupid George was poking the hornet’s nest with his gun and saying “would you look at that bear?”
The hornets began to fly out and began to sting everybody. Of course all the villagers began to run, except Stupid George who yelled “Are you people going to cut and run? You cowards.”
The village wise man appeared and said: “You people were foolish to follow Stupid George in the first place. Only a fool fights hornets with shotguns. Leave them alone and they will leave you alone. If you listen to his childish taunts about cutting and running you may be even stupider than he is.”
All the villagers left, except a few foolish teenagers known for their trouble making (sic) and their poor judgement and the smiling shopkeeper who made a good business selling shotgun shells to Stupid George and his fools.
This is simply embarrassing to submit before the public. You will note that the little parable lacks a certain literary delicacy which is recommended when imitating Swift. It is ham-handed, over-obvious. Stupid George, for example, is the name that a sixth-grader would give. By highschool, students would at least attempt the irony of George the Genius or some such. Perhaps my friend believes that a large percentage of his readers - the ones he hopes to persuade - will be unable to understand unless it is spelled out. Well, even intelligent people miss satire from time to time; but why alienate the portion of your audience that has wit?
I think the analogy of the bear and the hornets inapt, but such things are permissable in the genre. If I don't like it I can go write my own fable with my own analogy I like better. No objections there. But the use of "coward," as if this is an accusation that Bush has come anywhere near making is a straw man; or worse, a projection.
My response was brief
Well, when you get to construct your own analogy it saves the trouble of conforming the story to the events. That's the beauty of fiction.
His response was also brief, echoing the style of my comment.
When you get to make up your own facts and arrest whoever you want who says it ain't so and make up your own laws - well, that's the beauty of dictatorship.
This is merely lunatic, however common it is currently. (Note: if it is already clear to you why this sort of hyperbole has no place in serious argument, you may skip to the end. It's going to be tedious otherwise.) "...arrest whoever you want who says it aint so..." is there even one example in the last five years of someone being arrested for disagreeing with George Bush, or for disagreeing with anyone? I think the accusation may stem from two current issues. People suspected of aiding terrorists, including two American citizens, are being held under premises that some Americans consider insufficient. The rhetoric of hyperbole accompanies the complaint, so that terms like fascist get dragged in, but that is the point of contention. There are offered constitutional and legal justifications for the surveillance, arrest, and incarceration of these individuals. Courts have upheld some of these interventions and disallowed others, and the legal decisions are being appealed by everyone. But the assertion "...arrest whoever you want," as if neocons were patrolling the streets pointing out folks they wanted locked up is just ludicrous. The left might predict that such things are next if we let Nefarious George proceed unchecked - and I welcome that trivially easy debate - but there is nothing like that now.
The second issue tied in may be that George Bush has answered his critics publicly, and this is thought to be a chilling silencing of dissent. People disagree with Bush and he has the temerity to answer back. And some of his friends even call names, too!
"...make up your own laws...," I imagine, refers to those places where the administration has claimed constitutional authority that precedes the legislative authority of Congress on a related but not identical issue. In making this claim, the current White House is following the precedents of all previous holders of the office, including most especially his immediate predecessor Bill Clinton. As to degree, Dubya does not come close to the overreach of authority attempted by Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, and Roosevelt - the most recent Democratic presidents. He is not even on the scoreboard with those guys.
"...the beauty of dictatorship." Does this even need comment? These days, I suppose it does. I would hope that even the most deranged Kossack does not believe we are currently in a dictatorship.* The argument must be that we are on the path to dictatorship, which is gradually coming upon us unawares. Creeping fascism, perhaps. My brief scan of the rise of dictators in the past century suggests that they come to power amidst a good deal of violence and bloodshed. Pol Pot, The Russian Revolution, Castro, Pinochet, Mao - they didn't quietly assume power and then methodically strip the citizens of rights. Even the major exceptions, Hitler and Mussolini, were bumping people off pretty regularly within a year. If Bush 43 is trying to become a dictator, he's running out of time.
"...make up your own facts..." In light of the above, that shoe seems to be on the other foot.
*I was wrong here. There was a poll over at Daily Kos that over 80% of those who answered believe we are under fascism in all but name. The words fascism and dictatorship now officially have no denotative meaning. They are now meres words of connotation: Bad. Category: Political.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
About that Profiling
Apparently the terrorists believe that profiling would work if we used it, and are taking steps to counteract that.
Well they go to all the Terrorist Support Group meetings and see each other there, so perhaps they have noticed some similarity in each other's demographics and appearance.
Well they go to all the Terrorist Support Group meetings and see each other there, so perhaps they have noticed some similarity in each other's demographics and appearance.
False Equivalence
From the records of the Old Bailey in London, of a case of petty theft in the 1700’s
606. (L) Edward Cain ; otherwise Can , was indicted for stealing handkerchief value 6 d. the property of unknown, September 16. ++
William Paine. On the 16th September I saw the boy at the bar and three others with him take a linen handkerchief out of a person's pocket; I went to the person and said, Sir you have lost your handkerchief; his wife was there, I had the prisoner by the collar the hand the handkerchief down) the wife said that's my husband's property; the other three boys ran away, the man would not stay, but walked on about his business; I prosecute at my own expence.
Prisoner's defence. I was along with other boys, one of them took the handkerchief, and this man laid hold of me and said I picked the man's pocket, but I did not, I am but thirteen years of age.
Guilty . Transportation to Virginia.
Why does this story distress us? It happened long ago, to a person we don’t know. A thirteen year old boy is found guilty of stealing a handkerchief and is sent to Virginia to provide servant labor. We know that worse things have happened before and since.
We are angered because of the extreme lack of proportion. Yes, it is theft, and yes, he probably did do it, but good heavens, man. For a handkerchief? Sent at a tender age across an ocean, all alone? Yes, yes, I’m sure he was of an age where he should know better, but a single handkerchief?
We might even think the law was the greater criminal for imposing such a punishment.
True?
Proportionality is a moral principle enshrined in both law and custom. We may think the person going 5mph over the speed limit and the guy doing 80 in a 35 zone are both technically “speeding,” but we view it differently and treat it differently. We recognize that it is a bad thing to yell at your wife, but a worse thing to hit her, and worse still to injure her. Shoplifting, grand larceny, and robbing a bank at gunpoint are all “stealing,” but we make distinctions – sometimes fine distinctions – in law and in our approach to people. Having sex with underage females is rape, but we look at it differently if it is a 20 year old having consensual sex with a 15 year old than if it is a 30 year old having forcible sex with a 5 year old. We have taboos against incest, but treat having sexual relations with a sibling differently than with a second cousin. Cutting across someone’s yard is technically trespassing, and we may in certain circumstances even prosecute it. But building a road across someone’s property is viewed as a more serious offense.
This is not morally complicated. There is a time of life when children try to make everything technically equal because it violates a rule, but even they don’t mean it. A 12 year old boy might go blue in the face trying to insist that his father is breaking the law just like any common criminal by taking a rolling stop at a corner, but that same boy will go equally blue complaining if someone thinks his taking a pencil from a classmate’s desk is the same as stealing a laptop. Children even younger than 12 understand proportionality in principle.
Not only do we allow for proportionality, we consider it morally reprehensible at worst, and suspect at best, when it is disallowed, as in the example from the Old Bailey above.
In that context, let’s talk about torture. Several of the leftie sites featured on Pajamas Media (which I imagine confers some level of respectability), such as Andrew Sullivan, firedoglake, and obsidian wings, have tried to claim that proportionality makes no difference. If what the US does fits under someone’s definition of torture, then it’s torture, and we have no moral standing for criticizing our enemies. To such people, it’s all the same. Hell, Teddy Kennedy said it outright. Kerry, Reid, and a dozen others have made the accusation with wiggle-room.
The proof that they regard it as the same is in their protestations. There is always an obligatory comment that what has been done by Saddam or Al-Qaeda is horrible, terrible, no-good, very bad, with insistence that they are not drawing a moral equivalence. Then they draw a moral equivalence, for we are to regard the American actions no differently. Foreign madmen make the accusation of torture and we are to just hang our heads and take it silently.
There is a second dodge, finer-sounding at first blush, but ultimately more contemptible. “It’s not good enough to just say we’re not as bad as Saddam. That’s a ridiculously low standard,” or the related statement “we’re not responsible for what others do, we’re only responsible for what we do.” This is the language of therapists, of marriage counselors whose clients are dealing with at least semi-reasonable people. It sounds so wise, so adult, so objective, and above the fray. The sentiment is entirely true, of course. But it is relevant to only part of the question.
Because it is a truth misapplied, it is thus more base. Things can only fall as far as they have risen, and devils are made of bad angels, not bad kangaroos. If the worst actions of the US guards and interrogators were only marginally less bad than AQ, if we were cutting off one finger instead of two, then the excuse well, we’re not as bad as Saddam would of course be impossibly weak. But that is not the context. You cannot rip moral actions from context and see them clearly. Should you ever shoot a man in the back? Of course not – unless he is pointing a gun at a third person. In this instance, we are speaking of acts that are orders of magnitude in difference.
That doesn’t make our actions right. We should punish our own for evil acts. But attempting to draw equivalences is not relevant. They should not be paired in the same paragraph for discussion.
The people who make these comparisons are able to know this. It is a moral principle they learned in elementary school, though they may talk themselves out of it now. Because they acknowledge the principle in their protestations, they cannot claim ignorance of it. They are aware that the tortures of Saddam greatly exceeded anything the CIA or the military is doing. And yet they use the analogy anyway. They know the principle well enough to use it, and then proceed to disguise its misuse. That is far worse than ignorance.
606. (L) Edward Cain ; otherwise Can , was indicted for stealing handkerchief value 6 d. the property of unknown, September 16. ++
William Paine. On the 16th September I saw the boy at the bar and three others with him take a linen handkerchief out of a person's pocket; I went to the person and said, Sir you have lost your handkerchief; his wife was there, I had the prisoner by the collar the hand the handkerchief down) the wife said that's my husband's property; the other three boys ran away, the man would not stay, but walked on about his business; I prosecute at my own expence.
Prisoner's defence. I was along with other boys, one of them took the handkerchief, and this man laid hold of me and said I picked the man's pocket, but I did not, I am but thirteen years of age.
Guilty . Transportation to Virginia.
Why does this story distress us? It happened long ago, to a person we don’t know. A thirteen year old boy is found guilty of stealing a handkerchief and is sent to Virginia to provide servant labor. We know that worse things have happened before and since.
We are angered because of the extreme lack of proportion. Yes, it is theft, and yes, he probably did do it, but good heavens, man. For a handkerchief? Sent at a tender age across an ocean, all alone? Yes, yes, I’m sure he was of an age where he should know better, but a single handkerchief?
We might even think the law was the greater criminal for imposing such a punishment.
True?
Proportionality is a moral principle enshrined in both law and custom. We may think the person going 5mph over the speed limit and the guy doing 80 in a 35 zone are both technically “speeding,” but we view it differently and treat it differently. We recognize that it is a bad thing to yell at your wife, but a worse thing to hit her, and worse still to injure her. Shoplifting, grand larceny, and robbing a bank at gunpoint are all “stealing,” but we make distinctions – sometimes fine distinctions – in law and in our approach to people. Having sex with underage females is rape, but we look at it differently if it is a 20 year old having consensual sex with a 15 year old than if it is a 30 year old having forcible sex with a 5 year old. We have taboos against incest, but treat having sexual relations with a sibling differently than with a second cousin. Cutting across someone’s yard is technically trespassing, and we may in certain circumstances even prosecute it. But building a road across someone’s property is viewed as a more serious offense.
This is not morally complicated. There is a time of life when children try to make everything technically equal because it violates a rule, but even they don’t mean it. A 12 year old boy might go blue in the face trying to insist that his father is breaking the law just like any common criminal by taking a rolling stop at a corner, but that same boy will go equally blue complaining if someone thinks his taking a pencil from a classmate’s desk is the same as stealing a laptop. Children even younger than 12 understand proportionality in principle.
Not only do we allow for proportionality, we consider it morally reprehensible at worst, and suspect at best, when it is disallowed, as in the example from the Old Bailey above.
In that context, let’s talk about torture. Several of the leftie sites featured on Pajamas Media (which I imagine confers some level of respectability), such as Andrew Sullivan, firedoglake, and obsidian wings, have tried to claim that proportionality makes no difference. If what the US does fits under someone’s definition of torture, then it’s torture, and we have no moral standing for criticizing our enemies. To such people, it’s all the same. Hell, Teddy Kennedy said it outright. Kerry, Reid, and a dozen others have made the accusation with wiggle-room.
The proof that they regard it as the same is in their protestations. There is always an obligatory comment that what has been done by Saddam or Al-Qaeda is horrible, terrible, no-good, very bad, with insistence that they are not drawing a moral equivalence. Then they draw a moral equivalence, for we are to regard the American actions no differently. Foreign madmen make the accusation of torture and we are to just hang our heads and take it silently.
There is a second dodge, finer-sounding at first blush, but ultimately more contemptible. “It’s not good enough to just say we’re not as bad as Saddam. That’s a ridiculously low standard,” or the related statement “we’re not responsible for what others do, we’re only responsible for what we do.” This is the language of therapists, of marriage counselors whose clients are dealing with at least semi-reasonable people. It sounds so wise, so adult, so objective, and above the fray. The sentiment is entirely true, of course. But it is relevant to only part of the question.
Because it is a truth misapplied, it is thus more base. Things can only fall as far as they have risen, and devils are made of bad angels, not bad kangaroos. If the worst actions of the US guards and interrogators were only marginally less bad than AQ, if we were cutting off one finger instead of two, then the excuse well, we’re not as bad as Saddam would of course be impossibly weak. But that is not the context. You cannot rip moral actions from context and see them clearly. Should you ever shoot a man in the back? Of course not – unless he is pointing a gun at a third person. In this instance, we are speaking of acts that are orders of magnitude in difference.
That doesn’t make our actions right. We should punish our own for evil acts. But attempting to draw equivalences is not relevant. They should not be paired in the same paragraph for discussion.
The people who make these comparisons are able to know this. It is a moral principle they learned in elementary school, though they may talk themselves out of it now. Because they acknowledge the principle in their protestations, they cannot claim ignorance of it. They are aware that the tortures of Saddam greatly exceeded anything the CIA or the military is doing. And yet they use the analogy anyway. They know the principle well enough to use it, and then proceed to disguise its misuse. That is far worse than ignorance.
Comparison
It seems there are more WMD in Iraq than there is torture at Gitmo. But somehow they aren't "real" WMD, and humiliation is "real" torture. Sliding scale, apparently.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Ned Flanders and Evangelical Pathology
It is still an idea current on liberal blogs, and apparently in the NCC, Episcopal, and Methodist Church hierarchies, that evangelicals in general, and especially fundamentalists, arrive at their “peculiar” social ideas because they hate women and/or gays and/or sex and/or change – or that they fear same.
It’s a popular interpretation. Certainly, it’s the one we would pick up from popular culture. I think a different pathology is of greater importance. I’ve met lots of folk who hate or fear women, gays, etc, and I’ve met a lot of evangelicals and fundamentalists. I don’t find any overlap in those groups. Perhaps by location (New Hampshire) I meet unrepresentative samples of one or the other. This guy Fred Phelps out in the midwest (reportedly a Democrat, BTW) may fit the stereotype, but no one I meet does.
What I find in evangelical and especially fundamentalist culture are socially clumsy or irritating people, particularly males. My impression is that it is more comfortable to feel rejected and isolated because of one’s religion than because of one’s personality. Guys that are a little too loud, or declare their opinions tactlessly, or find lame jokes funny pop up everywhere, but we seem to have more than our share. Overfriendly, overweight guys, or leaner guys who are perpetually irritated about peripheral doctrines – I know lots of fundamentalists like that. Guys who like to show off their unimportant facts that other people don’t know… gentle guys who want to help but are intrusive - like Ned Flanders on The Simpsons, who tries to cheer you up by coming to your door with the family and singing “Arky, arky.” I often wonder who they’re irritating away from the faith out there. Relatives and coworkers, most likely.
Come to think of it, the cultural stereotypes on The Simpsons are generally more accurate than the popular imagination. Not that the stereotype applies to all of us. I, for example, am charming and socially facile.
As I said, there are guys like this everywhere, but we seem to have lots. What pathology is common among our females I am less certain of. Very insistent women, perhaps. And older women who speak like benevolent elementary schools teachers, even to other adults. The kind who love flannelgraphs.
Just as no one wants to think “people hate me because I’m a hapless jerk,” and would rather think “people hate me because I’m a follower of Christ,” so too going in the other direction. People would far rather think of themselves as hating fundamentalists because “they’re evil and filled with intolerance” than because “they’re socially clumsy.” That would be a petty reason for such intense dislike.
From my observation of the critics, both live and in writing, the petty reason is actually the main reason. I have long held that liberalism is more of a social than an intellectual discipline. These are people who believe that sailing races are more elevated than NASCAR, after all. Showing that you “get it,” that you understand the cultural references, and referring cynically to those things that all the dupes fall for is half the fun of liberalism.
If you think I’m way off the mark with that, then you really don’t listen very well. I work in a liberal environment and hear the condescension every day. Very seldom, by the way, do I hear even a sketchy intellectual argument defending liberal ideas. Some days I think it’s all social – just another way that the cool kids get to show their stuff.
So – I put the observed data of how many socially clueless people the fundamentalists have, and matched with the observed data that social skill is overvalued among liberals, to see whether there’s some relationship. Looks like a close fit from here.
It’s a popular interpretation. Certainly, it’s the one we would pick up from popular culture. I think a different pathology is of greater importance. I’ve met lots of folk who hate or fear women, gays, etc, and I’ve met a lot of evangelicals and fundamentalists. I don’t find any overlap in those groups. Perhaps by location (New Hampshire) I meet unrepresentative samples of one or the other. This guy Fred Phelps out in the midwest (reportedly a Democrat, BTW) may fit the stereotype, but no one I meet does.
What I find in evangelical and especially fundamentalist culture are socially clumsy or irritating people, particularly males. My impression is that it is more comfortable to feel rejected and isolated because of one’s religion than because of one’s personality. Guys that are a little too loud, or declare their opinions tactlessly, or find lame jokes funny pop up everywhere, but we seem to have more than our share. Overfriendly, overweight guys, or leaner guys who are perpetually irritated about peripheral doctrines – I know lots of fundamentalists like that. Guys who like to show off their unimportant facts that other people don’t know… gentle guys who want to help but are intrusive - like Ned Flanders on The Simpsons, who tries to cheer you up by coming to your door with the family and singing “Arky, arky.” I often wonder who they’re irritating away from the faith out there. Relatives and coworkers, most likely.
Come to think of it, the cultural stereotypes on The Simpsons are generally more accurate than the popular imagination. Not that the stereotype applies to all of us. I, for example, am charming and socially facile.
As I said, there are guys like this everywhere, but we seem to have lots. What pathology is common among our females I am less certain of. Very insistent women, perhaps. And older women who speak like benevolent elementary schools teachers, even to other adults. The kind who love flannelgraphs.
Just as no one wants to think “people hate me because I’m a hapless jerk,” and would rather think “people hate me because I’m a follower of Christ,” so too going in the other direction. People would far rather think of themselves as hating fundamentalists because “they’re evil and filled with intolerance” than because “they’re socially clumsy.” That would be a petty reason for such intense dislike.
From my observation of the critics, both live and in writing, the petty reason is actually the main reason. I have long held that liberalism is more of a social than an intellectual discipline. These are people who believe that sailing races are more elevated than NASCAR, after all. Showing that you “get it,” that you understand the cultural references, and referring cynically to those things that all the dupes fall for is half the fun of liberalism.
If you think I’m way off the mark with that, then you really don’t listen very well. I work in a liberal environment and hear the condescension every day. Very seldom, by the way, do I hear even a sketchy intellectual argument defending liberal ideas. Some days I think it’s all social – just another way that the cool kids get to show their stuff.
So – I put the observed data of how many socially clueless people the fundamentalists have, and matched with the observed data that social skill is overvalued among liberals, to see whether there’s some relationship. Looks like a close fit from here.
Sunday, June 18, 2006
The Managing of Impressions II
A local young man was killed in Afghanistan this week. His mother has worked in the public mental health system for many years, and several of us know her slightly, so I mentioned the connection to several of the old hands. I was prepared for the inevitable complaints that “we shouldn’t be over there.” As one of the mantras of the left these days is that they were in support of going into Afghanistan but not Iraq, I responded each time by raising an eyebrow and asking “Afghanistan?” I think they adopt that posture as a way of communicating “I’m not always against military intervention, but we’ve gone overboard/Bush is stupid/it’s for oil/they don’t like us/whatever.” A way of seeming balanced, thoughtful.
I don’t want to accuse them of dishonesty about this. When they stop to think it out, they may well have coherent reasons for Afghanistan yes/Iraq no. But the reflexive response gives away a lot about how they’re storing their information about the Middle East. Their knowledge and opinion isn’t stored as a complex and subtle analysis, it’s stored as a vague negative impression. We all do this more than we would like to admit. But it is this type of thinking which most requires examination on our part. Where does it come from? Why do I think that?
When so many people aren’t thinking very hard, and are thinking just about what the MSM opinion is, you have to wonder. Interestingly, I think the hard left Kossacks and DU have something of a point in their complaint about the MSM, similar to the conservative complaint. They follow the national issues and opinions more closely than the average person. They have examples, quotes, analysis, and statistics about their issues, including the WOT. They don’t want the American public to be just mildly negative about Iraq, they want them to be incensed. At election time, they’ll take even half-hearted votes (as do we all), but they really want people to pay attention, look around, and see what they see. The left is upset at the MSM because it carries all this horrible corruption and warmongering so mildly, as if it had little importance. To them, letting Bush off with mild negatives is letting him off easy, not challenging him and investigating him as he deserves.
They would have a point, if the original premise were true. If BushCo really were guilty of all the things they suspect it of, it really would deserve the amount of energy they’re putting in. We call them unhinged, but that part isn’t. If it were true it would deserve that much anger. If it were true, then the rather emotionless news coverage would be a travesty. It all hinges on the “if,” of course.
I wonder if a certain specie of leftist confuses the passion with importance. The fact that Erin Brokovich and Silkwood made it to the list of most inspiring movies would suggest that. Also, people are impressed with Al Gore’s “passion” in An Inconvenient Truth, and this seems to be used as a proxy for accuracy.
When I prepare a presentation for work, or a note transferring a case, or a little article for the company newsletter, I have to think and write much as a journalist does. What is the most important thing people should know about the conference I went to? What is the range of prior knowledge of my audience on the topic? What piece might be easily misunderstood? What misconceptions do I want to clear up?
That is not very different from someone who wants to persuade you of something. One is reporting, the other editorializing. The line is easily crossed, but that doesn't make it right.
I don’t want to accuse them of dishonesty about this. When they stop to think it out, they may well have coherent reasons for Afghanistan yes/Iraq no. But the reflexive response gives away a lot about how they’re storing their information about the Middle East. Their knowledge and opinion isn’t stored as a complex and subtle analysis, it’s stored as a vague negative impression. We all do this more than we would like to admit. But it is this type of thinking which most requires examination on our part. Where does it come from? Why do I think that?
When so many people aren’t thinking very hard, and are thinking just about what the MSM opinion is, you have to wonder. Interestingly, I think the hard left Kossacks and DU have something of a point in their complaint about the MSM, similar to the conservative complaint. They follow the national issues and opinions more closely than the average person. They have examples, quotes, analysis, and statistics about their issues, including the WOT. They don’t want the American public to be just mildly negative about Iraq, they want them to be incensed. At election time, they’ll take even half-hearted votes (as do we all), but they really want people to pay attention, look around, and see what they see. The left is upset at the MSM because it carries all this horrible corruption and warmongering so mildly, as if it had little importance. To them, letting Bush off with mild negatives is letting him off easy, not challenging him and investigating him as he deserves.
They would have a point, if the original premise were true. If BushCo really were guilty of all the things they suspect it of, it really would deserve the amount of energy they’re putting in. We call them unhinged, but that part isn’t. If it were true it would deserve that much anger. If it were true, then the rather emotionless news coverage would be a travesty. It all hinges on the “if,” of course.
I wonder if a certain specie of leftist confuses the passion with importance. The fact that Erin Brokovich and Silkwood made it to the list of most inspiring movies would suggest that. Also, people are impressed with Al Gore’s “passion” in An Inconvenient Truth, and this seems to be used as a proxy for accuracy.
When I prepare a presentation for work, or a note transferring a case, or a little article for the company newsletter, I have to think and write much as a journalist does. What is the most important thing people should know about the conference I went to? What is the range of prior knowledge of my audience on the topic? What piece might be easily misunderstood? What misconceptions do I want to clear up?
That is not very different from someone who wants to persuade you of something. One is reporting, the other editorializing. The line is easily crossed, but that doesn't make it right.
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Tom and Ray on Car Talk
This morning, over on NPR's Car Talk, Ray (I think) had a Great Idea how to solve the energy crisis, at least as it relates to cars.
I love these guys, but I'm also from New Hampshire, so if you asked me to predict "Dave, what kind of a solution do you think two really smart guys from Massachusetts - Cambridge, no less - will come up with?" I would have a ready answer. Raise taxes.
Ray has this idea that raising the gas tax fifty cents per gallon per year for six years is the way to go. That will put gas at at least six dollars a gallon by then, but it will be "phased in," so it will be relatively painless. He's expecting it will raise gajillions of dollars for alternative energy research and public transportation solutions.
Now, this is what's wrong with letting smart people with Great Ideas run loose without being answerable to the village idiots. On paper, it all works great. But we village idiots have a pretty shrewd idea what the idiots in government - any government, even a good government - will do with this.
A very small portion of the gajillion dollars from year one will be put into unpromising types of research. Hamster wheel research, for example. By year two, the hamster guys will have decide that the problem is inadequate hamsters, and some other company will start in on hamster cloning research, to provide a better quality of hamster. Year three will be a banner year. We will discover that Nigerian and Jamaican hamsters have some of the qualities we need and we will start importing those to engineer the DNA of domestic hamsters. At the same time, ethical questions will be raised about cloning, alien species of hamster, and the use of rodents for work. Lots of people will need to hold conferences about all of these things.
In year four, many congresspersons are going to need to travel to both Nigeria and Jamaica to investigate the hamster situation. There will be back-cage deals involving lots of cash and those little water bottles changing hands. A fatal flaw in the hamster wheel program - namely, that it won't work - will be discovered, but no one will care.
In year five, there will be congressional investigations and investigations of congressmen, the ethical conferences will be going into their third year, electing officers, and setting professional standards in their organizations, to keep amateur hamster ethicists out. Year six a prototype hamster engine will be put out, Discovery Channel National Geographic will run specials on it, but no one will want a car with hamsters, so the government will have to set up large public relations campaigns to convince us that hamsters are the wave of the future. The congresspersons will resign, if they are Republicans, or get reelected, if the are Democrats, but even the new Republicans will find a little hamster money in their cages. Calls to end the hamster research will be resisted, because each of these wheel, cloning, and ethical organizations will all be in somebody's congressional district and need to be protected, so that all the good hamster jobs don't go overseas.
In the end, congress will decide to heavily regulate the various industries.
I love these guys, but I'm also from New Hampshire, so if you asked me to predict "Dave, what kind of a solution do you think two really smart guys from Massachusetts - Cambridge, no less - will come up with?" I would have a ready answer. Raise taxes.
Ray has this idea that raising the gas tax fifty cents per gallon per year for six years is the way to go. That will put gas at at least six dollars a gallon by then, but it will be "phased in," so it will be relatively painless. He's expecting it will raise gajillions of dollars for alternative energy research and public transportation solutions.
Now, this is what's wrong with letting smart people with Great Ideas run loose without being answerable to the village idiots. On paper, it all works great. But we village idiots have a pretty shrewd idea what the idiots in government - any government, even a good government - will do with this.
A very small portion of the gajillion dollars from year one will be put into unpromising types of research. Hamster wheel research, for example. By year two, the hamster guys will have decide that the problem is inadequate hamsters, and some other company will start in on hamster cloning research, to provide a better quality of hamster. Year three will be a banner year. We will discover that Nigerian and Jamaican hamsters have some of the qualities we need and we will start importing those to engineer the DNA of domestic hamsters. At the same time, ethical questions will be raised about cloning, alien species of hamster, and the use of rodents for work. Lots of people will need to hold conferences about all of these things.
In year four, many congresspersons are going to need to travel to both Nigeria and Jamaica to investigate the hamster situation. There will be back-cage deals involving lots of cash and those little water bottles changing hands. A fatal flaw in the hamster wheel program - namely, that it won't work - will be discovered, but no one will care.
In year five, there will be congressional investigations and investigations of congressmen, the ethical conferences will be going into their third year, electing officers, and setting professional standards in their organizations, to keep amateur hamster ethicists out. Year six a prototype hamster engine will be put out, Discovery Channel National Geographic will run specials on it, but no one will want a car with hamsters, so the government will have to set up large public relations campaigns to convince us that hamsters are the wave of the future. The congresspersons will resign, if they are Republicans, or get reelected, if the are Democrats, but even the new Republicans will find a little hamster money in their cages. Calls to end the hamster research will be resisted, because each of these wheel, cloning, and ethical organizations will all be in somebody's congressional district and need to be protected, so that all the good hamster jobs don't go overseas.
In the end, congress will decide to heavily regulate the various industries.
Friday, June 16, 2006
One Fake Document?
Michael Ledeen, over at National Review Online speculates that the most-quoted document from the Zarqawi raid is a fake. He doesn't cast doubt on any of the other documents, but they seem to be of a different sort anyway. Ledeen wonders out loud if the Iranians might have something to do with it. Rush Limbaugh has reportedly suggested that same document was "too good to be true," though I don't know whether he meant that seriously or humorously.
I am no documant analyst, nor am I wise in the ways of counterespionage or black propaganda, except in my daydreams. But the doubt cast on the one document opened up other speculations for me. This sudden flurry of raids based on the newly acquired information - how many of them were planned weeks ago, waiting for an event such as this one to be put into action? Some raids might compromise intelligence sources, if, say only half-dozen people could possibly have known about a particular location. A "treasure trove" of documents would provide immediate cover. When Ceausescu was overthrown in Romania, it looked at the time as if the demonstrations were spontaneous. Only in retrospect did many conclude that Iliescu and the Securitate had planned the takeover months or years before, waiting until the proper opportunity presented itself.
Was this key document prepared long before - by the Americans, by the Iraqis, by the Jordanians or Iranians - held in abeyance for the next plausible moment to be put into circulation? With thousands of new documents now come to light and looking for translators, what percentage are plants by one group or another to create a particular false impression?
Iraq is a country that lives by rumor, and believes outrageous rumors. This is standard in countries that have lived under tyranny, of course. Accurate information is seldom available, but explanations for events must be found.
I am no documant analyst, nor am I wise in the ways of counterespionage or black propaganda, except in my daydreams. But the doubt cast on the one document opened up other speculations for me. This sudden flurry of raids based on the newly acquired information - how many of them were planned weeks ago, waiting for an event such as this one to be put into action? Some raids might compromise intelligence sources, if, say only half-dozen people could possibly have known about a particular location. A "treasure trove" of documents would provide immediate cover. When Ceausescu was overthrown in Romania, it looked at the time as if the demonstrations were spontaneous. Only in retrospect did many conclude that Iliescu and the Securitate had planned the takeover months or years before, waiting until the proper opportunity presented itself.
Was this key document prepared long before - by the Americans, by the Iraqis, by the Jordanians or Iranians - held in abeyance for the next plausible moment to be put into circulation? With thousands of new documents now come to light and looking for translators, what percentage are plants by one group or another to create a particular false impression?
Iraq is a country that lives by rumor, and believes outrageous rumors. This is standard in countries that have lived under tyranny, of course. Accurate information is seldom available, but explanations for events must be found.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Added Bonus
The cry has gone out that killing Zarqawi is not a big change in the war's fortunes. Okay, how about Zarqawi's death plus 452 raids on insurgents in one week?
Rush Is Wrong - Sort Of
I catch about 15 minutes of Rush a day, in 3 five-minute bursts. Yesterday he claimed, as he has before, that the Democrats were being reflexively oppositional, before all the information is in, because they are obsessed with regaining power. That may be true in Washington, at least for some.
But what I see when I read liberals online are people who want their world-view to be validated. While the DU and KosKids, or more mildly at the liberal blogs, clearly hope that their folks come to power, that's not what seems to hurt them to their core. They really believe that certain things are true: that negotiation works in foreign policy, that mankind is dangerously warming the earth, that the poor don't get a fair chance. When others don't also act as if these things are true, they immediately conclude it must be for some nefarious reason. No one could possibly not believe these obvious things unless they had some powerful countermotive or personal interest. They must stand to make a buck off it, they must get off on being important, they must want to impose their will on the weak.
They are willing to entertain any number of extremely unlikely possibilities rather than consider that their world-view is what's awry. The oil companies must be willing to lose lots of money and get bad PR because they hope to have a monopoly later. Huh? They want to roll the dice of going bankrupt? Really? Bush and Cheney are oil men and want to make money for their buddies. Huh? Capitalists want to make money for other people? They want to have a theocracy so that everyone believes like them. You mean these churches that keep splitting off from each other, hate large denominations, and can't even decide what kind of music they want are going to somehow coalesce into a unified force to make everyone worship the same way? Are you mad? Bush must be lying...the jobs can't be good ones...thousands of people conspired to steal an election...
It's not the power. It's the inability to consider that they may have structured their lives around untruths.
But what I see when I read liberals online are people who want their world-view to be validated. While the DU and KosKids, or more mildly at the liberal blogs, clearly hope that their folks come to power, that's not what seems to hurt them to their core. They really believe that certain things are true: that negotiation works in foreign policy, that mankind is dangerously warming the earth, that the poor don't get a fair chance. When others don't also act as if these things are true, they immediately conclude it must be for some nefarious reason. No one could possibly not believe these obvious things unless they had some powerful countermotive or personal interest. They must stand to make a buck off it, they must get off on being important, they must want to impose their will on the weak.
They are willing to entertain any number of extremely unlikely possibilities rather than consider that their world-view is what's awry. The oil companies must be willing to lose lots of money and get bad PR because they hope to have a monopoly later. Huh? They want to roll the dice of going bankrupt? Really? Bush and Cheney are oil men and want to make money for their buddies. Huh? Capitalists want to make money for other people? They want to have a theocracy so that everyone believes like them. You mean these churches that keep splitting off from each other, hate large denominations, and can't even decide what kind of music they want are going to somehow coalesce into a unified force to make everyone worship the same way? Are you mad? Bush must be lying...the jobs can't be good ones...thousands of people conspired to steal an election...
It's not the power. It's the inability to consider that they may have structured their lives around untruths.
Never Say You've Seen It All
Another of Wyman's unofficial rules of psychology is to never say you have seen it all. God will humble you the very next day with something you have never seen before.
At Wednesday's staffing we met a woman who is deeply involved in political causes. She volunteers for the American Indian Movement and freeing Leonard Peltier; she also volunteers for NOW and the Libertarian Party. There can't be many with that particular constellation.
Thursday we had a possibly delirious woman (there are still some other rule-outs) who was unable to put three words together to answer a question, but quite desperately and fearfully wanted to communicate with us. Realizing that her thoughts were neither coming out correctly nor remaining in her head long, she pulled on her ear to indicate a "sounds like," but was unable to remain focused long enough to tie a charade together. So she tried writing, but started from the right, and would sometimes spell forwards and sometimes backwards (I wanted Oliver Sacks for that), adding in diagrams that she would get lost in repeating. We guessed a few phrases correctly, but she had forgotten their significance by then.
It was clear we weren't going anywhere (she is a bit clearer today), but also obvious that it was very important to her to keep trying. She tried some words that were not Latin, but had Latin endings, and eventually got out "werbum" and "verbum." Very frustrated, she tried singing. For some unknown reason, probably just inertia, she tried to sing the harmony on the second line - I could tell it should have started on the third, but she didn't find it. My suspicion is she usually hits the third with ease. (My mother, when dying of cancer and unable to speak, would hit the third higher in a weak hum when I sang for her. Boy, would her mother and aunts have been proud.)
It was a remarkable string of creative attempts for someone trapped in a currently-broken brain, and quite poignant. Inspiring, really.
At Wednesday's staffing we met a woman who is deeply involved in political causes. She volunteers for the American Indian Movement and freeing Leonard Peltier; she also volunteers for NOW and the Libertarian Party. There can't be many with that particular constellation.
Thursday we had a possibly delirious woman (there are still some other rule-outs) who was unable to put three words together to answer a question, but quite desperately and fearfully wanted to communicate with us. Realizing that her thoughts were neither coming out correctly nor remaining in her head long, she pulled on her ear to indicate a "sounds like," but was unable to remain focused long enough to tie a charade together. So she tried writing, but started from the right, and would sometimes spell forwards and sometimes backwards (I wanted Oliver Sacks for that), adding in diagrams that she would get lost in repeating. We guessed a few phrases correctly, but she had forgotten their significance by then.
It was clear we weren't going anywhere (she is a bit clearer today), but also obvious that it was very important to her to keep trying. She tried some words that were not Latin, but had Latin endings, and eventually got out "werbum" and "verbum." Very frustrated, she tried singing. For some unknown reason, probably just inertia, she tried to sing the harmony on the second line - I could tell it should have started on the third, but she didn't find it. My suspicion is she usually hits the third with ease. (My mother, when dying of cancer and unable to speak, would hit the third higher in a weak hum when I sang for her. Boy, would her mother and aunts have been proud.)
It was a remarkable string of creative attempts for someone trapped in a currently-broken brain, and quite poignant. Inspiring, really.
Categorizing Sex Offenders: Introduction
We all like to categorize things. Categorization is an aid to thought and memory. It is doubtful we could think much at all if we couldn’t make generalizations to handle large amounts of data conveniently.
Organizing things by type is such a powerful tool that we overuse it. A long-standing division of sexual offenders is into two main groups: child molesters and rapers of adult women. A similar system of classification divides out a third group: perpetrators of incest. These categories are not without basis. There is a bimodal distribution of age at first arrest, with the adult rapists at 14-17 years, usually for nonsexual offenses, and the child molesters at 31-35, nearly always for sexual offenses. The adult rapists are more likely to have property, drug, and violence offenses in their criminal records; the molesters of children have stronger work records and more paraphilias. There is also considerable justification for separating out incest perpetrators, as a significant minority offend for “only” a limited period under great stress.
But these categories, while not useless, are quite porous. If you work with the sex-offending population, you keep coming up against exceptions. We have tended to explain these away with yet more categories in the past. “Oh, he’s Mild MR,” or “But he’s got some neurological involvement.”
Yet as the sexual history slowly unfolds, there is a great deal of unexpected crossover. The child molester’s sister reveals that he forcibly raped her when she was 17; the step-dad convicted of an incestuous relationship with his 14 year old daughter had a previous accusation, twenty years ago, of babysitter molestation of a five year old boy. Categories fall apart.
Knight, at Bridgewater State, divided offenders into six groups. A Canadian group suggests that these six should be subdivided into 20. I don’t hold with any of those systems; we now use spectrum measures of violence, paraphilias, usual victims, and social integration. Head injury and substance abuse, the major wild cards, also get close attention. We can afford to be this unstructured because we’re old, and can’t get the
three old categories out of our heads after so many years, providing a framework.
Treatment now centers on accurate assessment (which drives risk, placement, and supervision) and reducing risk factors. That’s a whole different discussion, which I leave off here. Key concepts: frontal lobes, executive functions. Anything which interferes with the frontal lobes, such as head injury or substance abuse, sends reoffense rates through the roof.
Organizing things by type is such a powerful tool that we overuse it. A long-standing division of sexual offenders is into two main groups: child molesters and rapers of adult women. A similar system of classification divides out a third group: perpetrators of incest. These categories are not without basis. There is a bimodal distribution of age at first arrest, with the adult rapists at 14-17 years, usually for nonsexual offenses, and the child molesters at 31-35, nearly always for sexual offenses. The adult rapists are more likely to have property, drug, and violence offenses in their criminal records; the molesters of children have stronger work records and more paraphilias. There is also considerable justification for separating out incest perpetrators, as a significant minority offend for “only” a limited period under great stress.
But these categories, while not useless, are quite porous. If you work with the sex-offending population, you keep coming up against exceptions. We have tended to explain these away with yet more categories in the past. “Oh, he’s Mild MR,” or “But he’s got some neurological involvement.”
Yet as the sexual history slowly unfolds, there is a great deal of unexpected crossover. The child molester’s sister reveals that he forcibly raped her when she was 17; the step-dad convicted of an incestuous relationship with his 14 year old daughter had a previous accusation, twenty years ago, of babysitter molestation of a five year old boy. Categories fall apart.
Knight, at Bridgewater State, divided offenders into six groups. A Canadian group suggests that these six should be subdivided into 20. I don’t hold with any of those systems; we now use spectrum measures of violence, paraphilias, usual victims, and social integration. Head injury and substance abuse, the major wild cards, also get close attention. We can afford to be this unstructured because we’re old, and can’t get the
three old categories out of our heads after so many years, providing a framework.
Treatment now centers on accurate assessment (which drives risk, placement, and supervision) and reducing risk factors. That’s a whole different discussion, which I leave off here. Key concepts: frontal lobes, executive functions. Anything which interferes with the frontal lobes, such as head injury or substance abuse, sends reoffense rates through the roof.
The Managing of Impressions - Part I
Eric Umansky (via pajamasmedia) posts today about reports of mistreatment of prisoners at Gitmo, in the wake of the suicides and suicide attempts there. His source is one of the attorneys representing several prisoners there. He also quotes a psychiatrist on more clinical matters. My disagreements with the psychiatrist I posted in the comments there.
A prisoner’s attorney is both the best of sources and the worst of sources. The attorney usually has considerable direct knowledge of circumstances, is able to speak with the prisoner and make his own observations. A lawyer also has specific training in questioning people, seeing the story behind the story, and noting inconsistent information. Additionally, an attorney often has background information which cannot necessarily be shared openly, but informs his impressions. In that sense, Umansky’s source is among the best we could hope for to be our eyes and ears in holding the military accountable.
But a prisoner’s attorney is also the worst of sources. It is his job to manage the impression created, to tell only one side of the story, and to put his client’s actions in the best possible light. That is not only true in wartime situations, but in every legal situation. A student makes an accusation against a school via her attorney. The school administration may be unable to respond because of confidentiality, or able to respond in only the most general way. A patient alleges malpractice; the doctor and hospital cannot respond. A prosecutor has to be exquisitely careful in what she is allowed to reveal. The defense attorney can say anything.
Eric did not throw up any red flags when passing on this information. Eric is also attempting to manage impressions, eh? I had this same discussion with a Gitmo attorney over at Obsidian Wings. People were amazed that I didn’t consider a rights attorney an unimpeachable source. I think it’s madness. I’ve sat across enough tables with legal advocates, and been cross-examined by enough in court, to know that what they are trying to get you to believe is sometimes completely ridiculous. Why in the world would anyone take their comments at face value? Note: I make a sharp differentiation between attorneys willing to represent difficult defendants and attorneys who make rights-protection their gig. Those who know both will know what I mean.
I have no direct knowledge for the following speculation. It is, however, an educated guess. What sort of personality becomes a full-fledged jihadi?* There might be a few rather manicky folk, or even a few psychotics. Depressives are unlikely. But Al Qeada has more than its share drawn from the following categories: Antisocial Personality Disorder; Borderline Personality Disorder; Narcissistic Personality Disorder; Paranoid Personality Disorder. Those of you familiar with those categories, please take the time to go over each in turn and see if you agree. I encourage you to post even minor quibbles with my list. I base this speculation on the people in the American population who join gangs, violent political and religious groups, organized crime, and family/clan criminal organizations. This is somewhat similar to an American prison population, though that would be predominantly Antisocial PD’s.
Their attorneys try to paint them in a different light, suggesting that they are not very different than the boys who join our own military or work as counselors at church camp. Just enthusiastic kids with a patriotic streak, caught up in violent events, y’know? (Once in awhile, it’s even true.) Ever hear only one side of a divorce, or only one side of someone’s firing?
But, do you think that when an American inmate calls his attorney to claim he has been abused and his rights violated, there might occasionally be a discrepancy between his story and the facts? Thus also with Gitmo. A prisoner at Gitmo tells his attorney how he was injured. The attorney tells Eric Umansky. Eric reports it to us as reliable.
Inmate abuse does occur, of course. And schools do mistreat students, and doctors commit malpractice. It’s always a real possibility, and whenever one of these complaints comes before the public, it is good to investigate.
Thus - it is good to mentally assign credibility to all the players, and better still to reserve judgement until the data is in.
*And don’t even get me started on what sort of personality becomes a rights attorney.
A prisoner’s attorney is both the best of sources and the worst of sources. The attorney usually has considerable direct knowledge of circumstances, is able to speak with the prisoner and make his own observations. A lawyer also has specific training in questioning people, seeing the story behind the story, and noting inconsistent information. Additionally, an attorney often has background information which cannot necessarily be shared openly, but informs his impressions. In that sense, Umansky’s source is among the best we could hope for to be our eyes and ears in holding the military accountable.
But a prisoner’s attorney is also the worst of sources. It is his job to manage the impression created, to tell only one side of the story, and to put his client’s actions in the best possible light. That is not only true in wartime situations, but in every legal situation. A student makes an accusation against a school via her attorney. The school administration may be unable to respond because of confidentiality, or able to respond in only the most general way. A patient alleges malpractice; the doctor and hospital cannot respond. A prosecutor has to be exquisitely careful in what she is allowed to reveal. The defense attorney can say anything.
Eric did not throw up any red flags when passing on this information. Eric is also attempting to manage impressions, eh? I had this same discussion with a Gitmo attorney over at Obsidian Wings. People were amazed that I didn’t consider a rights attorney an unimpeachable source. I think it’s madness. I’ve sat across enough tables with legal advocates, and been cross-examined by enough in court, to know that what they are trying to get you to believe is sometimes completely ridiculous. Why in the world would anyone take their comments at face value? Note: I make a sharp differentiation between attorneys willing to represent difficult defendants and attorneys who make rights-protection their gig. Those who know both will know what I mean.
I have no direct knowledge for the following speculation. It is, however, an educated guess. What sort of personality becomes a full-fledged jihadi?* There might be a few rather manicky folk, or even a few psychotics. Depressives are unlikely. But Al Qeada has more than its share drawn from the following categories: Antisocial Personality Disorder; Borderline Personality Disorder; Narcissistic Personality Disorder; Paranoid Personality Disorder. Those of you familiar with those categories, please take the time to go over each in turn and see if you agree. I encourage you to post even minor quibbles with my list. I base this speculation on the people in the American population who join gangs, violent political and religious groups, organized crime, and family/clan criminal organizations. This is somewhat similar to an American prison population, though that would be predominantly Antisocial PD’s.
Their attorneys try to paint them in a different light, suggesting that they are not very different than the boys who join our own military or work as counselors at church camp. Just enthusiastic kids with a patriotic streak, caught up in violent events, y’know? (Once in awhile, it’s even true.) Ever hear only one side of a divorce, or only one side of someone’s firing?
But, do you think that when an American inmate calls his attorney to claim he has been abused and his rights violated, there might occasionally be a discrepancy between his story and the facts? Thus also with Gitmo. A prisoner at Gitmo tells his attorney how he was injured. The attorney tells Eric Umansky. Eric reports it to us as reliable.
Inmate abuse does occur, of course. And schools do mistreat students, and doctors commit malpractice. It’s always a real possibility, and whenever one of these complaints comes before the public, it is good to investigate.
Thus - it is good to mentally assign credibility to all the players, and better still to reserve judgement until the data is in.
*And don’t even get me started on what sort of personality becomes a rights attorney.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)