This comment is put on the lips of General Santa Ana at the end of the IMAX movie about the Alamo. He has been portrayed as completely without redeeming social value throughout the film, and this is supposed to just cap it, infuriating Texans no end. If anything proves what a dork Santa Ana is, it's this comment.
Except he's right. Texans, especially San Antonians, believe the defending of the Alamo was the key event of American history, and the courage displayed there to be unequalled by the citizens of lesser states.
I am going to annoy Roper at least, and maybe Katie among my usual readers. Ben's girlfriend told me today that she had three years of Texas history and only one year of US history growing up. Texans have a perspective, and believe it is intellectually defensible on the sole basis that other Texans think so to. They have a very nice history, full of courage, interesting stories, contributions to the common weal, and so forth. Just like every other state in the union.
The reasoning is just silly. The Alamo was important because it bought time and provided inspiration for San Jacinto, which was a turning point in ripping Texas away from Mexico (don't get me wrong. Mexico doesn't have a particularly good argument that they should have gotten to keep Texas. They screwed up and were oppressors. There are risks that go with that), which was key in getting Mexico to cede large portions of the Southwest, which helped make America the sea-to-shing-sea place it is today, and so on. Great. Except that by that logic, nearly every event in history can make the same claim. Every state in the union has points in its history that can plausibly be put forward as having saved the republic. If Widow Jones hadn't been hanging up her laundry at that precise moment, she wouldn't have seen the redcoats coming... Gee Willikers, Wally! We might all be speaking Norwegian today if it hadn't been for that.
Cookie cutters in the shape of the Alamo. The tiles in the sidewalk are in the shape of the Alamo. My waffle this morning was in the shape of Texas.
Get a grip, people.
Friday, January 02, 2009
Monday, December 29, 2008
San Antonio
We are leaving for San Antonio tomorrow, then Houston. I will get online and post somewhere in there. I expect there will be something about Pagan Christianity and Jesus For President, possibly connected to some thoughts about King Philip's War and the teaching of history in Christian schools. Joel Stein's recent op-ed claiming that conservatives love America a whole lot, but completely the wrong way, while liberals, of course love America in the right way, deserves some comment. And I think I will compare old media hitting bottom to old churches.
We will not be going to the Fiesta Bowl, though Ben has reminded us not to wear red if we value our skins.
We will not be going to the Fiesta Bowl, though Ben has reminded us not to wear red if we value our skins.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Three Years After The Miracle
Reposted from 2005: The Assistant Village Idiot Appears On A Sweet Potato.
That's me on the left, there. Sadly, it really does look like me. (Compare below)
Since then, I have learned that seeing patterns in random data is called apophenia.
That's me on the left, there. Sadly, it really does look like me. (Compare below)
Since then, I have learned that seeing patterns in random data is called apophenia.
Political Scandals of 2008
Political only, so Bernie Madoff and Rick Wagoner don't figure in this list. I'm sure they'll make some other list, and deservedly so. I am also not including things that are scandalous, like the bailouts, but aren't scandals per se. This is the money, sex, and power list. Who have I missed?
In no particular order
John Edwards
Elliot Spitzer
William Jefferson
Rod Blogojevich
Chris Dodd
Barney Frank
Charles Rangel
Kwame Kilpatrick
Ted Stevens (carryover from 2007)
Tim Mahoney
Jesse Jackson Jr.
In no particular order
John Edwards
Elliot Spitzer
William Jefferson
Rod Blogojevich
Chris Dodd
Barney Frank
Charles Rangel
Kwame Kilpatrick
Ted Stevens (carryover from 2007)
Tim Mahoney
Jesse Jackson Jr.
Pipe Smoking
I got a shaving-soap refill to go with my mug and brush, and did a little research to make sure this item is not going to disappear on me (I imagine Vermont Country Store will carry such things forever, though).
I happened upon Peter Carlson's Washington Post article on pipe-smoking, which references a shaving brush in passing. Carlson gets it right. The pipe had a certain mystique that is now lost. There were a variety of personae associated with pipes - professors, sailors, farmers, detectives - all quite masculine, yet differing greatly. But pipes are labor-intensive, and require a lot of fiddling and carrying of stuff. They're inefficient in that way. You can't text-message and smoke a pipe in the same person.
I took up pipe-smoking my freshman year in college, or tried to. It was a common affectation then, yet none of us looked quite natural with it. It's a skill that takes more than a few months to do naturally, and most of us had a limit as to how long we were willing to look like goofs while getting the motions smooth. As the smoke is not inhaled, there is also no instant nicotine hit to your frontal lobes. The pleasure is more subtle. Subtle and college freshman do not blend well.
The main problem with pipes is that their tobaccos smelled better than they tasted. The smell of a good pipe always made you think "That stuff must taste great." But it doesn't. I thought at first that it might just be the cheap tobacco that impoverished students bought, but even my few experiments with expensive blends were no better.
Pipes are fun to play with, though. Nice to look at, and a whole set of sensory experiences around pulling out the pouch, packing the fragrant stuff in the bowl, and getting down the trick of lighting it. You will look at yourself in the mirror at first, but that's allowed for the first month.
I happened upon Peter Carlson's Washington Post article on pipe-smoking, which references a shaving brush in passing. Carlson gets it right. The pipe had a certain mystique that is now lost. There were a variety of personae associated with pipes - professors, sailors, farmers, detectives - all quite masculine, yet differing greatly. But pipes are labor-intensive, and require a lot of fiddling and carrying of stuff. They're inefficient in that way. You can't text-message and smoke a pipe in the same person.
I took up pipe-smoking my freshman year in college, or tried to. It was a common affectation then, yet none of us looked quite natural with it. It's a skill that takes more than a few months to do naturally, and most of us had a limit as to how long we were willing to look like goofs while getting the motions smooth. As the smoke is not inhaled, there is also no instant nicotine hit to your frontal lobes. The pleasure is more subtle. Subtle and college freshman do not blend well.
The main problem with pipes is that their tobaccos smelled better than they tasted. The smell of a good pipe always made you think "That stuff must taste great." But it doesn't. I thought at first that it might just be the cheap tobacco that impoverished students bought, but even my few experiments with expensive blends were no better.
Pipes are fun to play with, though. Nice to look at, and a whole set of sensory experiences around pulling out the pouch, packing the fragrant stuff in the bowl, and getting down the trick of lighting it. You will look at yourself in the mirror at first, but that's allowed for the first month.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Wyman Family Christmas Letter
Semper Fideles
Chris is sworn in to the USMC, awaiting Jan 5 to leave for Parris Island. He has considered the military from time to time, but only when his friends started pushing him to enlist with them did he really get on track. It was gratifying to see him studying all the math and vocabulary he had slighted in high school, now trying to do well on his ASVAB entrance exam - and more than a little surprising to see him heading out to run five miles to get in shape. This is not a son I am familiar with. The final irony is that his knuckleheaded friends, who can’t stay out of bar fights, did not get accepted. The current year’s schedule looks like South Carolina, California, Okinawa. This all adds up for Chris – his brothers all have a role as the Responsible One, the Brilliant One, the Handsome One – he didn’t have a definition in his own mind. Now he’s The Warrior. He’s going to be a HumVee driver, adding to our worries.
Can you look online and find me an open grocery store?
Ben got his first hurricane in Houston, Ike. The excitement of danger rapidly turned to the boredom of inconvenience, as he discovered his food stocks of bacon and microwave pizza were useless with the power out. He didn’t have batteries. He did have one candle. It turns out he was one of the lucky ones, only in the dark for two days, with no damage to car or apartment.
This marks his first Christmas away, but he came up over Thanksgiving, and we are meeting him in San Antonio for New Year’s.
In heaven, where all the restaurants serve Clams Casino and French Onion Soup, and smoking is permitted at the table…
After struggling with ill health for several years, Tracy’s mom died in February. The quote is from the eulogy by Mickey, Tracy’s younger brother. Though Ann was ready to die, both Tracy and especially her Dad miss her very much. Stuart is going through the house bit by bit. Every time Tracy visits he has a pile of “interesting” items for her to take home.
The next person who says “You’re only as young as you feel” gets it right in the mouth.
In the enclosed photo, taken at one of the few times this year that everyone was available, the man seated on the left looks suspiciously like my Grampa Wyman. Something just jumped out at me. I searched the features in an effort to identify the resemblance. Is it the tilt of the shoulders? The cheekbones? If I imagined his glasses on me and shaved off the beard… Well, he was bald. And he was old. There’s a heckuva start right there. Fortunately I liked him; I never noticed what a fine-looking man he was before.
That’s what I’m reduced to at this point, squinting at pictures of myself wondering who that guy is. But life is good. Good friends. Good books. Warm house. Internet access. Still posting as Assistant Village Idiot. I like my own company. The boys all have lives and are just about launched; Tracy looks younger than me, which works out pretty well, because I can still see just fine. I do worry that this is about the age that Bilbo got sent on an adventure. Would I answer that knock on the door? I think so. I think so.
I’m your favorite uncle, aren’t I Princess?
All three uncles vie for Emily’s attention, but John-Adrian is the most shameless. “Say ‘Uncle JA.’ You like me best, right?” He also tries to get Jonathan & Heidi’s irritable cat to like him, and the less friendly of our dachshunds (which Chris renamed “Paranoid Babushka.”) People like John-Adrian. Animals, not so much. He’ll have better luck with Emily.
He goes to school online, and will graduate with an accounting degree this summer. He works full-time for his girlfriend’s father, and they greatly enjoy each other’s company. His girlfriend Samantha gets most of the rest of his time. We keep looking at his mail from jewelers and raising an eyebrow at him questioningly, but he’s very private, that one.
Why Let All That Experience Go To Waste?
Caroline Kennedy, Al Franken. No wonder they thought Obama has enough experience.
New England Fan's Conflict
So now I have to root for Brett Favre for a week. The NYJets have to beat Miami for the Patriots to get to the playoffs (The other route involves Baltimore losing to Jacksonville, which is unlikely). But I hate Favre. I would love for Chad Pennington to show him up.
I haven’t always hated Favre, just sort of shrugged at him, but he has been a jerk this whole year. I suppose my best hope is for the Jets to win on kick returns, fumble recoveries, and bad calls, with Brett going 12-32 0 TD, 2 INT, while Pennington goes 25-32 with 4 TD, 0 INT. Final score 31-28 NY. That would feel okay.
And all of this is predicated on the Patriots actually beating Buffalo. The Pats have 2-3 bad losses this year, some close ones. 11-5 is not bad for a team that has an old defense and lost some of that to injury.
I haven’t always hated Favre, just sort of shrugged at him, but he has been a jerk this whole year. I suppose my best hope is for the Jets to win on kick returns, fumble recoveries, and bad calls, with Brett going 12-32 0 TD, 2 INT, while Pennington goes 25-32 with 4 TD, 0 INT. Final score 31-28 NY. That would feel okay.
And all of this is predicated on the Patriots actually beating Buffalo. The Pats have 2-3 bad losses this year, some close ones. 11-5 is not bad for a team that has an old defense and lost some of that to injury.
Britain BC, by Francis Pryor
Pryor is a working archaeologist who writes well, making a lot of technical detail relatively painless. He is almost chatty at times, and gives a clear picture of how archaeologists develop theories and change their minds in the face of new evidence. This particular volume is also quite up-to-date. Good maps and diagrams, great photos.
That’s all fine, then. On to the ideas. The first 80 pages cover the early Paleolithic, in which I have little interest. The homonids he discusses who lived from 40K – 500K years ago are not our ancestors, or the ancestors of any living humans. It is a pet peeve of mine that physical anthropologists emphasize – repeatedly – how similar to modern humans they are. Well, compared to mice, or even macaque monkeys, sure. But their tools consisted of flint hand axes and they didn’t have language proper. Granting that they had better communication than apes or dolphins, and that the technique of shaping flint is hard to learn, they still aren’t much like us.
They died out 40,000 years ago. Those were the Neanderthals, and though they lived in Europe and left some evidence of themselves, there is no real connection to us. So who cares? I don’t really get interested until the late Paleolithic, when new hominids came in who eventually turned into us. Those are the ones who did the cave paintings, who had actual language comparable to ours, had religious ceremonies, and likely put a few quid down on their rugby matches as well. They’re us. Still, Pryor writes well enough to have kept me going through the Paleolithic, so I can hardly complain.
Humanity doesn’t really pick up speed until about 8000 BC, and if you said 5000BC instead I couldn’t argue with you. This is when farming comes in, and increased trading. Landscape features start taking on more mystic significance, and people start using the same areas generation after generation for ceremonies, gradually turning them into the Stonehenges, Skara Braes, and Newgranges we try to decipher. Pryor is good at dispelling myths about these places.
We think of these religious sites as rather solemn places. I remember speaking softly inside West Kennett Long Barrow and gazing contemplatively at Avebury’s stones. I suppose I think of them as British, and so rather Church Of England. In use, they would have been filled with wailing incantation and hours of drumming, painted garish colors every year with rising smokes to make you dizzy. Families would return to the places that the bones of their ancestors remained throughout the year, and when they came to bring Gramps’s bones this year, they wouldn’t have done it off-handedly. They would have to move across the landscape from the lands of the living to the lands of the ancestors. People wouldn’t go there to have a few days off from the family and just think about spiritual matters.
Wood was used for the living, stone for the dead. There is evidence that this occurred even at subtle levels. The tempering agents used in pottery for domestic use tended to be plant-based; minerals for funerary pottery. It is interesting that there is still an echo of this in our funeral customs of transitioning folks from living to dead: flowers followed by wood coffins followed by stone markers. Many henge sites show post-hole evidence of being originally wood henges. Once the stones were erected, there were still posts arranged on the long ceremonial paths leading to them. Presumably the posts had something on them, and when they are in close rows, may have been used as screens to heighten effects of the journey.
The current thinking is that there were not a series of invasions or large migrations in the Mesolithic and Neolithic times, but that ideas of animal husbandry and plant cultivation came with only a few small tribes - the technology spreading rather than battle and conquest. Battle and conflict there certainly was, but similar to the frequent skirmishing of current hunting tribes, rather than armies and military campaigns. Over the course of a decade, the deaths in battle add up in such circumstances.
In the transition from hunter-gatherer to agriculture, each tribe would have handled it differently. Some would have rapidly settled down and made beer, while at the other extreme some hunting tribes might only have modified how they followed the reindeer across the landscape, bringing in dogs to manage the herd a bit. Most would have been mixed for generations, even centuries, with some herding, some minimal planting or sowing each year in their patterned migration, and trade contacts with tribes that had made different choices.
I didn’t get to finsih it because it’s a Christmas present, but I may get a whack at it again down the road. The first 270 pages are recommended, anyway.
That’s all fine, then. On to the ideas. The first 80 pages cover the early Paleolithic, in which I have little interest. The homonids he discusses who lived from 40K – 500K years ago are not our ancestors, or the ancestors of any living humans. It is a pet peeve of mine that physical anthropologists emphasize – repeatedly – how similar to modern humans they are. Well, compared to mice, or even macaque monkeys, sure. But their tools consisted of flint hand axes and they didn’t have language proper. Granting that they had better communication than apes or dolphins, and that the technique of shaping flint is hard to learn, they still aren’t much like us.
They died out 40,000 years ago. Those were the Neanderthals, and though they lived in Europe and left some evidence of themselves, there is no real connection to us. So who cares? I don’t really get interested until the late Paleolithic, when new hominids came in who eventually turned into us. Those are the ones who did the cave paintings, who had actual language comparable to ours, had religious ceremonies, and likely put a few quid down on their rugby matches as well. They’re us. Still, Pryor writes well enough to have kept me going through the Paleolithic, so I can hardly complain.
Humanity doesn’t really pick up speed until about 8000 BC, and if you said 5000BC instead I couldn’t argue with you. This is when farming comes in, and increased trading. Landscape features start taking on more mystic significance, and people start using the same areas generation after generation for ceremonies, gradually turning them into the Stonehenges, Skara Braes, and Newgranges we try to decipher. Pryor is good at dispelling myths about these places.
We think of these religious sites as rather solemn places. I remember speaking softly inside West Kennett Long Barrow and gazing contemplatively at Avebury’s stones. I suppose I think of them as British, and so rather Church Of England. In use, they would have been filled with wailing incantation and hours of drumming, painted garish colors every year with rising smokes to make you dizzy. Families would return to the places that the bones of their ancestors remained throughout the year, and when they came to bring Gramps’s bones this year, they wouldn’t have done it off-handedly. They would have to move across the landscape from the lands of the living to the lands of the ancestors. People wouldn’t go there to have a few days off from the family and just think about spiritual matters.
Wood was used for the living, stone for the dead. There is evidence that this occurred even at subtle levels. The tempering agents used in pottery for domestic use tended to be plant-based; minerals for funerary pottery. It is interesting that there is still an echo of this in our funeral customs of transitioning folks from living to dead: flowers followed by wood coffins followed by stone markers. Many henge sites show post-hole evidence of being originally wood henges. Once the stones were erected, there were still posts arranged on the long ceremonial paths leading to them. Presumably the posts had something on them, and when they are in close rows, may have been used as screens to heighten effects of the journey.
The current thinking is that there were not a series of invasions or large migrations in the Mesolithic and Neolithic times, but that ideas of animal husbandry and plant cultivation came with only a few small tribes - the technology spreading rather than battle and conquest. Battle and conflict there certainly was, but similar to the frequent skirmishing of current hunting tribes, rather than armies and military campaigns. Over the course of a decade, the deaths in battle add up in such circumstances.
In the transition from hunter-gatherer to agriculture, each tribe would have handled it differently. Some would have rapidly settled down and made beer, while at the other extreme some hunting tribes might only have modified how they followed the reindeer across the landscape, bringing in dogs to manage the herd a bit. Most would have been mixed for generations, even centuries, with some herding, some minimal planting or sowing each year in their patterned migration, and trade contacts with tribes that had made different choices.
I didn’t get to finsih it because it’s a Christmas present, but I may get a whack at it again down the road. The first 270 pages are recommended, anyway.
Storytelling
Storytelling is an art that people keep thinking should be the most powerful medium. It has a long history, after all, and in earlier days whole tribes would be held spellbound by a good storyteller. Therefore, the thinking is, we are wired for this somehow, and lack only the opportunity and a little encouragement to The Tradition for this art to really take off.
It's sort of like how professional soccer is always just about to catch on in America, or how Brazil keeps having a bright economic future.
I've done a little storytelling - I'm neither particularly bad nor particularly good at it. It's fun. If the storyteller is exceptionally good, sometimes it works. But most it sucks. It sucks partly because of the people who go into it. Storytelling worked when the people telling the stories desperately wanted to pass along their culture, often for religious or social reasons, and the people hearing the story agreed that this was all central to their existence somehow. Today's storytellers are multiculturally obsessed, and want to pass on something of interest from every culture except their own. This story comes originally from The Gambia, says the fishbelly-pale liberal with the irritating voice. So that we know that it's all terribly important somehow.
Example: While looking for something else, I came across a storytellers newsletter (which seems rather contradictory, really). The star being interviewed that month had this to say:
The more recent issue provides a photo of the new board on page 2. Which would tell you everything if page 1 hadn't already done so.
It's sort of like how professional soccer is always just about to catch on in America, or how Brazil keeps having a bright economic future.
I've done a little storytelling - I'm neither particularly bad nor particularly good at it. It's fun. If the storyteller is exceptionally good, sometimes it works. But most it sucks. It sucks partly because of the people who go into it. Storytelling worked when the people telling the stories desperately wanted to pass along their culture, often for religious or social reasons, and the people hearing the story agreed that this was all central to their existence somehow. Today's storytellers are multiculturally obsessed, and want to pass on something of interest from every culture except their own. This story comes originally from The Gambia, says the fishbelly-pale liberal with the irritating voice. So that we know that it's all terribly important somehow.
Example: While looking for something else, I came across a storytellers newsletter (which seems rather contradictory, really). The star being interviewed that month had this to say:
When the most powerful country in the world has a choice between being a shining light of democracy or the bully of the world; when millions around the world go hungry while advanced technology could feed them; as AIDS spreads, families struggle to make ends meet, terrorism threatens the fabric of global existence, and a young athlete is given ninety million dollars to advertise sneakers made by companies that globally exploit child laborers, we need stories. We need stories to keep our hearts, souls and ethics intact. We need stories that fill us with the desire to do good for others: to make a humane mark, large or small, a mark that makes a positive difference. We also need songs and ballads, yes, musical stories that ring out with loud and clear messages.It's amazing how the world always seems to need exactly what the person you are talking to provides. You can catch her whole essay here - it's a hoot. Are we surprised that Joe Hill and Mother Jones figure prominently?
The more recent issue provides a photo of the new board on page 2. Which would tell you everything if page 1 hadn't already done so.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Perspective
A few social workers who work with children were discussing funding for special education. It is a chronic problem for them, as their charges often need very specialised, expensive services that school districts are reluctant to provide. Parents who are attempting to obtain services for their children are familiar with how quickly it can become adversarial with the people in the district controlling the money. It all makes sense, of course. Budget-watchers are supposed to be cautious with the money. Parents are supposed to help their children get educated.
The curious part of the conversation was how quickly everyone at the table agreed that it was better in Europe. I asked for examples, data. All were puzzled that I didn't just know this. Everyone knows that Europe has more widely available health care, that fewer people in Europe are poor, etc. It only stands to reason that they would provide better SPED services as well.
I said I doubted it. Then I went to research what happens in Europe for special ed and specialised mental health services and found I was just about right. There is a lot of variation in services among European countries. Comparisons are exceedingly difficult for the usual apples-and-oranges reasons. Different countries define special needs, emotional disturbance, and psychiatric illness differently, and have different approaches how they want to attack the problems.
Where comparisons can be made however, The US doesn't look so bad on special ed. Nor on mental health services (sidebar links). Nor on overall neurological , mental health, and substance abuse services. In general, you can find 1-3 countries in each small category that does better than the US - the other forty or so are behind us, and the overall average for Europe is behind the US. And it's not the same 1-3 countries each time, either, though Finland is up there most of the time.
We have people out there we can learn from. We can do better. But there is not some mythical area or country where everything is much better. We do well.
It is worth noting that most countries have the same problems of funding. Lots of expensive solutions don't provide much in the way of outcomes. Even excellent, state-of-the-art treatments can often only ameliorate, not solve, brain problems. And the most money goes into those children and youth with multiple problems, where the rate of return is even lower.
It's a good thing to do. Relieving suffering is good. Helping people improve is good. I don't resent the cost. But I also don't feel crushed with guilt about this. I see enormous resources poured into bad-risk patients every day. I don't see our society as hateful simply because people wish they could do more.
The curious part of the conversation was how quickly everyone at the table agreed that it was better in Europe. I asked for examples, data. All were puzzled that I didn't just know this. Everyone knows that Europe has more widely available health care, that fewer people in Europe are poor, etc. It only stands to reason that they would provide better SPED services as well.
I said I doubted it. Then I went to research what happens in Europe for special ed and specialised mental health services and found I was just about right. There is a lot of variation in services among European countries. Comparisons are exceedingly difficult for the usual apples-and-oranges reasons. Different countries define special needs, emotional disturbance, and psychiatric illness differently, and have different approaches how they want to attack the problems.
Where comparisons can be made however, The US doesn't look so bad on special ed. Nor on mental health services (sidebar links). Nor on overall neurological , mental health, and substance abuse services. In general, you can find 1-3 countries in each small category that does better than the US - the other forty or so are behind us, and the overall average for Europe is behind the US. And it's not the same 1-3 countries each time, either, though Finland is up there most of the time.
We have people out there we can learn from. We can do better. But there is not some mythical area or country where everything is much better. We do well.
It is worth noting that most countries have the same problems of funding. Lots of expensive solutions don't provide much in the way of outcomes. Even excellent, state-of-the-art treatments can often only ameliorate, not solve, brain problems. And the most money goes into those children and youth with multiple problems, where the rate of return is even lower.
It's a good thing to do. Relieving suffering is good. Helping people improve is good. I don't resent the cost. But I also don't feel crushed with guilt about this. I see enormous resources poured into bad-risk patients every day. I don't see our society as hateful simply because people wish they could do more.
Awesome-O's Second Law
Comments over at Volokh Conspiracy just tickled me for some reason. The original post was about an essay by a sportswriter deploring the lack of reading in today's yout' and how that bodes ill for the republic. It's a topic I have touched on many times in my 1600+ posts. I take a contrary view. I think modern education is slightly better than education in my generation, even with all the PC idiocy that gets injected. Steven Johnson's Everything Bad is Good For You, how well American students compare to European ones in real life, and the misjudgments we conservatives make about education are all in here if you like. I do believe that education needs to undergo radical change. I just don't believe it was all that great 50 or 100 years ago either.
It's worth noting that I say that as one who comes from the fanatic fringe of reading.
Awesome-O's comment is worth sharing:
Earlier in the comment section he had offered:
It took me awhile to find Awesome-O's First Law, BTW. It's nowhere near as gripping: "Any mention of Catullus will prompt an immediate use of a form of the verb irrumatio."
It's worth noting that I say that as one who comes from the fanatic fringe of reading.
Awesome-O's comment is worth sharing:
These dumb kids and their lithographs! Why, in my day, all we had were woodcuts. We didn't have any of this fancy metal lithography crap, and we were smarter for it.
Earlier in the comment section he had offered:
Okay, it's time for Awesome-O's Second Law: Society appears to be getting dumber because the observer's intelligence and/or knowledge continuously increases relative to that of society's average member.This accords happily with my Influence of Doonesbury post in 2006.
This isn't really an example of Awesome-O's Second Law, but I always like to use Doonesbury as an illustration of the naivety of youth.
When Gary Trudeau started the strip, the older character were dumb and unenlightened, and the college-aged characters were brilliant and insightful. Now that the strip is what, about 40?, the older characters are wise, and the college-aged characters are mouth-breathing dolts. It turns out that whichever age cohort Trudeau is in is the smart one.
It took me awhile to find Awesome-O's First Law, BTW. It's nowhere near as gripping: "Any mention of Catullus will prompt an immediate use of a form of the verb irrumatio."
Sunday, December 21, 2008
51%
Reading historians, and especially anthropologists, it is easy to see why they tend to be very liberal in their politics. Their identification with Western civilization in general, and America in specific, is counteracted by their identification with other cultures. I don't mean that they necessarily favor other cultures over ours, but national and cultural loyalties are weaker for them. Our country perceives itself to be in danger and wishes to go to war; they can instantly name a dozen other cultures that felt as strongly about defending their way of life. Because all times and places have their loyalties, they see loyalty as a constant, and all loyalties as somewhat equal. Because New Guinea tribesmen or minor Celtic kings got all worked up about their own power and influence, they see American aspirations as little better.
They consider it their job, in fact, to point out to the rest of us how unspecial we are. With that as a mindset, it is easy to see why they would reflexively oppose wars - don't all nations feel justified? Doesn't every culture try to use its religion to support its secular aims? Didn't the Mongols equally believe they were worthy of conquering others? Also, they often adopt a cultural neutrality in their professional work in order to better understand a culture. They train themselves not to conclude too quickly that something is good or bad. Therapists, another batch of liberals, do much the same professionally.
Because it is their cast of mind professionally, they easily gravitate toward believing that this is a good way to think generally. That's rubbish, of course, but it is the rubbish of certain educated people decade after decade, so it's worth taking into account. They are not going to stop thinking like that. People in the social sciences are going to believe in social equivalence, no matter how ludicrous it seems.
We, however, can step back from them a bit and observe them from the outside, much as they observe the rest of us. They delight in going against the common wisdom, seeing good and usefulness in things we call evil, and pointing out that what we call good is evil from another perspective. Unless you have done this type of thinking yourself, you can't know how delicious it is. To see what others miss! To understand what others dismiss! It is so ubiquitous in these fields that the participants no longer see it as a type of thinking. Does a fish know it is wet? They believe it is Real Thinking, which they can do and others only attempt.
Because they know all the black hats and white hats are actually gray, they become unable to distinguish between shades of gray. If one carries that thinking to its extreme, there is never any cultural or moral progress, only change. They don't actually believe that in their heart of hearts, of course. They have strong opinions about what constitutes a good society. Cultures that treat social scientists as special people and fund them generously are good societies, for example. Cultures that believe in moral equivalence in matters of sex and religion are good societies.
Just for fun, let's take an opposite view as better for mankind in the long run. We should always root for the side that is 51% righteous against the side that is 49%. No dithering, or apologies, or faintheartedness: if country A is slightly more humane, generous, intelligent, whatever, we should assist it against country B. Even if A wants to wipe B off the map, we should be on their side. Eventually, we would all be better off, right? Four, five centuries of this and we'd be a better people.
It sounds like a shoddy morality to us because the percentages are so close. But this is in fact how Western Civilization has moved forward, and brought us to a place where lives are long and few citizens are absolutely wretched. We can usually do better than 51% morality if we look for it - the northern states versus the southern in the the 1860's, for example. If we required then that we wait until one side is the 80% moral one and the other 20%, we would never have freed the slaves. Real people and real cultures never get to that superdominance in morality. But rather than being a reason not to go to war, as social scientists think, perhaps it is actually a justification for some wars. The enormous human cost makes marginal moral gains not worth it. 51-49 is out, then. How about 60-40? 70-30?
It is legitimate for those who greatly oppose wars to try and push the requirements as high as possible. But those who live under injustice think that it might be justified at 51%. Certainly, there is a point at which it is a sin not to eliminate the evil.
They consider it their job, in fact, to point out to the rest of us how unspecial we are. With that as a mindset, it is easy to see why they would reflexively oppose wars - don't all nations feel justified? Doesn't every culture try to use its religion to support its secular aims? Didn't the Mongols equally believe they were worthy of conquering others? Also, they often adopt a cultural neutrality in their professional work in order to better understand a culture. They train themselves not to conclude too quickly that something is good or bad. Therapists, another batch of liberals, do much the same professionally.
Because it is their cast of mind professionally, they easily gravitate toward believing that this is a good way to think generally. That's rubbish, of course, but it is the rubbish of certain educated people decade after decade, so it's worth taking into account. They are not going to stop thinking like that. People in the social sciences are going to believe in social equivalence, no matter how ludicrous it seems.
We, however, can step back from them a bit and observe them from the outside, much as they observe the rest of us. They delight in going against the common wisdom, seeing good and usefulness in things we call evil, and pointing out that what we call good is evil from another perspective. Unless you have done this type of thinking yourself, you can't know how delicious it is. To see what others miss! To understand what others dismiss! It is so ubiquitous in these fields that the participants no longer see it as a type of thinking. Does a fish know it is wet? They believe it is Real Thinking, which they can do and others only attempt.
Because they know all the black hats and white hats are actually gray, they become unable to distinguish between shades of gray. If one carries that thinking to its extreme, there is never any cultural or moral progress, only change. They don't actually believe that in their heart of hearts, of course. They have strong opinions about what constitutes a good society. Cultures that treat social scientists as special people and fund them generously are good societies, for example. Cultures that believe in moral equivalence in matters of sex and religion are good societies.
Just for fun, let's take an opposite view as better for mankind in the long run. We should always root for the side that is 51% righteous against the side that is 49%. No dithering, or apologies, or faintheartedness: if country A is slightly more humane, generous, intelligent, whatever, we should assist it against country B. Even if A wants to wipe B off the map, we should be on their side. Eventually, we would all be better off, right? Four, five centuries of this and we'd be a better people.
It sounds like a shoddy morality to us because the percentages are so close. But this is in fact how Western Civilization has moved forward, and brought us to a place where lives are long and few citizens are absolutely wretched. We can usually do better than 51% morality if we look for it - the northern states versus the southern in the the 1860's, for example. If we required then that we wait until one side is the 80% moral one and the other 20%, we would never have freed the slaves. Real people and real cultures never get to that superdominance in morality. But rather than being a reason not to go to war, as social scientists think, perhaps it is actually a justification for some wars. The enormous human cost makes marginal moral gains not worth it. 51-49 is out, then. How about 60-40? 70-30?
It is legitimate for those who greatly oppose wars to try and push the requirements as high as possible. But those who live under injustice think that it might be justified at 51%. Certainly, there is a point at which it is a sin not to eliminate the evil.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Streak
The Celtics won their 16th straight, getting up into the territory where sportswriters just have to comment about where it falls in relation to the record and to other streaks. As they aren't even halfway to the record, and it really doesn't matter, it gets rather tedious.
It was good to catch up on Atlanta again. They are a very good team, just a little thin on the bench. Two more rotation players, or one starter that pushes a current guy back in the rotation, and this is a championship team. Al Horford turned out to be a much better choice than Joakim Noah.
It was good to catch up on Atlanta again. They are a very good team, just a little thin on the bench. Two more rotation players, or one starter that pushes a current guy back in the rotation, and this is a championship team. Al Horford turned out to be a much better choice than Joakim Noah.
Disappointing Book & Solution
One son picked a book about CS Lewis from my wish list to receive as a stocking present. He found this annoying, that I would ask him would pick from my list. The alternatives are worse, of course. For a main present we of course check his list, but for stocking presents he would be entirely dependent on "what Pops thinks he will like," or worse, "what Pops thinks he should have." He cut his losses and chose.
The purpose, of course, is that I can read the book before I give it to him. My brother and I have for years regarded this as a perk of giving books to each other, and I just transferred it over to my sons.
This particular book is disappointing, however, which adds to the difficulty. It is Peter Schackel's Is Your Lord Large Enough? It's accurate enough and in no way objectionable. Schackel does indeed capture some main points of Lewis's thought and set out the questions. He chooses his quotes well, which gives a good exposure to a variety of works by Lewis. It is the quotes from Lewis, Chesterton, and MacDonald, however, which highlight the flatness of his own writing. Worse, it has discussion questions at the end of each chapter (shudder). For the first forty pages I mentally composed a short note I would include with the book to render it more readable. At the top of the list was a directive to ignore the discussion questions or at most, read only the first one each chapter.
They were good enough questions in their own way. They were exactly the sorts of life-changing thought questions that all of us would profit from. They reflected exactly what one should ponder from Lewis. There just didn't seem to be any need to answer them. Or to do more than skim the Schakel writing between the Lewis quotes. It all seemed a lot of effort for a small return.
If the point is to read Lewis quotes, why not get something actually written by Lewis? So I did, and one that I think fits Ben particularly well. Lewis can raise large issues quite on his own without any help from modern commenters. That's where I should have started to begin with. He'll get two books, and may even get more juice out of the first one than I did, now that he knows its pitfalls.
Primary sources. How could I forget such a basic rule?
The purpose, of course, is that I can read the book before I give it to him. My brother and I have for years regarded this as a perk of giving books to each other, and I just transferred it over to my sons.
This particular book is disappointing, however, which adds to the difficulty. It is Peter Schackel's Is Your Lord Large Enough? It's accurate enough and in no way objectionable. Schackel does indeed capture some main points of Lewis's thought and set out the questions. He chooses his quotes well, which gives a good exposure to a variety of works by Lewis. It is the quotes from Lewis, Chesterton, and MacDonald, however, which highlight the flatness of his own writing. Worse, it has discussion questions at the end of each chapter (shudder). For the first forty pages I mentally composed a short note I would include with the book to render it more readable. At the top of the list was a directive to ignore the discussion questions or at most, read only the first one each chapter.
They were good enough questions in their own way. They were exactly the sorts of life-changing thought questions that all of us would profit from. They reflected exactly what one should ponder from Lewis. There just didn't seem to be any need to answer them. Or to do more than skim the Schakel writing between the Lewis quotes. It all seemed a lot of effort for a small return.
If the point is to read Lewis quotes, why not get something actually written by Lewis? So I did, and one that I think fits Ben particularly well. Lewis can raise large issues quite on his own without any help from modern commenters. That's where I should have started to begin with. He'll get two books, and may even get more juice out of the first one than I did, now that he knows its pitfalls.
Primary sources. How could I forget such a basic rule?
Diet
What some call health, if purchased by perpetual anxiety about diet, isn't much better than tedious disease. George Dennison Prentice, 19th C American newspaper editor.
There are people who strictly deprive themselves of each and every eatable, drinkable, and smokable which has in any way acquired a shady reputation. They pay this price for health. And health is all they get for it. How strange it is. It is like paying out your whole fortune for a cow that has gone dry. Mark Twain
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Unfounded Optimism
With the wild swings in gasoline prices, perhaps the general public will grudgingly accept that price is sensitive and complicated, and not merely the result of evil oil companies trying to screw us.
And perhaps the collapse of the Big 3 automakers will suggest to people that they don't force their choices on us with their nefarious advertising, but are trying to guess what we want - not always wisely.
Nah.
And perhaps the collapse of the Big 3 automakers will suggest to people that they don't force their choices on us with their nefarious advertising, but are trying to guess what we want - not always wisely.
Nah.
Delilah
During the power outage, the battery radio picked up very few stations. I decided that I liked the idea of Delilah - always encouraging, always sympathetic, understanding the sentiment of even the most banal stories - better than the actuality of Delilah. I'm glad she's out there, I really am. She's good for the world. We can all learn important lessons in humanity from her.
I'm taking my lessons in small doses, however.
I'm taking my lessons in small doses, however.
Victor Borge - Inflationary Language
And as a bonus, an older film, that he comments on. I think he is actually playing those pianos.
Political Ignorance
The survey from the Wilson Research Strategies folks was certainly gratifying to conservatives, showing that McCain voters had a wider, and more accurate fund of knowledge about the election than the Obama voters.
But let’s take it apart a little. McCain voters knew which party controls Congress 63-27, Obama voters 41-43. That seems a rather basic point, and that 27% of the McCain voters didn’t know it is hardly cause for celebration. While it is certainly even more distressing that 43% of Obama voters didn’t know it, 41% of them did. That’s what such statistics mean. They are an estimation of the knowledge of a collection of individuals, not an aspersion that the 41% are dumber people than the 63%. If it were closer, we might attribute the difference to race: blacks as a group often overestimate the control that Republicans have over congress. Perhaps that comes from a strong emotive impression that Republicans are the white-people’s party, and white people clearly control congress more than black people, leading to the false conclusion that Republicans control congress. New voters and low-information voters are particularly susceptible to such misinterpretations. That black voters would include a higher percentage of new and low-information voters is hardly surprising, given the cynical view many African-Americans have about national politics. People put their mental energy where they think there is some payoff, whatever their race. Involved African-Americans gravitate more to local politics.
But 63 and 41 aren’t that close, so race cannot be the main explanation for the difference. A whole lot of white people got that wrong to put up those numbers. Not so many new voters in that group, so low-information must be taking up the slack. Yet they got the salacious rumors knowledge down pretty accurately, so they had some sort of information. Unfortunately, they seemed to have the sexy, tabloid-through-People Magazine information. Obama cleaned house with that group. The survey doesn’t show that readers of Mother Jones and The Nation are less well-informed than readers of National Review or Weekly Standard (they may be, but this survey doesn’t tell us). It does show that people who read the popular culture voted overwhelmingly for Obama.
Those people are still gong to be around next election, and the election after that. Even when they vote for candidates I like, they are going to be voting for them for dumb reasons. Conservatives can dent that with a long education campaign, and we should. But even a brilliantly-organised and focused performance, we will only pick off a few of those votes. We will also solidify the reasoning of a few or our own meatheads, which is a good thing, but not nation-changing.
Ilya Somin has it right. The national political process is always going to include these pop-culture voters, and therefore will include elected officials who won their votes. The trick is to give government less power, so that fewer decisions are made by this crew.
But let’s take it apart a little. McCain voters knew which party controls Congress 63-27, Obama voters 41-43. That seems a rather basic point, and that 27% of the McCain voters didn’t know it is hardly cause for celebration. While it is certainly even more distressing that 43% of Obama voters didn’t know it, 41% of them did. That’s what such statistics mean. They are an estimation of the knowledge of a collection of individuals, not an aspersion that the 41% are dumber people than the 63%. If it were closer, we might attribute the difference to race: blacks as a group often overestimate the control that Republicans have over congress. Perhaps that comes from a strong emotive impression that Republicans are the white-people’s party, and white people clearly control congress more than black people, leading to the false conclusion that Republicans control congress. New voters and low-information voters are particularly susceptible to such misinterpretations. That black voters would include a higher percentage of new and low-information voters is hardly surprising, given the cynical view many African-Americans have about national politics. People put their mental energy where they think there is some payoff, whatever their race. Involved African-Americans gravitate more to local politics.
But 63 and 41 aren’t that close, so race cannot be the main explanation for the difference. A whole lot of white people got that wrong to put up those numbers. Not so many new voters in that group, so low-information must be taking up the slack. Yet they got the salacious rumors knowledge down pretty accurately, so they had some sort of information. Unfortunately, they seemed to have the sexy, tabloid-through-People Magazine information. Obama cleaned house with that group. The survey doesn’t show that readers of Mother Jones and The Nation are less well-informed than readers of National Review or Weekly Standard (they may be, but this survey doesn’t tell us). It does show that people who read the popular culture voted overwhelmingly for Obama.
Those people are still gong to be around next election, and the election after that. Even when they vote for candidates I like, they are going to be voting for them for dumb reasons. Conservatives can dent that with a long education campaign, and we should. But even a brilliantly-organised and focused performance, we will only pick off a few of those votes. We will also solidify the reasoning of a few or our own meatheads, which is a good thing, but not nation-changing.
Ilya Somin has it right. The national political process is always going to include these pop-culture voters, and therefore will include elected officials who won their votes. The trick is to give government less power, so that fewer decisions are made by this crew.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)