I’d like to continue that alt-history from the previous post, not for any important lesson, just for amusement. If Trent Lott doesn’t squelch the impeachment and Bill Clinton is removed or is convinced to resign, what next? The claim at the time that most Americans did not want Clinton removed was technically true, but misleading. About 60% thought that, but almost a third of those were only “somewhat opposed,” and another 10% were “moderately opposed.” The numbers varied depending on the wording of the polling. That was also true in the other direction that some who favored removing him were pretty mild about it. In an alt-history replay, there would be a motivated core of Democrats who would have been unhinged about it, with wild accusations of fascism. Oh wait. That happened anyway, so that doesn’t much matter. But some of the moderates or not-paying-attentions or emotion-based voters would have felt a bit sorry for Gore, and want to give him a chance, or whatever. I suspect he would have won in 2000, because it wouldn't take much of a swing. 9-11 happens on his watch, as does the recession. As his term is seen as something as a continuation of the Clinton terms, more blame goes toward the Democrats, and especially the Clintons because of that. OTOH, there was popular sentiment for the US to do something strong in response to 9-11, and Gore would have likely done something. Even Tom Friedman was saying we had to hit somebody. Whether it was wise or foolish, Americans rally around their president at such times, and Gore might have gained more support than he lost. If he didn’t “hit someone,” he might be resented for that. Hard to say; and without knowing exactly what he would have done, harder to project forward.
But the Republicans would be more likely to nominate McCain in 2004 if anything military was either happening or people thought should be happening (Sarah Palin was then ex-mayor of Wasilla, chairing the commission that watched over the oil and gas fields; not a VP possibility), and the Clintons might be dead in the water for good. Or maybe not. If Gore botched things, or was even perceived to have done so, the Clinton true believers could have put out the platform that these terrible responses would never have happened under Clinton, and we’d better elect Hillary right away. I think McCain wins either way.
The reader is welcome to propose alternate scenarios. No penalty. Except I will find you completely unconvincing, of course.
Thursday, September 13, 2018
1998-2018
When the Democrats of the US Senate would not even walk across the street in 1998 to look at the evidence that Bill Clinton was a rapist, I vowed to myself “I will not vote for any Democrat for 20 years, unless they were too young or politically uninvolved at this moment. This level of dishonesty is a bridge too far.” I later learned that it was Trent Lott* who put the fix in, but that still didn’t absolve them in my eyes. I haven’t had many temptations in the last two decades. When one Republican governor was pretty seedy I just left that line blank. (I usually leave at least one line blank. I don’t have high standards – these are politicians we are talking about, let’s get real – but some people do fall beneath even my minimal requirements.) I actually had grudging approval of John Lynch by the end. It was amusing when people wondered in 2016 whether I disapproved enough of Trump to vote for Hillary. That would be a maximum level of irony that human brains cannot safely attempt.
The 20 years will be up after this election. I don’t think it changed things much on a practical level, but sometimes it’s nice to make promises to yourself and follow through on them just to remember what you were thinking then. It ties pieces of one’s life together.
*No theory I have heard seems convincing to me. Unwillingness to call out corruption to protect himself or others comes closest. The alt-history would then be that Gore likely wins in 2000, so the 2000-2002 recession falls in his lap, as does 9-11. Too many possible branchings after that, but it’s interesting.
The 20 years will be up after this election. I don’t think it changed things much on a practical level, but sometimes it’s nice to make promises to yourself and follow through on them just to remember what you were thinking then. It ties pieces of one’s life together.
*No theory I have heard seems convincing to me. Unwillingness to call out corruption to protect himself or others comes closest. The alt-history would then be that Gore likely wins in 2000, so the 2000-2002 recession falls in his lap, as does 9-11. Too many possible branchings after that, but it’s interesting.
First-in-the-Nation Primary
Fifteen minutes after the November elections, the campaigning will start with a vengeance here. It came around so fast I didn't notice. There has already been stealth campaigning and lining up allies, probably starting fifteen minutes after the last election. Candidates pretend to be just wandering around looking for moose and eating in diners. They speak at Rotary clubs and business organisations about favorite causes. Oh wait. You guys are having the primary up here sometime, right? (Facepalm) I had completely forgotten that.
November 6th at midnight the mask comes off. I don't think Republicans are going to be running against Trump, even if they can't stand him. So it will be wall-to-wall Democrats, whose main theme will be how much they hate Trump even more than the others.
I want to put up signs at the borders and at the airport
ATTENTION DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY CANDIDATES
WE KNOW YOU HATE TRUMP
WE GET THAT
TELL US SOMETHING ELSE
ANYTHING ELSE
November 6th at midnight the mask comes off. I don't think Republicans are going to be running against Trump, even if they can't stand him. So it will be wall-to-wall Democrats, whose main theme will be how much they hate Trump even more than the others.
I want to put up signs at the borders and at the airport
ATTENTION DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY CANDIDATES
WE KNOW YOU HATE TRUMP
WE GET THAT
TELL US SOMETHING ELSE
ANYTHING ELSE
David Warren on Chastity
I often like Warren, though he can be a bit of a snob. The positive side of that is having standards and caring about culture. Our faults are usually just our strengths taken too far. He is forceful but not rude here. He relates the vow of chastity to that of poverty, and shows their relation. Quite brief. Packed solid.
Tuesday, September 11, 2018
Benedict Option Update.
I was surprised. The class I will be co-leading will not be until winter. I am still pushing my way through The Benedict Option, weeks later. It just doesn't grip me. I have to force myself to stay with it for more than a few paragraphs at a time, and avoid going back to it. Apparently the good gujys in the Catholic hierarchy disagree with me.
Monday, September 10, 2018
25%
BSKing over at Graph Paper Diaries referenced an interesting study in her What I'm Reading September 2018 post, concerning tipping points in social conventions. I could link to the study directly, but I want you to see her discussion, plus her answer to my question in the comments. You can get distracted and read her other stuff there if you want. I'll wait.
Her caveats are important. It was an artificial situation, and the 25% may not hold on something people cared about more deeply. The intensity of either the minority or the majority about something like gay marriage, going to war, or toppling statues might move the number up or down considerably. Also, the tested subjects were WEIRD - Western Educated Industrialized Rich and Democratic - as social-science test subjects usually are. (They are usually college students, and so young, non-military, and single with no children as well.)
Yet let us pretend, just for the moment that something like this is true. A determined minority of only 25% can flip the group opinion. Consider something like the TEA Party. It seems to have approached that number and had influence but didn't quite flip the GOP everywhere. It did flip it in some places (and Trump may have been more beholden to that than we have credited). The Tea Party rose up to the tipping point and then receded slightly. They might have been doomed to just fade out, election by election. Until...Donald Trump's supporters may have been very much this 25% phenomenon. A lot of people who eventually voted for The Donald didn't like him much at first. They were okay with a Jeb or a Rubio, though not excited. They may have relished the thought of watching Carly Fiorina debate Hillary Clinton, or wanted to go to a more-conservative, don't-care-if-he's-annoying Ted Cruz. But almost no one was sold out for any of those. Trump's supporters, though few, were sold out. It simmered for a while, with Trump getting something in the neighborhood of that 25% in various primaries, enough to win, though a majority still opposed him. Eventually the 25% moved the other 75%. Bernie almost did the same thing with the Democrats. He would have, actually, if they weren't so corrupt and had their thumb on the scale for Clinton. The sold-out-for-Bernie crew was over 25% of the Dems, I think.
I'll wait again while you chew over that and think whether it's right so far. Does the committed 25% move the majority? Does it work even at high levels when everyone cares more? I submit that something like this happened with gay marriage and other social changes. The few cared deeply on either side, but neither hit 25%. Many Americans were opposed, but not so deeply that they put it top of their list. Eventually the highly committed change side hit 25%., and the flip happened fast.
I think the most effective of activists have a sense of when their committed minority might hit 25%, and know when to push their chips to the center of the table. Martin Luther King Jr comes to mind. He was persuasive, but others were as well. There were instances of injustice ripe for protest, but they were there five years before, ten years before. He was the one who knew it was time. Similar things might be said of Lenin, of Patrick Henry or Sam Adams, of Hitler. Maybe they were just lucky, yet I think they had a sense of sudden urgency, recognising the times. From my list one can see that this can be used for good or ill.
An important side note: those true believers are usually not corrupt. They might become so later, but they burn with a purer fire. You don't have to pay them, they show up for free. Some Nazis looted art treasures and even the gold fillings of the teeth of Jews. Others would scrupulously account for every pfennig, not to take anything not authorised.
So...what is happening with the Democrats right now? The minority - I think a near-insane group - are rising up as if they think they may be the 25%. They don't consciously think of it that way, certainly. They have been there simmering for as long as I can remember. The 1960's left included the Weather Underground and the Chicago Seven, but they didn't reach 25% of any party. The other liberals, who were not like that but welcomed the more radical brethren and kept their criticism mild, decided to go mainstream instead, and slowly take over one political party and some institutions. The 1960's split into two groups, the lesser one just simmering, hoping for a break.
The social liberalism of the high-tech crowd may have caught the Chuck Schumers and Bill Clintons by surprise. They were still hunkered down for the long battle. But Obama was a transitional figure. While he was mostly from the mainstream left, the descendant of JFK, Mayor Daley, Al Gore, there were also roots reaching more deeply into radicalism, to Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. He disavowed them with a nod and a wink. Now the whirlwind is upon us, with the left eating its own. After all the table-pounding and posturing, they always came back into the fold for the votes, and listened to the politicos who said "We won't die on this hill, because we can take the next one and live." I think that is disappearing.
Republicans exult, hoping that this spells the final dissolution of the unstable alliances that have been the Democratic Party since 1958 - if not in 2018, then soon, very soon. I am not so encouraged. I think insane people taking over a major party is frightening. To counter that this has already happened with Trump and the Republicans is to completely miss the point of what Trump is. Do not listen to what he says. Look at what he does. He speaks like a radical, but acts within the mainstream. He is something like a mirror of Bill Clinton, who won elections by (brilliantly) trashing conservatives but whose actions were center-left. The radical minority arising among the Democrats has been 10% of them for five decades. If they reach 25% of the party it will not be good for America, whatever happens in elections.
Cross-posted at Chicago Boyz
Her caveats are important. It was an artificial situation, and the 25% may not hold on something people cared about more deeply. The intensity of either the minority or the majority about something like gay marriage, going to war, or toppling statues might move the number up or down considerably. Also, the tested subjects were WEIRD - Western Educated Industrialized Rich and Democratic - as social-science test subjects usually are. (They are usually college students, and so young, non-military, and single with no children as well.)
Yet let us pretend, just for the moment that something like this is true. A determined minority of only 25% can flip the group opinion. Consider something like the TEA Party. It seems to have approached that number and had influence but didn't quite flip the GOP everywhere. It did flip it in some places (and Trump may have been more beholden to that than we have credited). The Tea Party rose up to the tipping point and then receded slightly. They might have been doomed to just fade out, election by election. Until...Donald Trump's supporters may have been very much this 25% phenomenon. A lot of people who eventually voted for The Donald didn't like him much at first. They were okay with a Jeb or a Rubio, though not excited. They may have relished the thought of watching Carly Fiorina debate Hillary Clinton, or wanted to go to a more-conservative, don't-care-if-he's-annoying Ted Cruz. But almost no one was sold out for any of those. Trump's supporters, though few, were sold out. It simmered for a while, with Trump getting something in the neighborhood of that 25% in various primaries, enough to win, though a majority still opposed him. Eventually the 25% moved the other 75%. Bernie almost did the same thing with the Democrats. He would have, actually, if they weren't so corrupt and had their thumb on the scale for Clinton. The sold-out-for-Bernie crew was over 25% of the Dems, I think.
I'll wait again while you chew over that and think whether it's right so far. Does the committed 25% move the majority? Does it work even at high levels when everyone cares more? I submit that something like this happened with gay marriage and other social changes. The few cared deeply on either side, but neither hit 25%. Many Americans were opposed, but not so deeply that they put it top of their list. Eventually the highly committed change side hit 25%., and the flip happened fast.
I think the most effective of activists have a sense of when their committed minority might hit 25%, and know when to push their chips to the center of the table. Martin Luther King Jr comes to mind. He was persuasive, but others were as well. There were instances of injustice ripe for protest, but they were there five years before, ten years before. He was the one who knew it was time. Similar things might be said of Lenin, of Patrick Henry or Sam Adams, of Hitler. Maybe they were just lucky, yet I think they had a sense of sudden urgency, recognising the times. From my list one can see that this can be used for good or ill.
An important side note: those true believers are usually not corrupt. They might become so later, but they burn with a purer fire. You don't have to pay them, they show up for free. Some Nazis looted art treasures and even the gold fillings of the teeth of Jews. Others would scrupulously account for every pfennig, not to take anything not authorised.
So...what is happening with the Democrats right now? The minority - I think a near-insane group - are rising up as if they think they may be the 25%. They don't consciously think of it that way, certainly. They have been there simmering for as long as I can remember. The 1960's left included the Weather Underground and the Chicago Seven, but they didn't reach 25% of any party. The other liberals, who were not like that but welcomed the more radical brethren and kept their criticism mild, decided to go mainstream instead, and slowly take over one political party and some institutions. The 1960's split into two groups, the lesser one just simmering, hoping for a break.
The social liberalism of the high-tech crowd may have caught the Chuck Schumers and Bill Clintons by surprise. They were still hunkered down for the long battle. But Obama was a transitional figure. While he was mostly from the mainstream left, the descendant of JFK, Mayor Daley, Al Gore, there were also roots reaching more deeply into radicalism, to Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. He disavowed them with a nod and a wink. Now the whirlwind is upon us, with the left eating its own. After all the table-pounding and posturing, they always came back into the fold for the votes, and listened to the politicos who said "We won't die on this hill, because we can take the next one and live." I think that is disappearing.
Republicans exult, hoping that this spells the final dissolution of the unstable alliances that have been the Democratic Party since 1958 - if not in 2018, then soon, very soon. I am not so encouraged. I think insane people taking over a major party is frightening. To counter that this has already happened with Trump and the Republicans is to completely miss the point of what Trump is. Do not listen to what he says. Look at what he does. He speaks like a radical, but acts within the mainstream. He is something like a mirror of Bill Clinton, who won elections by (brilliantly) trashing conservatives but whose actions were center-left. The radical minority arising among the Democrats has been 10% of them for five decades. If they reach 25% of the party it will not be good for America, whatever happens in elections.
Cross-posted at Chicago Boyz
Everything Old Is New Again - Wyman Edition
My son tweeted this with the quote: "Kohl’s models are going with “handsome version of David Wyman’s outfits from 1983-2018”
This is essentially true. Okay, it's Kohl's. And it is clearly the older gent, not the current fashion look, but still...
If you wait long enough, you come back into fashion.
Then there is the song with that name. There are half-a-dozen YouTubes of this, but I chose the one most appropriately ridiculous, with Anne Murray (who sings it best) saying "...like the way we Nova Scotians throw a party, right?" My grandfather moved down from Nova Scotia, and yeah, this would be about the wildest party he could have imagined, yeah: The wives crammed together at repurposed school-lunch tables, dressed in churchwomen's banquet best, the men stuffed amazingly into penguin suits with standard Kiwanis choreography. Anne Murray was either hurting for gigs, or a very nice person doing a favor for a friend. Still, the voice is there. Homage to Grandpa Wyman's people. Let it be known that his son dressed better than he did, and I dressed better than that. We have generation over generation improvement here.
I just watched this three times running, caught between irony and nostalgia. There is a double "everything old" quality about this, because this is the sort of annual banquet entertainment I remember from my youth.
This is essentially true. Okay, it's Kohl's. And it is clearly the older gent, not the current fashion look, but still...
If you wait long enough, you come back into fashion.
Then there is the song with that name. There are half-a-dozen YouTubes of this, but I chose the one most appropriately ridiculous, with Anne Murray (who sings it best) saying "...like the way we Nova Scotians throw a party, right?" My grandfather moved down from Nova Scotia, and yeah, this would be about the wildest party he could have imagined, yeah: The wives crammed together at repurposed school-lunch tables, dressed in churchwomen's banquet best, the men stuffed amazingly into penguin suits with standard Kiwanis choreography. Anne Murray was either hurting for gigs, or a very nice person doing a favor for a friend. Still, the voice is there. Homage to Grandpa Wyman's people. Let it be known that his son dressed better than he did, and I dressed better than that. We have generation over generation improvement here.
I just watched this three times running, caught between irony and nostalgia. There is a double "everything old" quality about this, because this is the sort of annual banquet entertainment I remember from my youth.
Sunday, September 09, 2018
Marijuana Use
It is interesting that studies try to focus on people who use only moderately. I think the general comparison is with those who use alcohol moderately - a couple of nights a week, a couple of drinks at a time. The expectation is that there are similar marijuana users. My experience is that there are, but not so many. I know people who smoke only a few times a year in exceptional circumstances, like camping far away from civilization, or smoke once or twice a month when they go out. But most people of my generation and the one behind me, move to daily marijuana pretty quickly.
Saturday, September 08, 2018
College Football
I was going to bust Grim's chops about how the SEC teams never play away games against top opponents, by shifting them to "neutral" sites a block away from their campus. But William and Mary played a top 20 school today, and the result wasn't pretty.
I'll tell you an interesting story. When I arrived in the autumn of 1971, there wasn't 1-A and 1-AA, FBS and FCS. We played a few top teams every year, seldom with much success. But Lou Holtz was the coach (Marv Levy was the coach before him*), fresh off W&M going to the Tangerine Bowl (!!! But we got killed). I recall an interview with him in the Flat Hat,** with Holtz talking seriously about W&M being just a few good recruits away from contending for a national championship. This was clearly insane, as our athletes got only the slightest favoritism. Duke, the Ivies, and the Little Ivies took all the best ones, but it is the sort of insanity you actually seek in a football coach.
He, uh, left the next year.
*We have done way better on coaches than players. The two NFL coaches who were players in my era, Mark Duffner and Ivan Fears, I knew slightly. At a school of 4,000, you had only one degree of separation from just about anyone. My freshman girlfriend knew Duffner well, but I never did. His wife graduated my year but I can't place her. Mike Tomlin and Sean McDermott came later, and there are a few others I know little about.
**When you go to a school with that much history, there are always cool little sidebars. The Flat Hat Club was a secret society that was the predecessor of Phi Beta Kappa. Thomas Jefferson was a member.
I'll tell you an interesting story. When I arrived in the autumn of 1971, there wasn't 1-A and 1-AA, FBS and FCS. We played a few top teams every year, seldom with much success. But Lou Holtz was the coach (Marv Levy was the coach before him*), fresh off W&M going to the Tangerine Bowl (!!! But we got killed). I recall an interview with him in the Flat Hat,** with Holtz talking seriously about W&M being just a few good recruits away from contending for a national championship. This was clearly insane, as our athletes got only the slightest favoritism. Duke, the Ivies, and the Little Ivies took all the best ones, but it is the sort of insanity you actually seek in a football coach.
He, uh, left the next year.
*We have done way better on coaches than players. The two NFL coaches who were players in my era, Mark Duffner and Ivan Fears, I knew slightly. At a school of 4,000, you had only one degree of separation from just about anyone. My freshman girlfriend knew Duffner well, but I never did. His wife graduated my year but I can't place her. Mike Tomlin and Sean McDermott came later, and there are a few others I know little about.
**When you go to a school with that much history, there are always cool little sidebars. The Flat Hat Club was a secret society that was the predecessor of Phi Beta Kappa. Thomas Jefferson was a member.
Springtime For Hitler
Never saw the show. Althouse put up this clip, in the context of people freaking out over Heil Hitler jokes these days. It would be funny if there weren't lives being ruined over this. Remember that piece. When the new breed of protestors and activists are doing ridiculous things, there are real people, suffering on the other end. Some people need to join a local Get A Life Club.
Education
As it came up in a recent comment thread, I will note that I have written many times about education. The search box at the top will bring up some interesting posts. The short version is that I mistrust both the conservative and liberal myths about education and how to fix it.
Here's some related fun.
Here's some related fun.
Friday, September 07, 2018
Ice Age
There is a new study suggesting that we would now be in an Ice Age, were it not for the anthropogenic global warming that occurred when humans cleared fields for crops and started raising livestock. Longtime followers of this blog have been on this for over a decade, as I reviewed William Ruddiman's Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum in 2007.
UVA professor, but I have succeeded in not holding that against him.
I've still got the book, if any of you nearby wants to borrow it.
UVA professor, but I have succeeded in not holding that against him.
I've still got the book, if any of you nearby wants to borrow it.
Everything Old Is New Again
I had not heard of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. I was linked over from another site, and noticed an historical summary of Palestinian and Jewish immigration into the Levant that I thought compact. One might call it one-sided, but I think it is important to note that the facts it puts forward are verifiable. If you like other bits of information that speak against their premise, I would challenge that many of those are widely believed, but untrue. It is one of the Assistant Village Idiot's foundational premises that anything that "everyone knows" often turns out to be untrue, even the reverse of the truth. It is a Chestertonian approach, and remarkable for how often it works. Things that "everyone knows" are spread socially, rather than by any rigorous evidence.
Within the essay is a link to MEMRI, which provides the service of translating what Arabs say to each other, not for public consumption. I had not thought about them recently - not for a few years, in fact. I don't know that the Palestinians and Iranians actually are master manipulators of the Western media. I think they succeed because that media is eager to be duped. MEMRI notes what Arab leaders, political, religious, and cultural, say to their countrymen when they believe no one is listening. At one level, it is rather true. Western journalists, even when given the information, are not interested in hearing it.
En bref
The idea that the "Palestinians" got there first and were invaded by Zionists is supported by sparse evidence. That they were a functioning and prospering group before the 1940's is even less sustainable. They claim publicly that they are descended from the Canaanites, and thus predate the Israelis who committed war crimes against them thousands of years ago. The Lebanese have the better claim to be Canaanites. Though all the peoples of the area are interrelated (including the Jews), the folks who call themselves Palestinians are most closely related Bedouins, Jordanians, and Saudis, and have significant Sub-Saharan African admixture. They will say among themselves that they are Saudi and Egyptian. They may actually be the most closely related to the Jews.
Jews have been there for thousands of years. They have come in greater numbers starting in the 1890's, and again in mid-20th C, so the Palestinian claim is not made out of nothing, it just ignores some important facts.
Within the essay is a link to MEMRI, which provides the service of translating what Arabs say to each other, not for public consumption. I had not thought about them recently - not for a few years, in fact. I don't know that the Palestinians and Iranians actually are master manipulators of the Western media. I think they succeed because that media is eager to be duped. MEMRI notes what Arab leaders, political, religious, and cultural, say to their countrymen when they believe no one is listening. At one level, it is rather true. Western journalists, even when given the information, are not interested in hearing it.
En bref
The idea that the "Palestinians" got there first and were invaded by Zionists is supported by sparse evidence. That they were a functioning and prospering group before the 1940's is even less sustainable. They claim publicly that they are descended from the Canaanites, and thus predate the Israelis who committed war crimes against them thousands of years ago. The Lebanese have the better claim to be Canaanites. Though all the peoples of the area are interrelated (including the Jews), the folks who call themselves Palestinians are most closely related Bedouins, Jordanians, and Saudis, and have significant Sub-Saharan African admixture. They will say among themselves that they are Saudi and Egyptian. They may actually be the most closely related to the Jews.
Jews have been there for thousands of years. They have come in greater numbers starting in the 1890's, and again in mid-20th C, so the Palestinian claim is not made out of nothing, it just ignores some important facts.
Political Personality Difference
I listened to Grant Hill being interviewed about being chosen for the basketball Hall of Fame this year. I always admired and liked him - the honor is much deserved. The interviewer turned to discussing what Hill is doing now, and what he might do in the future. He mentioned he might like to go into politics, and I groaned inwardly. I knew where the interview was going next. Most of that was all very standard and uninteresting. I tried to notice his skill, and charm, and willingness to at least try to understand different points of view rather than focus on...well, I already hinted that I'm not going to say. Hill talked with a concerned tone about people who had hard times in their lives, and were worried about jobs and their future, and how they were easily misled in such circumstances. He said it without anger. I have heard such things before, of conservatives being fearful of change, of clinging to their guns and religion - oops, sorry, that just slipped out - and so forth. It's condescending without necessarily being sneering, or angry, or in-your-face accusing. It is clear that the speaker thinks of himself as trying to be understanding, empathetic, trying to see the other fellow's point of view.
I thought conservatives don't talk like this. I couldn't think of an equivalent flowing in the other direction. A conservative might sound like this when talking about their child or some person they were fond of but disappointed in. Well, she went away to college, and she wanted to fit in, and she's always been a compassionate person so she got involved in some causes... But more usually, a conservative will be more clearly angry and condemning about people's reasons for being a liberal or voting Democrat, whether it is because they are single women, or government employees, or black/hispanic/native - or work in a field surrounded by mostly leftists. There isn't a regretful sigh that it's unfortunate but understandable. I did just think of another exception. Conservatives will sometimes talk like that about Hispanics having been frightened by the Democrats, convinced that Trump is going to send them all back to Mexico without warning or right of appeal. The anger is not directed at the voter so much as the political operatives and journalists.
It's an open question which is worse. While anger can be necessary, anger can also be unnecessarily offensive, and in an angry time, people should at least be cautious. Being openly antagonistic isn't going to win votes, though it may win applause from your friends. On the other hand, I think concern-trolling provides an inoculation against seeing oneself. In my imagination, you could tell an angry person "you are being unkind here" and you might get heard. Yet I don't think the Grant Hill's of the world will hear it if you tell them they are being unkind. At least, they don't seem to have yet. (And not to pick on Hill especially.) They believe they are being kind. Didn't you hear them?
I used to say "Conservatives make pronouncements. Liberals sneer." I would like to back down from that a bit, but I do think it remains largely true. First, sneer is too strong a word. Condescend would be better, because it is along a continuum, and sometimes it is quite mild. My father-in-law, a kind and gracious Roosevelt Democrat, would sometimes echo the condescension he got from reading the Boston Globe and the materials the Democrats would forever be mailing to him. Yet he never came close to sneering. (The liberals on my side of the family are another matter - though with exceptions.) Secondly, I think this is blurring over the last thirty years. Liberals become the status quo in the culture and start making pronouncements, conservatives take on sneering more and more.
I relate this to another observation I have made about liberal and conservative protest and violence. Conservatives are defensive. When getting extreme they "hole up with their guns and dare Obama and the gun-grabbers to come after them." Liberal extremists are more attacking, burning cars, pushing over statues, breaking windows, occupying somebody else's space (as far back as the college dean's office in the 60's), defacing property. They are - or were - less likely to talk about doing damage to human beings. They confined themselves to objects, or to shouting in people's faces. I fear that both self-limitations are breaking down. Those inclined to violence on the right are increasingly going out into public, those on the left inclined to violence are increasingly attacking humans.
The gross oversimplification is conservatives saying "This is how things are, and how they will stay," while liberals say "No, we're taking that down." It is not only a difference in tactics, it is a difference in personality. Though it may be blurring, as I noted. I don't have the feel for such things that I used to.
There has been some research on whether one's personality drives politics, but as sweet as that siren song is, I have been suspicious from the start. Liberals are supposedly more open to new experiences, which fits the "conservatives fearful of change" stereotype. Yet when you look at what they measure, it's mostly surveys that are begging the questions. Joining the military is a much more different experience than checking out the new Thai-Cuban fusion restaurant downtown. Becoming a missionary in a poor country is to experience more diversity than going to Reed or Oberlin. Thus, while I am offering some personality differences that I think hold for liberals and conservatives, I am also aware it could all be malarkey.
Cross-posted at Chicago Boyz.
I thought conservatives don't talk like this. I couldn't think of an equivalent flowing in the other direction. A conservative might sound like this when talking about their child or some person they were fond of but disappointed in. Well, she went away to college, and she wanted to fit in, and she's always been a compassionate person so she got involved in some causes... But more usually, a conservative will be more clearly angry and condemning about people's reasons for being a liberal or voting Democrat, whether it is because they are single women, or government employees, or black/hispanic/native - or work in a field surrounded by mostly leftists. There isn't a regretful sigh that it's unfortunate but understandable. I did just think of another exception. Conservatives will sometimes talk like that about Hispanics having been frightened by the Democrats, convinced that Trump is going to send them all back to Mexico without warning or right of appeal. The anger is not directed at the voter so much as the political operatives and journalists.
It's an open question which is worse. While anger can be necessary, anger can also be unnecessarily offensive, and in an angry time, people should at least be cautious. Being openly antagonistic isn't going to win votes, though it may win applause from your friends. On the other hand, I think concern-trolling provides an inoculation against seeing oneself. In my imagination, you could tell an angry person "you are being unkind here" and you might get heard. Yet I don't think the Grant Hill's of the world will hear it if you tell them they are being unkind. At least, they don't seem to have yet. (And not to pick on Hill especially.) They believe they are being kind. Didn't you hear them?
I used to say "Conservatives make pronouncements. Liberals sneer." I would like to back down from that a bit, but I do think it remains largely true. First, sneer is too strong a word. Condescend would be better, because it is along a continuum, and sometimes it is quite mild. My father-in-law, a kind and gracious Roosevelt Democrat, would sometimes echo the condescension he got from reading the Boston Globe and the materials the Democrats would forever be mailing to him. Yet he never came close to sneering. (The liberals on my side of the family are another matter - though with exceptions.) Secondly, I think this is blurring over the last thirty years. Liberals become the status quo in the culture and start making pronouncements, conservatives take on sneering more and more.
I relate this to another observation I have made about liberal and conservative protest and violence. Conservatives are defensive. When getting extreme they "hole up with their guns and dare Obama and the gun-grabbers to come after them." Liberal extremists are more attacking, burning cars, pushing over statues, breaking windows, occupying somebody else's space (as far back as the college dean's office in the 60's), defacing property. They are - or were - less likely to talk about doing damage to human beings. They confined themselves to objects, or to shouting in people's faces. I fear that both self-limitations are breaking down. Those inclined to violence on the right are increasingly going out into public, those on the left inclined to violence are increasingly attacking humans.
The gross oversimplification is conservatives saying "This is how things are, and how they will stay," while liberals say "No, we're taking that down." It is not only a difference in tactics, it is a difference in personality. Though it may be blurring, as I noted. I don't have the feel for such things that I used to.
There has been some research on whether one's personality drives politics, but as sweet as that siren song is, I have been suspicious from the start. Liberals are supposedly more open to new experiences, which fits the "conservatives fearful of change" stereotype. Yet when you look at what they measure, it's mostly surveys that are begging the questions. Joining the military is a much more different experience than checking out the new Thai-Cuban fusion restaurant downtown. Becoming a missionary in a poor country is to experience more diversity than going to Reed or Oberlin. Thus, while I am offering some personality differences that I think hold for liberals and conservatives, I am also aware it could all be malarkey.
Cross-posted at Chicago Boyz.
Thursday, September 06, 2018
Shoes
You can't wear football, baseball, or soccer cleats for street wear. There are some other uniform pieces you can sorta wear in public. Brim hats, jerseys, wristbands, socks - yet none of those work quite as well as sneakers. Branding works better for basketball, which may be why the game is spreading faster at the moment. The branding and the sport reinforce each other.
Odd how major changes of culture and huge amounts of money can turn on such small things.
Odd how major changes of culture and huge amounts of money can turn on such small things.
Monday, September 03, 2018
Appropriate Ages
I have seen culture changes in what are considered appropriate ages. When I was young the voting age was 21 - as it should be - as was the drinking age. The driving age of 16 is left over from the era of farm vehicles and having to get to a job. Rolling hotel rooms wasn't the original plan, and they still aren't good drivers. 18 would be better. People married younger. I knew people who married right out of high school, but that is rarer now. Relatedly, among those not going to college there were two sharp divisions. You either moved out of the house and struck on your own fairly soon after HS graduation, or you lived with your parents until you married. If the latter, you were expected to be contributing financially to the household. This was not always seen as "paying rent," but as "being an adult in the household." I had a few friends who turned over their paychecks to their mothers every Thursday until about a year before they married, at which point they were allowed to save for that new life. Yet there were many who got their own room or apartment at 19 or so, expected by their families to be self-supporting.
There are now stories of parents being reported to the police or DCYF for letting their children go to the park unsupervised. I have seen more than one where the child in question was as old as 11. Not only in my era, but into my children's era, 12-year-olds, especially girls, would be hired to babysit younger children. 11 and 12 are very close numbers. I walked through the city to the library or the Y when I was 6, and would take off on my bike with friends on a Saturday morning for hours when I was 9. No one thought this unusual. I don't know that it was better. I doubt I learned much about good judgment from it. Some resourcefulness, perhaps. Yet also the downside of being young with a broken bicycle miles from home was also the message of how alone and unprotected one is in the world. Get used to it. Not sure that really is a positive. But point being, it was universally believed that a group of ten-year-olds was old enough to pack lunches and go exploring, so long as certain forbidden areas were avoided. Be back by dinner.
There was a case in some southern state in the 1980's that pro-choice activists used for fundraising, when there were attempts to mandate parental consent for abortion for girls under 18 (or 16?). While the law in that state made provision for a girl to go before a judge for permission if her parents were abusive or otherwise dangerous to her, in one particular case a 14-year-old with horrible parents had gone before a judge but was denied permission. This was part of the true-believer, foxhole friend, Toxoplasma of Rage insistence that there would be no compromise, none, though there was enormous public support for the idea at the time. Okay, a lot happens in maturity between 11 and 14, but a lot of that is physical and more appearance than emotional. 14 isn't that far from 11, to be able to say "This one can't go to the park alone, but in three years she can consent to sexual relations in many European countries (and don't even ask about Africa), and should be able to independently consent to an abortion.
Related in a vague way. Conservatives sometimes make the accusation that some women seek abortions because they don't want the "inconvenience" of a child because of their careers, or just don't want to be responsible for adult actions. This may be so. In fact, I am sure that it is so in some cases. But I think there is an additional reason that is seldom mentioned. I confess this interpretation may be terribly dated at this point. When I was in dating ages, girls/women made efforts to hide the fact that they were sexually active - from their parents, even from their friends, and they were absolutely sure it was nobody's damn business in the general public. Being visibly pregnant made that part of her private life public. I doubt that is a huge motivator among 28-year-olds these days. But I'll bet it's still an issue for those under 20. More importantly from a political POV, 60-year-old women remember when it was important to them at age 17 that it was nobody's business what they were up to, and how necessary it seemed, for their friends and themselves, to keep that last escape hatch open. The complaint that women are being forced to have children, while logically ridiculous despite Handmaid's Tale and just like rape rhetoric, is more likely to have its root in those early days of secrecy being all. Visible pregnancy is forcing a girl/woman to out herself as sexually active.
I don't discount the other motives. I just add that one in.
There are now stories of parents being reported to the police or DCYF for letting their children go to the park unsupervised. I have seen more than one where the child in question was as old as 11. Not only in my era, but into my children's era, 12-year-olds, especially girls, would be hired to babysit younger children. 11 and 12 are very close numbers. I walked through the city to the library or the Y when I was 6, and would take off on my bike with friends on a Saturday morning for hours when I was 9. No one thought this unusual. I don't know that it was better. I doubt I learned much about good judgment from it. Some resourcefulness, perhaps. Yet also the downside of being young with a broken bicycle miles from home was also the message of how alone and unprotected one is in the world. Get used to it. Not sure that really is a positive. But point being, it was universally believed that a group of ten-year-olds was old enough to pack lunches and go exploring, so long as certain forbidden areas were avoided. Be back by dinner.
There was a case in some southern state in the 1980's that pro-choice activists used for fundraising, when there were attempts to mandate parental consent for abortion for girls under 18 (or 16?). While the law in that state made provision for a girl to go before a judge for permission if her parents were abusive or otherwise dangerous to her, in one particular case a 14-year-old with horrible parents had gone before a judge but was denied permission. This was part of the true-believer, foxhole friend, Toxoplasma of Rage insistence that there would be no compromise, none, though there was enormous public support for the idea at the time. Okay, a lot happens in maturity between 11 and 14, but a lot of that is physical and more appearance than emotional. 14 isn't that far from 11, to be able to say "This one can't go to the park alone, but in three years she can consent to sexual relations in many European countries (and don't even ask about Africa), and should be able to independently consent to an abortion.
Related in a vague way. Conservatives sometimes make the accusation that some women seek abortions because they don't want the "inconvenience" of a child because of their careers, or just don't want to be responsible for adult actions. This may be so. In fact, I am sure that it is so in some cases. But I think there is an additional reason that is seldom mentioned. I confess this interpretation may be terribly dated at this point. When I was in dating ages, girls/women made efforts to hide the fact that they were sexually active - from their parents, even from their friends, and they were absolutely sure it was nobody's damn business in the general public. Being visibly pregnant made that part of her private life public. I doubt that is a huge motivator among 28-year-olds these days. But I'll bet it's still an issue for those under 20. More importantly from a political POV, 60-year-old women remember when it was important to them at age 17 that it was nobody's business what they were up to, and how necessary it seemed, for their friends and themselves, to keep that last escape hatch open. The complaint that women are being forced to have children, while logically ridiculous despite Handmaid's Tale and just like rape rhetoric, is more likely to have its root in those early days of secrecy being all. Visible pregnancy is forcing a girl/woman to out herself as sexually active.
I don't discount the other motives. I just add that one in.
Saturday, September 01, 2018
I Seem To Have Been Wrong
About four years ago I wrote about the PC competition in the conversation about Two-Spirit people among Native Americans. I still agree with much of it, but I was too dismissive of the idea. There actually are sources that describe men who wished to live as women among some of the New World tribes, and in some cases, they were people of high status who were believed to have understanding of the spirit world. In other cases, they were tolerated by held in lower esteem. I only read about half of it, enough to see that I had been wrong. The topic doesn't interest me that greatly. Some of you might find it more worth your while in contemplating the nature of humankind.
Some things to note: the practice seems to have been limited to men taking on the roles of women. Women who might want to take on men's roles were likely not encouraged in this; while sexual relations with men were often a part of this status, a more general taking on the role of a woman is the point - it is not men living as couples, but something more transgender; some contemporary sources claim the custom was limited to certain tribes they had seen. I did not see any northeastern tribes in the mix, and those are the ones I am more familiar with. The article is a translation from the French, and stresses contact with the tribes around the Great Lakes and Mississippi River. I don't know if that is significant.
Some things to note: the practice seems to have been limited to men taking on the roles of women. Women who might want to take on men's roles were likely not encouraged in this; while sexual relations with men were often a part of this status, a more general taking on the role of a woman is the point - it is not men living as couples, but something more transgender; some contemporary sources claim the custom was limited to certain tribes they had seen. I did not see any northeastern tribes in the mix, and those are the ones I am more familiar with. The article is a translation from the French, and stresses contact with the tribes around the Great Lakes and Mississippi River. I don't know if that is significant.
Friday, August 31, 2018
Angels Unaware
I am angry at one of my eye surgeon, and I have been rehearsing how to get my complaint across without getting tuned out. It hasn't been going well, and I keep getting worked up, remembering to exhale, getting worked up, remembering to exhale, etc.
I went out to do an errand and ran into one of my patients from years ago. He is on the short list of most frightening and dangerous when sick, but gentle and sweet when well. He was very happy to see me, and wanted to tell me about his job nearby and how well things are going for him. While it is true that he has caused enormous difficulty for both family and bystanders, it is also true that he has had a very, very hard life.
God sent him. My life is not that hard.
I went out to do an errand and ran into one of my patients from years ago. He is on the short list of most frightening and dangerous when sick, but gentle and sweet when well. He was very happy to see me, and wanted to tell me about his job nearby and how well things are going for him. While it is true that he has caused enormous difficulty for both family and bystanders, it is also true that he has had a very, very hard life.
God sent him. My life is not that hard.
The Power of Star Players
It is a big deal that Tom Brady is now traveling with a private trainer. This would not be a big deal for any of the top dozen stars in the NBA. It would have been a big deal 20 years ago, but basketball is leading the culture change. The NBA also has players organizing teams and where they will play behind the scenes, while coaches and general managers are often forbidden by league rules from saying anything. While that is especially true since the Celtics assembled Allen and Garnett to go with Pierce, followed soon after by Lebron arranging to get Bosh to join him in Miami, it has been somewhat true of basketball for decades. Wilt was able to get himself traded, and O’Neal had more than ordinary control.
Why is player-under-control a big deal in the NFL but much less so in the NBA? Number of players on the floor/field. In basketball, you can only play five guys at a time, and realistically, only seven or eight are important. Therefore, a singular talent at one of those few slots is enormously valuable. In baseball and hockey, about 15 players are important. In football, almost 30 players of a 53-man roster are important, including special teams. The importance of even a star player is diluted.
Brady is an exception because he is a quarterback, now far and away the most important position in the NFL. He may be aided by the fact that the other singular talent on the team, Rob Gronkowski, uses the same private trainer. The few examples of player power are usually quarterbacks as well: Eli Manning refusing to be drafted by San Diego; Carson Palmer sitting out rather than playing for Cincinnati. Other QB’s may start to have more influence as well. The day may well be coming when Odell Beckham Jr can do as he pleases on some matters, moving the fences for other non-quarterbacks. But look at superior talents Donald Allen and Khalil Mack. They don't have quite the juice they think they do. They are still only one of 30 rather than one of five.
Coaches have more power when even the stars add less value per position in the sport. Football coaches get rid of players. Basketball players get rid of coaches. Baseball and hockey are more like football, but somewhere in between.
Why is player-under-control a big deal in the NFL but much less so in the NBA? Number of players on the floor/field. In basketball, you can only play five guys at a time, and realistically, only seven or eight are important. Therefore, a singular talent at one of those few slots is enormously valuable. In baseball and hockey, about 15 players are important. In football, almost 30 players of a 53-man roster are important, including special teams. The importance of even a star player is diluted.
Brady is an exception because he is a quarterback, now far and away the most important position in the NFL. He may be aided by the fact that the other singular talent on the team, Rob Gronkowski, uses the same private trainer. The few examples of player power are usually quarterbacks as well: Eli Manning refusing to be drafted by San Diego; Carson Palmer sitting out rather than playing for Cincinnati. Other QB’s may start to have more influence as well. The day may well be coming when Odell Beckham Jr can do as he pleases on some matters, moving the fences for other non-quarterbacks. But look at superior talents Donald Allen and Khalil Mack. They don't have quite the juice they think they do. They are still only one of 30 rather than one of five.
Coaches have more power when even the stars add less value per position in the sport. Football coaches get rid of players. Basketball players get rid of coaches. Baseball and hockey are more like football, but somewhere in between.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)