I stole the above headline from EconLog. I've been thinking a lot about this headline separate from the actual contents the follow it on EconLog.
The first thing I would like to note is that it is true. This is how the meek have inherited the earth -- through the free market system. The markets favor those who are easy to get along with. If you want a job, just show the potential employer that you are a "team player," meaning, you will do anything he wants when he wants it. The more social you are this way and the more submissive, the more likely you are to get the job. Now, this can all be a facade just to get your foot in the door so you can then be bold and shoot up in the company -- but it can't be a complete facade. You still have to continue to act meek and to play all the games necessary to succeed. And there's no getting out of the game. In every job and potential job there is a game. The most onecan hope for is to be involved in the occasional rule change.
Here's another way to word the headline: "Fortune favors the idealist; markets favor the pragmatists." In this case I am refering to social pragmatists. One can be a social pragmatist and still ignore physical reality. Those who go along to get along, who try to fit into whatever the social melieu of the company or organization is, are social pragmatists. Those who may think there is right and wrong, and that one should always come down on the right, and those who may think there are better ways of doing things than the boss, are typically advised to keep their mouths shut -- you may win, in which case you become the hero; but you may lose everything you worked for as well.
If this all sounds pessimistic, well, it is pessimistic in a sense. But it's not necessarily bad. The vast majority of people are "the meek" and are social pragmatists -- and thus the free market favors them. This is why people are generally better off in a free market system. But at the same time, I am coming to understand the objections to the market by Nietzsche on precisely this issue. Nietzsche, of course, did not favor the meek. He favored the bold -- and good fortune. I can thus understand where his objection to the free market system comes from. This does not mean, of course, that I agree with Nietzsche (with whom I agree more often than not) in his opposition to free markets -- but that disagreement would only occur if we are to understand Nietzsche's objections to the free market as objections in the sense most people mean it by, and not in the way Nietzsche means it when he attacks something: as a way to strengthen it. If we understand Nietzsche's opposition this way, we then have to ask: is this disfavoring of the bold by the markets harmful to the markets?
It certainly suggests that it is harmful to the bold, for economics tells us that if the markets do not favor something, it will soon cease being offered. And where would that place the free market system? Can it truly exist without the bold?
Of course, if fortune favors the bold, we shall perhaps never be rid of the bold, as we shall never be rid of fortune. But where's fortune when you need it? My own boldness keeps getting in the way of my success in the market -- how ironic, then, that I continue to support it. What can I say, I'm just not selfish enough to want to do away with it for my own sake, and thus harm so many millions of meek. And what does that say about myself? Am I bold or meek? Or boldly meek? Or meekly bold? Or maybe I'm just so stupid as to not know when to stop fighting for what is right. Sadly, it doesn't seem to pay the bills.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Monday, October 22, 2007
Liberals, liberals, and liberals
I see a problem with the way the word "liberal" is used. We talk about how liberals have historically opposed fascism and communism, but which liberals are we talking about? Are we talking about liberals as classical liberals, which by definition support liberty? I'm certainly one of those. Or are we talking about liberals as the modernist Left, whicih supports communist ideas and helped to create the modern socialist and welfare states? Or are we talking about liberals as the postmodern Left, whose ideas were in no small part developed by the Nazi philosopher Martin Heidegger, giving us ideas such as political correctness? One of these has historically opposed fascism and communism. I can't say the same for the other two.
The Economic Pie Metaphor
Too many people think of the economy as being a pie. If the economy is a pie, then the socialists are right that it is unfair that the rich have more, because they had to take it from someone else. This would mean that every economic transaction would result in one person being better off, the other person being worse off. But the pie metaphor is simply incorrect. Economies grow, and it is the element of growth that is completely ignored in the pie metaphor. In a true economic exchange, party A has something of value (object 1) to party B. Now, if party B wants to get object 1 from party A, they have to offer something to party A that is more valuable to party A than object 1 is to them. Naturally, party B will choose something that is also of less value to him than is object 1. As a result, party A will get something of more value to him than was object 1, and party B will get object 1, which he considered to be more valuable than what he exchanged for it. This economic exchange boils down to : "If you do something good for me, I'll do something good for you." Both parties are better off after the exchange. Wealthy people in a free market are wealthy precisely because they engage in more of these exchanges than do other people. They dedicate more of their time to economic exchanges.
One problem I oftentimes see when people make anti-economic arguments is an objection to certain kinds of exchange. There is the assumption that they know more than the two engaging in the economic exchange what has what value. The assumption is that things have an inherent value, making economic exchanges absurd. This would mean that you are either exchanging things of equal value, in which case nobody is better or worse off, or something of high value is exchanged for something of low value, in which case someone is better off. The assumption here, then, is that the rich are good at tricking people into exchanging something of high value for something of low value. But things do nt have inherent values -- we give things value. And it is arrogant of someone to decide that they know better if something is of value to you or not. Such people are elitists -- those who favor free markets are in this case the true egalitarian thinkers.
The pie metaphor implies another kind of exchange: "Unless you do something good for me, I'll do something bad to you." This is the kind of exchange government engage in -- and those who support government intervention do recognize this, only they assume that all exchanges are like the government's form of exchange. The presumption then is that since all exchanges are of this sort, we might as well put the government in charge of them. This kind of exchange has the effect of enforcing the pie metaphor, since inevitably one is exchanging something of more value for something of less -- this results in "negative growth". If we balance out growth with negative growth, we end up with a non-growing economy, and then we do indeed have a pie that gets divided up.
Fortunately the U.S. economy is not quite in that situation. Thus, the rich get richer by making everyone else better off as well.
One problem I oftentimes see when people make anti-economic arguments is an objection to certain kinds of exchange. There is the assumption that they know more than the two engaging in the economic exchange what has what value. The assumption is that things have an inherent value, making economic exchanges absurd. This would mean that you are either exchanging things of equal value, in which case nobody is better or worse off, or something of high value is exchanged for something of low value, in which case someone is better off. The assumption here, then, is that the rich are good at tricking people into exchanging something of high value for something of low value. But things do nt have inherent values -- we give things value. And it is arrogant of someone to decide that they know better if something is of value to you or not. Such people are elitists -- those who favor free markets are in this case the true egalitarian thinkers.
The pie metaphor implies another kind of exchange: "Unless you do something good for me, I'll do something bad to you." This is the kind of exchange government engage in -- and those who support government intervention do recognize this, only they assume that all exchanges are like the government's form of exchange. The presumption then is that since all exchanges are of this sort, we might as well put the government in charge of them. This kind of exchange has the effect of enforcing the pie metaphor, since inevitably one is exchanging something of more value for something of less -- this results in "negative growth". If we balance out growth with negative growth, we end up with a non-growing economy, and then we do indeed have a pie that gets divided up.
Fortunately the U.S. economy is not quite in that situation. Thus, the rich get richer by making everyone else better off as well.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Comrade Clinton
Don't be fooled that Hillary Clinton says in the same speech as the following quote that she supports free markets. Pay attention to her rhetoric. She's smart enough n ot to come right out and attack the free market directly. No, her approach is to use phrases like "shared prosperity" and to say things like the following: "We're not coming to you, many of whom are well enough off that actually the tax cuts may have helped you, and say "we're going to give you more." We're saying, "You know what, for America to get back on track and be fiscally responsible, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." " Did you read that last sentence? She is talking in the context of the tax cuts which resulted in a growing economy and more tax income (it's the spending that got out of hand, not the amount of revenues coming in going down too much), but look at that last sentence. What group uses rhetoric like "the common good"? And that's pretty direct: "we're going to take things away from you." I have little doubt that she will live up to her word on that.
Poll II
| You Are a "Don't Tread On Me" Libertarian |
 You distrust the government, are fiercely independent, and don't belong in either party. Religion and politics should never mix, in your opinion... and you feel opressed by both. You don't want the government to cramp your self made style. Or anyone else's for that matter. You're proud to say that you're pro-choice on absolutely everything! |
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Poll
| Your Political Profile: |
 Overall: 70% Conservative, 30% Liberal Social Issues: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal Personal Responsibility: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal Fiscal Issues: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal Ethics: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal Defense and Crime: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal |
Colbert candidacy illegal?
We all know that Stephen Colbert's candidacy is a joke -- but still, if he wants to run, as a joke or not, he should be allowed to do so. That having been said, the Colbert candidacy seems to be exposing some election laws that I would consider to be questionable under the 1st Amendment. Brit Hume's Political Grapevine on Fox News reports that "the entire production cost of his show could be considered an illegal "in-kind" corporate donation — and he could be cited for using network employees on campaign activities." The first certainly violates the Constitution, if we take seriously the Supreme Court's ruling that money = speech. The second part makes no sense to me at all -- what difference does it make to anyone what your employees are doing, so long as you are paying them?
Campaign finance has historically constributed, and continues to contribute, to increased political corruption in the U.S. More and more restrictions have in fact resulted in more and more problems and indirect help for the candidates, etc. If we had a simple law that you could donate anything you wanted, whether you were a private individual or a corporation, to whomever you wanted, but all donations had to be completely transparent, almost all of our money corruption would be gone. People need to know who is buying you off.
But there seems to be something else going on as well. The election officials are telling Colbert that he cannot continue making a living if he wants to run for office. How many of our election laws make it practically impossible for one to work? The result of this is that we no longer have the "citizens legislature" this country was intended to have -- where being in Congress was a part-time job. What we have now is a professional class of legislators -- the complete opposite of what the Founding Fathers wanted. And we have gotten the kind of government one expects from having professional legislators: one completely disconnected from the real world.
We need to return to the citizen's legislature. Not only should politicians be allowed to keep whatever job they have -- I would go a step further and require they have another job. Next, the Congress should not be allowed to be in session more than 100 days a year. They can all fly in on weekends, meet for two weeks during summer break, and even use internet teleconferencing to meet. With modern technology, Congress doesn't have to meet in Washington, D.C.
So I hope that Colbert continues with his joke -- and I hope too that Colbert sues the government for attempting to violate his 1st Amendment rights by attempting to enforce illegal and ill-conceived election laws.
Campaign finance has historically constributed, and continues to contribute, to increased political corruption in the U.S. More and more restrictions have in fact resulted in more and more problems and indirect help for the candidates, etc. If we had a simple law that you could donate anything you wanted, whether you were a private individual or a corporation, to whomever you wanted, but all donations had to be completely transparent, almost all of our money corruption would be gone. People need to know who is buying you off.
But there seems to be something else going on as well. The election officials are telling Colbert that he cannot continue making a living if he wants to run for office. How many of our election laws make it practically impossible for one to work? The result of this is that we no longer have the "citizens legislature" this country was intended to have -- where being in Congress was a part-time job. What we have now is a professional class of legislators -- the complete opposite of what the Founding Fathers wanted. And we have gotten the kind of government one expects from having professional legislators: one completely disconnected from the real world.
We need to return to the citizen's legislature. Not only should politicians be allowed to keep whatever job they have -- I would go a step further and require they have another job. Next, the Congress should not be allowed to be in session more than 100 days a year. They can all fly in on weekends, meet for two weeks during summer break, and even use internet teleconferencing to meet. With modern technology, Congress doesn't have to meet in Washington, D.C.
So I hope that Colbert continues with his joke -- and I hope too that Colbert sues the government for attempting to violate his 1st Amendment rights by attempting to enforce illegal and ill-conceived election laws.
Drought in Georgia
The drought in Georgia is causing Atlanta to panic. The typical governmental solutions are being used: banning watering lawns, etc. So of course the main source of water for Atlanta is 15 feet below average and they may in fact have only a few months of water left. What Atlanta (and it seems no other city) has tried is this: raising the price of water. If you have a shortage of something, the price of that thing should go up, since the supply is down relative to demand. Raising the price will reduce demand. If there were a free market in tap water, this wouldn't be an issue, and I wouldn't have to be on here talking about something that is obvious to every Econ 100 student within the first week of class. But since this is something regulated or directly controlled by governments across the country, we do have to talk about it. Why won't politicians allow prices to go up? They don't want to hear complaints. I guess it's better to let people not have water rather than lose a vote or two. That's because our leaders 1) are cowards, even in the face of a crisis (which wouldn't be a crisis if it weren't for them, by the way) and 2) are too ignorant of economics to have been elected in the first place.
You may guarantee that if there is a shortage of something, it is because the government interfered with proper pricing. When the price of something is too low, people use too much of it, and supply goes down too quickly. Atlanta has a water shortage because the government has kept the price of water too low. Raise the price of water to reflect its true value, and there would be no water shortage looming on the horizon.
And don't give me this nonsense about it harming the poor more than the rich. Such arguments come from people who are merely envious of the rich and would prefer that the poor not have water so long as the rich don't either. I know this to be true because this is going to be the outcome of such a policy, and everyone with even half a brain knows it. So you have to wonder what the true motivation of such people really are (well, you might wonder -- I don't).
You may guarantee that if there is a shortage of something, it is because the government interfered with proper pricing. When the price of something is too low, people use too much of it, and supply goes down too quickly. Atlanta has a water shortage because the government has kept the price of water too low. Raise the price of water to reflect its true value, and there would be no water shortage looming on the horizon.
And don't give me this nonsense about it harming the poor more than the rich. Such arguments come from people who are merely envious of the rich and would prefer that the poor not have water so long as the rich don't either. I know this to be true because this is going to be the outcome of such a policy, and everyone with even half a brain knows it. So you have to wonder what the true motivation of such people really are (well, you might wonder -- I don't).
Friday, October 19, 2007
Intelligence
In his book "On Intelligence," Jeff Hawkins says that intelligence is the ability to detect and predict patterns. I would go a step further and say that the isgnature of human intellligence is the ability to then create new patterns. If we look to what it is that IQ tests test for, it is pattern recognition. The more complex the patterns are that one can recognize, the more intelligent a person is said to be. Of course, there are many kinds of patterns, and some people are better at picking up some kinds patterns than they are at others. Thus there could be social intelligence, emotional intelligence, psychological intelligence, artistic intelligence, literary intelligence, memory-intelligence, mathematical intelligence, etc. Some patterns, like those in math, are extremely simple patterns -- so simple that math is difficult for many people.
So we see a variety of kinds of intelligence. We should also then expect that, with the way we measure IQ, we should see differences in IQ based on the complexity of a society one finds oneself in. People in more complex societies, cultures, and sub-cultures would then test as having higher IQs than do those in less complex societies, precisely because those in more complex societies would be more likely to encounter and have to recognize more complex patterns. Complexity in a society (or in a person's mind) is something that emerges over time. Some places, due to any number of factors, have more complex soceties than others. When an environment changes, a society can and oftentime will react to become mroe complex. This helps to make sense of the fact that IQ has steadily gone up in Western countries throughout the 20th century (it doesn't appear to be the case only because by definition 100 is average, meaning they have had to modify the tests). Obviously, evolution could not be working quite that fast, to make people at the end of the 20th century smarter than those at the beginning. However, I think we can all recognize that Western culture and society have gotten more complex over that same period. People living in the more complex societies, being exposed to more complex patterns, would naturally be able to detect the more complex patterns associated with high IQ. This also makes sense of the fact that IQ can and does oftentimes go up as a person gets older. Some children can see complex patterns right away and easily. Others learn to do so.
Is there a genetic component to IQ? Undoubtedly. But with 1/3 of our genes being expressed exclusively in the brain, good luck figuring out what combinations make for high intelligence. Also, the massive shifts and migrations of people throughout history and pre-history, along with the bottlenecking that occured several tens of thousands of years ago to make us almost genetically identical, makes any racial component to IQ so unlikely as to be almost laughable. Intelligence comes about through the interaction of genes and environment, and the more complex the environment is, the higher the IQ of the people in that environment. As noted, social-cultural-environmental differences are accidents of geography as much as anything, as Jared Diamond observed in "Guns, Germs, and Steel." As the world becomes more complex, other cultures around the world will respond to that complexity -- sometimes by lashing out, sometimes by becoming more complex themselves. But we have to recognize that this is where the differences lie: in our psychosocial complexity. It is that component to IQ that is variable among groups, not genes. The world we live in, and how complex we think the world is that we live in, makes a difference. Individual differences, rather than group differences, may be another matter, as different individuals may be better or worse at detecting patterns, or certain kinds of patterns. And there is certainly a difference in ability to create new patterns. Artists, poets, and musicians aren't all that common, after all. But my guess is that they are also less common than they could be.
So we see a variety of kinds of intelligence. We should also then expect that, with the way we measure IQ, we should see differences in IQ based on the complexity of a society one finds oneself in. People in more complex societies, cultures, and sub-cultures would then test as having higher IQs than do those in less complex societies, precisely because those in more complex societies would be more likely to encounter and have to recognize more complex patterns. Complexity in a society (or in a person's mind) is something that emerges over time. Some places, due to any number of factors, have more complex soceties than others. When an environment changes, a society can and oftentime will react to become mroe complex. This helps to make sense of the fact that IQ has steadily gone up in Western countries throughout the 20th century (it doesn't appear to be the case only because by definition 100 is average, meaning they have had to modify the tests). Obviously, evolution could not be working quite that fast, to make people at the end of the 20th century smarter than those at the beginning. However, I think we can all recognize that Western culture and society have gotten more complex over that same period. People living in the more complex societies, being exposed to more complex patterns, would naturally be able to detect the more complex patterns associated with high IQ. This also makes sense of the fact that IQ can and does oftentimes go up as a person gets older. Some children can see complex patterns right away and easily. Others learn to do so.
Is there a genetic component to IQ? Undoubtedly. But with 1/3 of our genes being expressed exclusively in the brain, good luck figuring out what combinations make for high intelligence. Also, the massive shifts and migrations of people throughout history and pre-history, along with the bottlenecking that occured several tens of thousands of years ago to make us almost genetically identical, makes any racial component to IQ so unlikely as to be almost laughable. Intelligence comes about through the interaction of genes and environment, and the more complex the environment is, the higher the IQ of the people in that environment. As noted, social-cultural-environmental differences are accidents of geography as much as anything, as Jared Diamond observed in "Guns, Germs, and Steel." As the world becomes more complex, other cultures around the world will respond to that complexity -- sometimes by lashing out, sometimes by becoming more complex themselves. But we have to recognize that this is where the differences lie: in our psychosocial complexity. It is that component to IQ that is variable among groups, not genes. The world we live in, and how complex we think the world is that we live in, makes a difference. Individual differences, rather than group differences, may be another matter, as different individuals may be better or worse at detecting patterns, or certain kinds of patterns. And there is certainly a difference in ability to create new patterns. Artists, poets, and musicians aren't all that common, after all. But my guess is that they are also less common than they could be.
Shame on Rep. Stark
Pete Stark should be ashamed of his comments that American troops are being killed for the President's amusement. When comments like these are made, the only intention is to shut down any sort of rational argument. If Starks truly believe them, he would have introduced articles of impeachment, as such a President would not be fit for service. So why would Starks make such a comment? To impress his buddies at MoveOn.org? At the very least it shows that he has no rational argument against the war -- which only shows he's stupid as well.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Good Riddance
I hope the reports are true and we can say good riddance to Dennis Hastert. He was a disapster as Speaker of the House, running off every Republican of principle to leave us with the namby-pamby group of centrist "pragmatists" we're now left with. Hastert took a Republican majority created on principles and managed to piddle it away. We have to blame Newt Gingrich too for resigning over practically nothing -- so what if a few House seats were lost? Hastert lost the entire House.
Can we PLEASE get the revolutionaries back in office? Or at least running? Let's get back to cutting spending -- and I mean real cuts, and not merely cuts in growth of spending.
Can we PLEASE get the revolutionaries back in office? Or at least running? Let's get back to cutting spending -- and I mean real cuts, and not merely cuts in growth of spending.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Socialized Dentistry
In England it has been reported that 6% of the people, unable to see a dentist under the dreamy socialized system in England, have resorted to do-it-yourself dentistry, pulling their own teeth and fixing cracked crowns with glue. I'm waiting for the anecdotes of such things happening in the U.S.
With any sort of nationalized health care, we can expect to see the kind of results we see in government-run education. People receiving less and less as more and more money is thrown at it.
With any sort of nationalized health care, we can expect to see the kind of results we see in government-run education. People receiving less and less as more and more money is thrown at it.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
The Value of the Presidency
The U.S. last year spent $3.3 billion on mints and gum. So far this year all of the candidates for President have spent $3 billion. Anyone who tells you we spend too much on Presidential campaigns is an idiot. Surely the Presidency of the United States is more valuable than gum.
The Gay Gene?
There is a new study being conducted looking at gay siblings in an attempt to find a "gay gene." A short piece on this can be found here.
Since what we are talking about is a behavior, let me suggest that no gay gene, per se, will be found. Behavior comes about from a complex interaction between the genes and the environment as mediated by the brain and its structures. Part of this will also be affected by such things as pheromone sensitivity (there is some evidence that there is a connection between male sensitivity to male pheromones rather than female pheromones in gay men). And since only rarely is there a one-to-one correlation between genes and much of anything in the body -- and zero one-to-one correlation between genes and behavior -- there will be no single gene found. This does not mean that the research is pointless, however, as we may find what gene groups are involved in this particular behavior, which may shed insight not only on homosexual behavior, but behavior in general.
There will be those opposed to this, and for two very different, separate reasons. There will be those opposed to this because they think that if we find a gene or set of genes, that that means homosexuals are somehow genetically inferior or are mutants or some such nonsense. This is actually a subset of those who think genes have nothing to do with human behavior. Such people deny the fact that evolution created human beings, including our behaviors. Thus, they are in fundamental agreement with the next group who will be opposed to this: those who think that being gay is a choice, so looking for a gay gene is pointless. I never quite got this argument, as it assumes that people would go out of their way to do something that in many cultures throughout history would get them killed or imprisoned. Even in permissive ancient Athens, Aristophanes made fun of the flamboyant behaviors of several homosexuals. From a tribalist point of view it makes sense to encourage everyone to reproduce, but that is less of a concern today (with over 6 billion people). However, our closest relatives, the bonobos, are behaviorally bisexual, which contributes to strong social bonds and reduced aggression within the troops. It seems that humans evolved with this tension in place: a use of sex to reduce social aggression combined with a recognition that sex is tied to reproduction, and reproduction is tied to tribal survival. Psychologically, this has resulted in a tension between non-reproductive sexual acts and the need to reproduce that resulted in a very high percentage of homosexuals being artists of various kinds. This solved the problem by the person reproducing their minds in a more direct fashion. My guess would be that those of us who are heterosexual and artists have an extremely high reproductive drive that cannot be satisfied by only reproducing ourselves by half.
Those against homosexuality, who think it is a choice, are afraid of there being genetic evidence for it because they mistakenly believe that the natural = the good, and that does not necessarily follow. But they will not be able to make the argument that homosexuality is unnatural any more -- though there is sufficient evidence from bonobos to bighorn sheep that homosexuality is certainly natural. When I point this out, opponents of homosexuality then suggest that we are supposed to be more and better than the animals. The argument goes thus: homosexuality is unnatural, unless it is natural, in which case, we are (and should be) unnatural.
I have also heard the argument that while it may be true that someone may have a tendency, people still have a choice of how to behave. Granted. But if that is true, then why not choose to engage in homosexual behavior if you are a heterosexual? If it's that easy, then you should at least be able to imagine yourself having sex with someone of the same sex if you're heterosexual. If imagining such a thing does nothing for you, perhaps it is because you really don't have that much of a choice of how to behave. Or at least, you will be denying who you, fundamentally, are, and that has been shown to lead people to psychological trouble.
Arguments about pedophiles are, of course, only straw men people put up once they fail at everything else. In the end, we are talking about the willing participation of two adults -- and that is nobody's business.
Since what we are talking about is a behavior, let me suggest that no gay gene, per se, will be found. Behavior comes about from a complex interaction between the genes and the environment as mediated by the brain and its structures. Part of this will also be affected by such things as pheromone sensitivity (there is some evidence that there is a connection between male sensitivity to male pheromones rather than female pheromones in gay men). And since only rarely is there a one-to-one correlation between genes and much of anything in the body -- and zero one-to-one correlation between genes and behavior -- there will be no single gene found. This does not mean that the research is pointless, however, as we may find what gene groups are involved in this particular behavior, which may shed insight not only on homosexual behavior, but behavior in general.
There will be those opposed to this, and for two very different, separate reasons. There will be those opposed to this because they think that if we find a gene or set of genes, that that means homosexuals are somehow genetically inferior or are mutants or some such nonsense. This is actually a subset of those who think genes have nothing to do with human behavior. Such people deny the fact that evolution created human beings, including our behaviors. Thus, they are in fundamental agreement with the next group who will be opposed to this: those who think that being gay is a choice, so looking for a gay gene is pointless. I never quite got this argument, as it assumes that people would go out of their way to do something that in many cultures throughout history would get them killed or imprisoned. Even in permissive ancient Athens, Aristophanes made fun of the flamboyant behaviors of several homosexuals. From a tribalist point of view it makes sense to encourage everyone to reproduce, but that is less of a concern today (with over 6 billion people). However, our closest relatives, the bonobos, are behaviorally bisexual, which contributes to strong social bonds and reduced aggression within the troops. It seems that humans evolved with this tension in place: a use of sex to reduce social aggression combined with a recognition that sex is tied to reproduction, and reproduction is tied to tribal survival. Psychologically, this has resulted in a tension between non-reproductive sexual acts and the need to reproduce that resulted in a very high percentage of homosexuals being artists of various kinds. This solved the problem by the person reproducing their minds in a more direct fashion. My guess would be that those of us who are heterosexual and artists have an extremely high reproductive drive that cannot be satisfied by only reproducing ourselves by half.
Those against homosexuality, who think it is a choice, are afraid of there being genetic evidence for it because they mistakenly believe that the natural = the good, and that does not necessarily follow. But they will not be able to make the argument that homosexuality is unnatural any more -- though there is sufficient evidence from bonobos to bighorn sheep that homosexuality is certainly natural. When I point this out, opponents of homosexuality then suggest that we are supposed to be more and better than the animals. The argument goes thus: homosexuality is unnatural, unless it is natural, in which case, we are (and should be) unnatural.
I have also heard the argument that while it may be true that someone may have a tendency, people still have a choice of how to behave. Granted. But if that is true, then why not choose to engage in homosexual behavior if you are a heterosexual? If it's that easy, then you should at least be able to imagine yourself having sex with someone of the same sex if you're heterosexual. If imagining such a thing does nothing for you, perhaps it is because you really don't have that much of a choice of how to behave. Or at least, you will be denying who you, fundamentally, are, and that has been shown to lead people to psychological trouble.
Arguments about pedophiles are, of course, only straw men people put up once they fail at everything else. In the end, we are talking about the willing participation of two adults -- and that is nobody's business.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Liberal Values?
The modern Left (liberals in the U.S.) is postmodern. Postmodernists say there are no values (or that there can be no hierarchy of values). So isn't it an oxymoron for someone to say that they have Left-wing or liberal values? Wouldn't this come into conflict with their postmodernism?
Reason Magazine Congratulates Al Gore
The editors over at Reason Magazine are perhaps a little more generous toward Al Gore than I have been regarding his winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Their comments can be read at the following: http://reason.com/news/show/122960.html
They do point out, however, something I have obliquely mentioned as a true solution to any and all environmental problems: eliminating the commons. Which is to say, we need to turn every piece of land and water into privately owned property. Air pollution, too, is a commons problem. The tragedy of the commons problem demonstrates that it is only supporters of the free market who are true greens, if results is what you are looking for. Those, like Gore, who wish to turn even more of the planet into commons in fact, then, support further environmental devastation. I assume that this is out of ignorance on their parts -- assuming Gore and the other socialist greens are sincere about being green rather than about being socialist.
They do point out, however, something I have obliquely mentioned as a true solution to any and all environmental problems: eliminating the commons. Which is to say, we need to turn every piece of land and water into privately owned property. Air pollution, too, is a commons problem. The tragedy of the commons problem demonstrates that it is only supporters of the free market who are true greens, if results is what you are looking for. Those, like Gore, who wish to turn even more of the planet into commons in fact, then, support further environmental devastation. I assume that this is out of ignorance on their parts -- assuming Gore and the other socialist greens are sincere about being green rather than about being socialist.
Oh, the Irony!
In Al Gore's "The Assault on Reason," Gore begins his book, "Fear is the most powerful enemy of reason. Both fear and reason are essential to human survival, but the relatinship between them is unbalanced. Reason may sometimes dissipate fear, but fear frequently shuts down reason." Oh, the irony of this statement coming from Al Gore, whose version of environmentalism is pure fear-mongering. He points out, correctly, that our Founders "knew that, under the right circumstances, fear can trigger the temptation to surrender freedom to a odemagogue promising strength and security in return." Isn't that exactly what Gore has been doing? Is this a confession piece? The first several pages could be read as, "And this is why I use fear when talking about the environment."
I particularly love this line, which is true, by the way: "Demagogues have always promised security in return for the surrender of freedom" (25). Bush is promising security from terrorists. HIllary Clinton is promising security from material wants and personal responsibility for our actions. Lou Dobbs is promising security from illegal aliens. And Al Gore is promosing security from global climate change.
ANother great line is this, which, again, I completely agree with: "When errors of fact and judgment are no longer caught and neutralized by the nation's immune system, it is time to exampine the problem and to work toward good health in our political discourse." I love that ths observation is coming from someone who recently has a judgment against him regarding "errors of fact and judgment." They were caught, alright, but sadly, not neurtralized. Nonetheless, I would like to welcome Gore to a new, small part of the nation's immune system. I'm sure he will not be pleased.
I particularly love this line, which is true, by the way: "Demagogues have always promised security in return for the surrender of freedom" (25). Bush is promising security from terrorists. HIllary Clinton is promising security from material wants and personal responsibility for our actions. Lou Dobbs is promising security from illegal aliens. And Al Gore is promosing security from global climate change.
ANother great line is this, which, again, I completely agree with: "When errors of fact and judgment are no longer caught and neutralized by the nation's immune system, it is time to exampine the problem and to work toward good health in our political discourse." I love that ths observation is coming from someone who recently has a judgment against him regarding "errors of fact and judgment." They were caught, alright, but sadly, not neurtralized. Nonetheless, I would like to welcome Gore to a new, small part of the nation's immune system. I'm sure he will not be pleased.
Krugman on Those Against Gore Winning the Nobel Peace Prize
The neosocialist who sold his economist's soul to the left for some demagogic power, Paul Krugman, says he knows why we who oppose Gore getting the Nobel Peace Prize oppose Gore getting it (his piece can be read at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/opinion/15krugman.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin ). Now, I can't speak for anybody but myself, but let's see how his thesis holds out with me. Or if his argument holds up at all.
Krugman says, "Partly it’s a reaction to what happened in 2000, when the American people chose Mr. Gore but his opponent somehow ended up in the White House. Both the personality cult the right tried to build around President Bush and the often hysterical denigration of Mr. Gore were, I believe, largely motivated by the desire to expunge the stain of illegitimacy from the Bush administration." So he's accusing the right of being sore winners? I don't think anybody on the right cares a whit about Gore in this context. That's dreaming on Krugman's part -- or a sort of mirror-image projecting. I, personally, could care less because I didn't support Bush in the first place. And I haven't supported much of what he's done since (the tax cut being the exception). So this certainly doesn't explain my opposition to Gore's getting the Nobel Prize.
Krugman says, "In 1992, George H. W. Bush mocked him as the “ozone man,” but three years later the scientists who discovered the threat to the ozone layer won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. " Here we see a logical fallacy. Krugman is making an appeal to authority, which proves nothing. We don't know if the prize that year was given for political purposes (as the literary and peace prizes too often are), to support a certain agenda. If (for the sake of argument) the selection was made for this reason, then Krugman is making the same argument as the Christian who makes the argument, "I believe in God because the Bible says He exists." "So why do you believe the Bible?" "Because it's the word of God." Thus, Krugman proves nothing.
Krugman says, "In 2002 he warned that if we invaded Iraq, “the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam.” And so it has proved." Has it? Krugman must be basing this on all the attaacks that have happened to Americans in the U.S. No, hold it, wait, all those attacks on Americans have happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is Krugman surprosed that peole die in war? I suppose he would have argued that because more Americans died in WWII after entering it that "the resulting chaos posed a far greater danger from the United States than we faced from Hirohito and HItler." Such nonsense. You would think Krugman could come up with beter arguments than these.
Krugman says, "It’s in the interest of most people (and especially their descendants) that somebody do something to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, but each individual would like that somebody to be somebody else. Leave it up to the free market, and in a few generations Florida will be underwater." Now, on the first sentence, Krugman and I agree. Thus, I would welcome his condemnation of Gore and his lifestyle, since Gore is not doing any of the things he says everyone else should do. It is clear that Gore "would like that somebody to be somebody else." This is in fact one of the areas where I oppose Gore's getting the Nobel Peace Prize -- hypocrites should never get it.
Now, as for the last sentence, this shows that Krugman is ignorant both of human nature and of free markets. In opposition to what too many economists think, people do not make only narrowly selfish decisions. The Ultimatum Game in game theory shows that people are fair-minded. We think of what is best for family and friends and even country. And it has been the free market offering green alternatives that has done far more for the environment than has any government in history. Some of the most successful suppliers of electricity (in places that have had real deregulation) have been green suppliers -- precisely because they are green. People do want to live in a clean environment. In fact, if we could get complete recognition and enforcement of property rights, that would be a huge step toward being greener -- since nobody has the right to pollute your water and your property. An air pollution market would go a long way to solving these problems (then groups like Greenpeace would have to put their money where their mouths are). Krugman at least has the sense to support something like this -- though not for the reasons I give. Genetic ownership of species (esp. endangered species) would also work best (turkeys are in no danger of going extinct, unless animal rights activists have their way).
Krugman says that "the smear campaign has failed." I never relaly noticed one. I heard people making reasonable objections to ridiculous claims being made by Gore. I hear people decry his hypocrisy. I've even heard of a court saying Gore was wrong, lied, or exaggerated about at least 9 elements in his movie. But smear? It's not a smear if it's true.
Krugman says, "Partly it’s a reaction to what happened in 2000, when the American people chose Mr. Gore but his opponent somehow ended up in the White House. Both the personality cult the right tried to build around President Bush and the often hysterical denigration of Mr. Gore were, I believe, largely motivated by the desire to expunge the stain of illegitimacy from the Bush administration." So he's accusing the right of being sore winners? I don't think anybody on the right cares a whit about Gore in this context. That's dreaming on Krugman's part -- or a sort of mirror-image projecting. I, personally, could care less because I didn't support Bush in the first place. And I haven't supported much of what he's done since (the tax cut being the exception). So this certainly doesn't explain my opposition to Gore's getting the Nobel Prize.
Krugman says, "In 1992, George H. W. Bush mocked him as the “ozone man,” but three years later the scientists who discovered the threat to the ozone layer won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. " Here we see a logical fallacy. Krugman is making an appeal to authority, which proves nothing. We don't know if the prize that year was given for political purposes (as the literary and peace prizes too often are), to support a certain agenda. If (for the sake of argument) the selection was made for this reason, then Krugman is making the same argument as the Christian who makes the argument, "I believe in God because the Bible says He exists." "So why do you believe the Bible?" "Because it's the word of God." Thus, Krugman proves nothing.
Krugman says, "In 2002 he warned that if we invaded Iraq, “the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam.” And so it has proved." Has it? Krugman must be basing this on all the attaacks that have happened to Americans in the U.S. No, hold it, wait, all those attacks on Americans have happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is Krugman surprosed that peole die in war? I suppose he would have argued that because more Americans died in WWII after entering it that "the resulting chaos posed a far greater danger from the United States than we faced from Hirohito and HItler." Such nonsense. You would think Krugman could come up with beter arguments than these.
Krugman says, "It’s in the interest of most people (and especially their descendants) that somebody do something to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, but each individual would like that somebody to be somebody else. Leave it up to the free market, and in a few generations Florida will be underwater." Now, on the first sentence, Krugman and I agree. Thus, I would welcome his condemnation of Gore and his lifestyle, since Gore is not doing any of the things he says everyone else should do. It is clear that Gore "would like that somebody to be somebody else." This is in fact one of the areas where I oppose Gore's getting the Nobel Peace Prize -- hypocrites should never get it.
Now, as for the last sentence, this shows that Krugman is ignorant both of human nature and of free markets. In opposition to what too many economists think, people do not make only narrowly selfish decisions. The Ultimatum Game in game theory shows that people are fair-minded. We think of what is best for family and friends and even country. And it has been the free market offering green alternatives that has done far more for the environment than has any government in history. Some of the most successful suppliers of electricity (in places that have had real deregulation) have been green suppliers -- precisely because they are green. People do want to live in a clean environment. In fact, if we could get complete recognition and enforcement of property rights, that would be a huge step toward being greener -- since nobody has the right to pollute your water and your property. An air pollution market would go a long way to solving these problems (then groups like Greenpeace would have to put their money where their mouths are). Krugman at least has the sense to support something like this -- though not for the reasons I give. Genetic ownership of species (esp. endangered species) would also work best (turkeys are in no danger of going extinct, unless animal rights activists have their way).
Krugman says that "the smear campaign has failed." I never relaly noticed one. I heard people making reasonable objections to ridiculous claims being made by Gore. I hear people decry his hypocrisy. I've even heard of a court saying Gore was wrong, lied, or exaggerated about at least 9 elements in his movie. But smear? It's not a smear if it's true.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Gore Knows Postmodern Construction
Here's an interesting little bit I got from the traascript to Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" I found here: "I had a classmate in the sixth grade who raised his hand and he pointed to the outline of the east coast of South America, and he pointed to the west coast of Africa, and he asked, “Did they ever fit together?” And the teacher said, “Of course not! That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.” That student went on to be a drug addict and a ne’er do well. That teacher went on to be a science advisor in the current administration."
Now let us look at how he constructed this little story. Michel Foucault points out in "The Order of Things" that, if we want the mind to create a causal connection, all we have to do is put to sentences next to each other. When that happens, we assume that whatever happened in the first sentence caused whatever happened in the second sentence. We can see this happening in Gore's story. Here's a summary: A student asked his teacher if A were possible; the teacher replied, "Of course not!"; the student became a drug addict; the teacher has a position in the Bush administration. Though Gore could, of course, deny the causal connection (he never said, "and therefore, he became . . ."), but Foucault would point out that the minds of those listening to his story will create that causal connection all the same. The implication is that the student became a drug addict because the teacher told him his geology question was absurd. The addition that this teacher is now in the Bush administration implies, too, that Bush's policies are equally unscientific and will lead people to become drug addicts and "ne'er do well's."
I find it unlikely Gore has read Foucault -- though I could, perhaps be wrong about this. But it is likely that Gore has seen the works of Michael Moore, and Moore is known to do these kinds of transpositions to create causal connections in the minds of his audience. I would not doubt that this is where he got the idea to structure his little story this way.
Just part of the general no good Gore is up to in this movie. Since there is little doubt this movie is why Gore got the Nobel Peace Prize (oh, the shame, the shame!), I think I will spend a little time looking over what he said in it and posting my thoughts.
Now let us look at how he constructed this little story. Michel Foucault points out in "The Order of Things" that, if we want the mind to create a causal connection, all we have to do is put to sentences next to each other. When that happens, we assume that whatever happened in the first sentence caused whatever happened in the second sentence. We can see this happening in Gore's story. Here's a summary: A student asked his teacher if A were possible; the teacher replied, "Of course not!"; the student became a drug addict; the teacher has a position in the Bush administration. Though Gore could, of course, deny the causal connection (he never said, "and therefore, he became . . ."), but Foucault would point out that the minds of those listening to his story will create that causal connection all the same. The implication is that the student became a drug addict because the teacher told him his geology question was absurd. The addition that this teacher is now in the Bush administration implies, too, that Bush's policies are equally unscientific and will lead people to become drug addicts and "ne'er do well's."
I find it unlikely Gore has read Foucault -- though I could, perhaps be wrong about this. But it is likely that Gore has seen the works of Michael Moore, and Moore is known to do these kinds of transpositions to create causal connections in the minds of his audience. I would not doubt that this is where he got the idea to structure his little story this way.
Just part of the general no good Gore is up to in this movie. Since there is little doubt this movie is why Gore got the Nobel Peace Prize (oh, the shame, the shame!), I think I will spend a little time looking over what he said in it and posting my thoughts.
Line Item Veto
Every election we hear about the line item veto (something which I support, BTW) from the Republicans running for President. But then, they become President, and if any attempt is made to get it, it's half-hearted at best. My guess is that Republicans don't really wnat it, because then the President would actually be responsible for the ridiculous amounts of spending he approves of when he votes for a spending bill. Social spending went up under Bush (both of them) and under Reagan. Fiscal responsibility went out with Newt Gingrich, the only politician who has ever actually shown himself to be fiscally responsible (and forced Clinton to be as well, much to his wife's current advantage).
So I'm not holding my breath about the line item veto. Or promises of spending cuts. Ron Paul might do the latter, but is Ron Paul really going to get the Republican nomination?
So I'm not holding my breath about the line item veto. Or promises of spending cuts. Ron Paul might do the latter, but is Ron Paul really going to get the Republican nomination?
New York Parents Fined for Daughter's Chalk Drawings on Stoop
This is the headline. The story itself can be found at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301559,00.html
So here's the story: a 6 year old drew a flower on her own home's stoop with sidewalk chalk. This prompted some nosy, antisocial, hateful bitch to call and complain about "grafitti", prompting the city government to send the parents a note, threatening a fine.
Let's go in reverse order. First, the city presumed the family was guilty. Who here thinks the city actually followed this complaint up to find out what situation was? One can argue that they can't follow up on every single complaint, but why not? That's their job, and if they don't want to make sure that a law is bring broken -- or that it's not in fact being broken -- then they don't need to have the law on the books. And isn't there supposed to be a presumption of innocence? Whatever happened toi that? (Increasingly I am seeing governments presume guilt, which is a dangerous trend.) Therre is a huge difference between grafitti and sidewalk art made with chalk that can be washed away by the first rain.
Next, there's the neighbor. Once upon a time there were these things called neighborhoods. People knew their neighbors by at least their first names -- sometimes neighbors would get together and play cards or cook out (I do remember those days). Neighbbors would borrow things from each other. They were neighborly. They created a neighborhood. So what do we have now? Houses next to ours with anonymous people coming in and out of them. If someone new moves in, nobody bothers to welcome them.
The problem is precisely the kind of neighbor who would call to complain about the chalk sidewalk art of a 6 year old drawing in her own yard. What this woman did wasn't very neighborly, in fact undermines the social fabric of the neighborhood. There was a time, long before my time, when if people thought someone "wasn't being very neighborly," they would go and talk to that person, as a neighborhood, and let them know that they did not appreciate them being a jerk, and that if they continued being a jerk, they would be asked to leave the neighborhood. There was an acknowledgement that humans are social, that you don't interfere with people and their property, and that being antisocial undermined the community and made it so people didn't look out for each other. The consequence has been the breakdown of communities and neighborhoods, the rise of crime, and the isolation of everyone. And it's because of women like this idiot who complained -- but also because the community allows people like her to comtinue to be in the neighborhood, complaining. This is further backed up by governments who kowtow to every whim of every whiny asshole. Government too, then, undermines our sociality, or communities, our neighborhoods by doing what they did in response to this whiny idiot.
And why did this women call and complain? To be a jerk. That's the only reason. She knows the difference between a 6 year old drawing with sidewalk chalk on her parents' stoop and grafitti. And everyone in her neighborhood should let her know that they don't appreciate what she did. And they should do it openly, together, and voiciferously -- as a neighborhood.
So here's the story: a 6 year old drew a flower on her own home's stoop with sidewalk chalk. This prompted some nosy, antisocial, hateful bitch to call and complain about "grafitti", prompting the city government to send the parents a note, threatening a fine.
Let's go in reverse order. First, the city presumed the family was guilty. Who here thinks the city actually followed this complaint up to find out what situation was? One can argue that they can't follow up on every single complaint, but why not? That's their job, and if they don't want to make sure that a law is bring broken -- or that it's not in fact being broken -- then they don't need to have the law on the books. And isn't there supposed to be a presumption of innocence? Whatever happened toi that? (Increasingly I am seeing governments presume guilt, which is a dangerous trend.) Therre is a huge difference between grafitti and sidewalk art made with chalk that can be washed away by the first rain.
Next, there's the neighbor. Once upon a time there were these things called neighborhoods. People knew their neighbors by at least their first names -- sometimes neighbors would get together and play cards or cook out (I do remember those days). Neighbbors would borrow things from each other. They were neighborly. They created a neighborhood. So what do we have now? Houses next to ours with anonymous people coming in and out of them. If someone new moves in, nobody bothers to welcome them.
The problem is precisely the kind of neighbor who would call to complain about the chalk sidewalk art of a 6 year old drawing in her own yard. What this woman did wasn't very neighborly, in fact undermines the social fabric of the neighborhood. There was a time, long before my time, when if people thought someone "wasn't being very neighborly," they would go and talk to that person, as a neighborhood, and let them know that they did not appreciate them being a jerk, and that if they continued being a jerk, they would be asked to leave the neighborhood. There was an acknowledgement that humans are social, that you don't interfere with people and their property, and that being antisocial undermined the community and made it so people didn't look out for each other. The consequence has been the breakdown of communities and neighborhoods, the rise of crime, and the isolation of everyone. And it's because of women like this idiot who complained -- but also because the community allows people like her to comtinue to be in the neighborhood, complaining. This is further backed up by governments who kowtow to every whim of every whiny asshole. Government too, then, undermines our sociality, or communities, our neighborhoods by doing what they did in response to this whiny idiot.
And why did this women call and complain? To be a jerk. That's the only reason. She knows the difference between a 6 year old drawing with sidewalk chalk on her parents' stoop and grafitti. And everyone in her neighborhood should let her know that they don't appreciate what she did. And they should do it openly, together, and voiciferously -- as a neighborhood.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Good Intentions
Al Gore got the Nobel Prize for good intentions. All the people complaining about the fact that his documentary played fast and loose with the facts are missing the point of what the Nobel Peace Prize is about. It's not about actually bringing about peace, it's about having good intentions. Or appearing to have good intentions -- at the moment when the prize is given out. How else to explain Yasir Arafat's prize, which, if we used the same criteria for the Nobel as we do for the Olympics, should have had his prize stripped from him when he refused to accept everything he was asking for from Israel (oh, except for the one last thing he came up with precisely to undermine the agreement). And Gore too has done nothing for peace. He hasn't worked against it like Arafat has done, true, but his work ha done and will do nothing for peace.
In fact, there is good evidence that his intended solutions will in fact make the world a more dangerous place insofar as his socialist solutions will make people around the world worst off. Fewer people die in free countries with free markets, and between free countries with free markets. We have wars when we have dictatorships, socialisms of various forms (especially in their extreme forms, like Fascism and Communism), and the cutting off of trade with countries. And then we could get into the terrible track record of socilaist countries vs. free market countries. One could point to the fact that there is less polution in countries with much lower standards of living -- but the fact of the matter is that in those countries, the standards of lving are low, the death rate high, and the pollution closer to the ground so to speak. Cuba still drives gas-guzzlers from the 50s and 60s, while in the U.S. we drive hybrids (yes, we also drive SUVs, but there is at least the option in the U.S. to buy a hybrid).
The biggest dangers in the world come from countries that are either socialist, are moving toward socialism, or are emerging from socialism into mercantilism. China fits into the latter category. We can only hope she becomes a full-fleged free market soon, or else there is a good chance we will see a war as China attempts to seize the oil resevers she needs to continue gorwing. The Chinese government still does not quite get how one creates sustained and sustainable growth.
It should bother us, then, that there are those who wish to move us toward these very same, dangerous policies that have historically led the world to war. Gore supports exactly the kinds of policies that will put the world in such danger. This is due to his anti-economic thinking. The Nobel Committee has shown that it, too, is anti-economic in thinking. It is this kind of anti-economic thnking that puts the world in great danger of war.
Good intentions are not enough. The Left, if we assume them to be good people, are filled with good intentions. The problem is that almost everything they support makes people poorer, slows down economic growth, and creates the conditions for war. When will we learn this? When will we look at history and finally see this pattern prepeating itself?
In fact, there is good evidence that his intended solutions will in fact make the world a more dangerous place insofar as his socialist solutions will make people around the world worst off. Fewer people die in free countries with free markets, and between free countries with free markets. We have wars when we have dictatorships, socialisms of various forms (especially in their extreme forms, like Fascism and Communism), and the cutting off of trade with countries. And then we could get into the terrible track record of socilaist countries vs. free market countries. One could point to the fact that there is less polution in countries with much lower standards of living -- but the fact of the matter is that in those countries, the standards of lving are low, the death rate high, and the pollution closer to the ground so to speak. Cuba still drives gas-guzzlers from the 50s and 60s, while in the U.S. we drive hybrids (yes, we also drive SUVs, but there is at least the option in the U.S. to buy a hybrid).
The biggest dangers in the world come from countries that are either socialist, are moving toward socialism, or are emerging from socialism into mercantilism. China fits into the latter category. We can only hope she becomes a full-fleged free market soon, or else there is a good chance we will see a war as China attempts to seize the oil resevers she needs to continue gorwing. The Chinese government still does not quite get how one creates sustained and sustainable growth.
It should bother us, then, that there are those who wish to move us toward these very same, dangerous policies that have historically led the world to war. Gore supports exactly the kinds of policies that will put the world in such danger. This is due to his anti-economic thinking. The Nobel Committee has shown that it, too, is anti-economic in thinking. It is this kind of anti-economic thnking that puts the world in great danger of war.
Good intentions are not enough. The Left, if we assume them to be good people, are filled with good intentions. The problem is that almost everything they support makes people poorer, slows down economic growth, and creates the conditions for war. When will we learn this? When will we look at history and finally see this pattern prepeating itself?
Friday, October 12, 2007
Hillary Comes Clean
Hillary Clinton told the Boston Globe, "I have a million ideas. The country can't afford them all." Shouldn't that be a warning to us all?
Gore's Nobel Prize
In an apparent effort to discredit themselves, the Nobel committe just granted Al Gore the Nobel Peace Prize. For his support of the latest fad to be used by socialists to justify continued support of failed poliitical and economic policies. (Hillary Clinton has the other one: the children. But that's another post for another time.)
I suppose if there had been an Al Gore in the 70's trying to warm up the earth when all the climatologists were claiming global cooling, he would have won a Nobel Peace Prize then.
And what does global climate change have to do with peace, anyway? I suppose that if he has his way and the internal combustion engine is banned (he said it was more dangerous than nuclear weapons, after all -- so the committee may be on to something if we consider all the prizes given out to those who have been against nuclear weapons), then we won't need the Middle East at all, the U.S. and other countries can withdraw any interest in the region, and we can let the whole place implode in upon itself.
All in all, I don't see how this has anything to do with peace. I don't see any Peace Prize going to someone like Don Beck, whose ideas and work led to the peaceful transition of South Africa after apartheid. No, that was so smooth and successful, a model for the entire world as to what needs to be done to have peace throughout the world, that nobody paid it any attention. So never mind actual success. Let's focus, instead, upon unproven claims by a washed-up politician who has made some pretty bizarre personal claims in the past wo thinks sending us back to the pre-industrial age is probably the only way to save us all (when it has been the industrial age that has made life better and healthier for people around the world). Let us support someone who supports failed social and economic policies simply because he supports them to "save the earth."
The atmosphere is a complex, dynamic system. It has butterfly effects, tipping points, emergent properties, etc. So when people say that they understand what is going on and can make accurate predictions of the future, they are at least wrong, and may even be lying to us. One could go into all the complex feedback loops that affect the atmosphere, including the hydrosphere, the geosphere, and the biosphere, as well as fluctuations in cosmic rays and in the sun's temperature, but I won't do that here. The bottom line, though, is that such systems are unpredictable. They do not work in a linear fashion. And it does not matter what a so-called consensus (I wish people cared enough to look into the actual members of the "consensus" -- they're not mostly atmospheric scientists) says. The pre-Copernican consensus was that the heavens revolved around the Earth. Consensus means nothing in science. Facts do. And there are not enough facts to make any sort of realistic prediction.
This is not to say that there is not warming. There is. And it is not to say that humans aren't contributing. We are. But we do not know that it will result in anything catastrophic long-term. The Gaia hypothesis shows us that the earth system is self-regulating, ensuring continued conditions for the continuation of life on earth. We won't change that. The earth will self-regulate, and temperatures will go down. It may result in a new ice age. But we have, as a species, survived those before. And we know that more ice ages were to come anyway.
I guess the Nobel committee also didn't pay much attention to the British court that said he exaggerated and misrepresented facts in his presentation-turned-movie. I guess if you're lying for the right reasons, that's good enough to get a Nobel Peace Prize. How embarrassing. How shameful.
Al Gore and his ilk, if we are to attribute good intentions to him and not just an attempt to gain demagogic power (or perhaps more than demagogic power), have the false assumption that the world was unchanging before humans came along to change it. This is obvious in their rhetoric, when they complain about "climate change" -- as though the climate had never changed before, and all change in the climate is, therefore, bad. Thus, Al Gore is anti-change, anti-progress. He is, in fact, extremely conservative in the true sense of the term. He's afraid of the passage of time. I do not think that someone who is afraid of change should receive the Nobel Peace Prize. People such as him, who have wanted to prevent change and to bring mankind back to some other age, have been the ones to start the wars in the 20th and 21st century.
I suppose if there had been an Al Gore in the 70's trying to warm up the earth when all the climatologists were claiming global cooling, he would have won a Nobel Peace Prize then.
And what does global climate change have to do with peace, anyway? I suppose that if he has his way and the internal combustion engine is banned (he said it was more dangerous than nuclear weapons, after all -- so the committee may be on to something if we consider all the prizes given out to those who have been against nuclear weapons), then we won't need the Middle East at all, the U.S. and other countries can withdraw any interest in the region, and we can let the whole place implode in upon itself.
All in all, I don't see how this has anything to do with peace. I don't see any Peace Prize going to someone like Don Beck, whose ideas and work led to the peaceful transition of South Africa after apartheid. No, that was so smooth and successful, a model for the entire world as to what needs to be done to have peace throughout the world, that nobody paid it any attention. So never mind actual success. Let's focus, instead, upon unproven claims by a washed-up politician who has made some pretty bizarre personal claims in the past wo thinks sending us back to the pre-industrial age is probably the only way to save us all (when it has been the industrial age that has made life better and healthier for people around the world). Let us support someone who supports failed social and economic policies simply because he supports them to "save the earth."
The atmosphere is a complex, dynamic system. It has butterfly effects, tipping points, emergent properties, etc. So when people say that they understand what is going on and can make accurate predictions of the future, they are at least wrong, and may even be lying to us. One could go into all the complex feedback loops that affect the atmosphere, including the hydrosphere, the geosphere, and the biosphere, as well as fluctuations in cosmic rays and in the sun's temperature, but I won't do that here. The bottom line, though, is that such systems are unpredictable. They do not work in a linear fashion. And it does not matter what a so-called consensus (I wish people cared enough to look into the actual members of the "consensus" -- they're not mostly atmospheric scientists) says. The pre-Copernican consensus was that the heavens revolved around the Earth. Consensus means nothing in science. Facts do. And there are not enough facts to make any sort of realistic prediction.
This is not to say that there is not warming. There is. And it is not to say that humans aren't contributing. We are. But we do not know that it will result in anything catastrophic long-term. The Gaia hypothesis shows us that the earth system is self-regulating, ensuring continued conditions for the continuation of life on earth. We won't change that. The earth will self-regulate, and temperatures will go down. It may result in a new ice age. But we have, as a species, survived those before. And we know that more ice ages were to come anyway.
I guess the Nobel committee also didn't pay much attention to the British court that said he exaggerated and misrepresented facts in his presentation-turned-movie. I guess if you're lying for the right reasons, that's good enough to get a Nobel Peace Prize. How embarrassing. How shameful.
Al Gore and his ilk, if we are to attribute good intentions to him and not just an attempt to gain demagogic power (or perhaps more than demagogic power), have the false assumption that the world was unchanging before humans came along to change it. This is obvious in their rhetoric, when they complain about "climate change" -- as though the climate had never changed before, and all change in the climate is, therefore, bad. Thus, Al Gore is anti-change, anti-progress. He is, in fact, extremely conservative in the true sense of the term. He's afraid of the passage of time. I do not think that someone who is afraid of change should receive the Nobel Peace Prize. People such as him, who have wanted to prevent change and to bring mankind back to some other age, have been the ones to start the wars in the 20th and 21st century.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
A Few Observations on Oil and Alcohol
Basic economics shows that we will never run out of oil. As we use up the supply of oil, the price will go up. This will make it more economical to locate and drill harder-to-reach reserves. Higher oil prices will also result in the creation of alternatives, as it will be worth looking for and developing those alternatives. Over longer periods of time, as oil gets used up and the price of oil goes up in response to supply, less oil will be used, and more alternatives will be created, until we are completely converted to the alternatives -- sometime before we ever use up all the oil. There will eventually be a price where nobody cares to get any of the oil, and what is left will stay there. Thus, we will never, ever run out of oil. It's basic economic principles. There will be alternatives.
The car, for example, is an alternative to the horse. A plane is an alternative to either one. A computer is an alternative to the abacus, to pen and paper, etc. During the bronze age, who would have thought of iron as an alternative? The microwave is an alternative to fire. Petroleum, when whale oil became expensive due to a shørtage of whales, became an alternative. Some of these pre-existed. Some were invented later.
An alternative in the economic sense is not necessarily something that replaces another object exactly. When we run out of oil, it will become more economically feasible to come up with alternatives -- many of which, like so many things in the past -- haven't even been thought of yet.
I have no doubt that it will happen, because it has always happened. Always.
Now one may object that all the alternatives to oil have, so far, been inferior. But just because they have been inferior so far, that doesn't mean they will continue to be. Many falsely assume that the price of oil will remain constant, meaning people will continue to use it as the same rate, until it runs out, and that nobody will have any incentive to find alternatives. But, again, as the price of oil goes up as supply goes down, it will be economically viable to find better alternatives. What we are getting now is government-subsidized alternatives -- so we shouldn't be surprised at what we are getting. Things will change when market pressures create an actual demand for real alternatives. These new ways of doing things won't be done with government -- unless there is the coincidence of creating a bomb whose power source can also be used for energy production (i.e., nuclear power). I'd rather the market find a solution than to have the government bomb its way into one.
And this brings me to government-subsidized alcohol. Is it really a good idea to turn our food into fuel? That just seems like a bad substitute right on the face of it. One could argue that it's also a bad idea to wash cars, since that uses up water we could be drinking, but we need to beware of false analogies. There is much, much, much more water than there is corn. If we wash our cars, it doesn't raise the price of water enough not to drink it. But the rise in the price of corn that has already occured has resulted in problems in Mexico with availability of corn for tortillas, driving up the price of a main staple there -- among some of the poorest people. Further, it has driven up the price of meat, because corn is a food for chicken, pigs, and cows. When the price of feed goes up, the price of meat goes up. This, again, hurts the poor far more than any other group.
So, again, it is incredibly stupid to use food to fuel. And it hurt the poor. But that just means that ethanol is just another thing liberals have latched on to that causes harm to the poor. When your every economic policy harms the poor, one begins to wonder why you want so bad to make their lives worse.
The car, for example, is an alternative to the horse. A plane is an alternative to either one. A computer is an alternative to the abacus, to pen and paper, etc. During the bronze age, who would have thought of iron as an alternative? The microwave is an alternative to fire. Petroleum, when whale oil became expensive due to a shørtage of whales, became an alternative. Some of these pre-existed. Some were invented later.
An alternative in the economic sense is not necessarily something that replaces another object exactly. When we run out of oil, it will become more economically feasible to come up with alternatives -- many of which, like so many things in the past -- haven't even been thought of yet.
I have no doubt that it will happen, because it has always happened. Always.
Now one may object that all the alternatives to oil have, so far, been inferior. But just because they have been inferior so far, that doesn't mean they will continue to be. Many falsely assume that the price of oil will remain constant, meaning people will continue to use it as the same rate, until it runs out, and that nobody will have any incentive to find alternatives. But, again, as the price of oil goes up as supply goes down, it will be economically viable to find better alternatives. What we are getting now is government-subsidized alternatives -- so we shouldn't be surprised at what we are getting. Things will change when market pressures create an actual demand for real alternatives. These new ways of doing things won't be done with government -- unless there is the coincidence of creating a bomb whose power source can also be used for energy production (i.e., nuclear power). I'd rather the market find a solution than to have the government bomb its way into one.
And this brings me to government-subsidized alcohol. Is it really a good idea to turn our food into fuel? That just seems like a bad substitute right on the face of it. One could argue that it's also a bad idea to wash cars, since that uses up water we could be drinking, but we need to beware of false analogies. There is much, much, much more water than there is corn. If we wash our cars, it doesn't raise the price of water enough not to drink it. But the rise in the price of corn that has already occured has resulted in problems in Mexico with availability of corn for tortillas, driving up the price of a main staple there -- among some of the poorest people. Further, it has driven up the price of meat, because corn is a food for chicken, pigs, and cows. When the price of feed goes up, the price of meat goes up. This, again, hurts the poor far more than any other group.
So, again, it is incredibly stupid to use food to fuel. And it hurt the poor. But that just means that ethanol is just another thing liberals have latched on to that causes harm to the poor. When your every economic policy harms the poor, one begins to wonder why you want so bad to make their lives worse.
Turkey, the Armenians, and Congress
There is little doubt in my mind that what happened in Turkey during WWI with the Armenian population is most accurately defined as a genocide. But does it take an act of Congress for something to be a genocide?
The U.S. is woefully short of allies in the Middle East. So why is it that our Congress seems determined to anger one of the few we have. As of today, in apparent response to a bill defining the Armenian genocide as a genocide passing the House Committee on Foreign Affairs 27-21, Turkey has recalled its ambassador. What does Congress think it is going to accomplish by doing this? Why open up an old wound?
Of course, one could argue that the Turkish government is itself being unreasonable about this: what happened in WWI happened under a different government, etc. But it was still Turks who did it, the fathers and grandfathers and great grandfathers of those living. If we want to be optomistic about it, perhaps they feel ashamed of what they did, and aren't particularly in the mood to be shamed by the U.S. -- someone they thought was an ally.
To some degree governments have to be pragmatic when dealing with other governments. Why pass a law or resolution whose only purpose seems to be to insult the Turkish government? I suppose Congress wants to estrange another Middle Eastern country -- one who I would guess is showing a lot of restraint regarding the Kurds in Iraq at the present time and who may not feel like they should bother to do so or otherwise help us out in Iraq any more.
The timing of this is suspect. Are those who want us to be defeated in Iraq really this sneaky about undermining our efforts in Iraq? The only reason for this will to defeat is because of who is President. Does anyone really think anything like this, or the arguments that we cannot win in Iraq (whether you like it or not, we are in there now, and we had better decide we're going to win it), will continue if a Democrat is elected?
And BTW, anyone who thinks the Iraqi war will end if a Democrat is elected has not been listening to what most of them have been saying. Clinton has openly said she would not pull the troops out. The only candidate who has said he would withdraw the troops has been a Republican, Ron Paul.
The U.S. is woefully short of allies in the Middle East. So why is it that our Congress seems determined to anger one of the few we have. As of today, in apparent response to a bill defining the Armenian genocide as a genocide passing the House Committee on Foreign Affairs 27-21, Turkey has recalled its ambassador. What does Congress think it is going to accomplish by doing this? Why open up an old wound?
Of course, one could argue that the Turkish government is itself being unreasonable about this: what happened in WWI happened under a different government, etc. But it was still Turks who did it, the fathers and grandfathers and great grandfathers of those living. If we want to be optomistic about it, perhaps they feel ashamed of what they did, and aren't particularly in the mood to be shamed by the U.S. -- someone they thought was an ally.
To some degree governments have to be pragmatic when dealing with other governments. Why pass a law or resolution whose only purpose seems to be to insult the Turkish government? I suppose Congress wants to estrange another Middle Eastern country -- one who I would guess is showing a lot of restraint regarding the Kurds in Iraq at the present time and who may not feel like they should bother to do so or otherwise help us out in Iraq any more.
The timing of this is suspect. Are those who want us to be defeated in Iraq really this sneaky about undermining our efforts in Iraq? The only reason for this will to defeat is because of who is President. Does anyone really think anything like this, or the arguments that we cannot win in Iraq (whether you like it or not, we are in there now, and we had better decide we're going to win it), will continue if a Democrat is elected?
And BTW, anyone who thinks the Iraqi war will end if a Democrat is elected has not been listening to what most of them have been saying. Clinton has openly said she would not pull the troops out. The only candidate who has said he would withdraw the troops has been a Republican, Ron Paul.
Cowardice
Why do you suppose it is that Rosie O'Donnell refuses to be interviewed about her new book? Does it have something to do with the outrage she expresses when people ask her the same kinds of questions -- or, let's be honest here, far less paranoid questions -- as she asks people?
I've noticed too that Michael Moore gets all huffy and offended when anyone asks him a substantive question. Toss softball questions, and he's fine. Actually look into what he claims and challenge him on it, and he can't believe the nerve of the interviewer.
People like Rosie and Michael think their crap don't stink, that they are smarter than anyone else (here's proof that you're not, Rosie: 9-11 was not the first time that fire melted steel; how do you think steel gets made? The iron age started several thousand years ago, you know -- and steel is made from iron. I guess I-beams are just mined out of the ground), and that nothing but deference should be given to their every word, when all they are are arrogant, self-serving demagogues.
These two, and others on the far-far-far Left, are nothing but cowards. Stop being so thin-skinned and face the consequences of your statements. If you have a belief worth having, it should be worth defending.
I've noticed too that Michael Moore gets all huffy and offended when anyone asks him a substantive question. Toss softball questions, and he's fine. Actually look into what he claims and challenge him on it, and he can't believe the nerve of the interviewer.
People like Rosie and Michael think their crap don't stink, that they are smarter than anyone else (here's proof that you're not, Rosie: 9-11 was not the first time that fire melted steel; how do you think steel gets made? The iron age started several thousand years ago, you know -- and steel is made from iron. I guess I-beams are just mined out of the ground), and that nothing but deference should be given to their every word, when all they are are arrogant, self-serving demagogues.
These two, and others on the far-far-far Left, are nothing but cowards. Stop being so thin-skinned and face the consequences of your statements. If you have a belief worth having, it should be worth defending.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Free Markets Held the Head of Communism Above Water, and Now This . . .
So, Canada is having to send women to the U.S. to deliver babies because they cannot handle the number of premies being born there. One wonders what would happen to socialized medicine there -- or many other places -- if it weren't for the U.S. health system.
Yes, I know that the U.S. health care system isn't perfect, but 1) it is better than any socialized system, and 2) its fauilures occur precisely where it is and because of the elements that are socialized already. Medicare and Medicaide have driven costs up tremendously -- making for a rather convenient excuse for more government interference to "control costs." When are we ever going to learn that the solution to a problem caused by government isn't more government?
BTW, didn't Castro, when he got sick, send for a doctor from Spain? I guess HE doesn't trust his own health care system to help him get well. I guess as dictator he thinks he deserves much better health care than he provides for his own people.
Yes, I know that the U.S. health care system isn't perfect, but 1) it is better than any socialized system, and 2) its fauilures occur precisely where it is and because of the elements that are socialized already. Medicare and Medicaide have driven costs up tremendously -- making for a rather convenient excuse for more government interference to "control costs." When are we ever going to learn that the solution to a problem caused by government isn't more government?
BTW, didn't Castro, when he got sick, send for a doctor from Spain? I guess HE doesn't trust his own health care system to help him get well. I guess as dictator he thinks he deserves much better health care than he provides for his own people.
Al Gore for Nobel Peace Prize?
If Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace prize for his work promoting his version of the dangers of global warming, it will be consistent with many of the past winners. People are currently objecting to his winning based on the fact that he is a complete hypocrite when it comes to the lifestyle he promotes vs. the lifestyle he actually lives. But then, hypocrisy in a candidate did not prevent the Nobel committee from choosing Yasir Arafat, either. And they gave it to that impostor, Jimmy Carter. None of these three deserve to stand among the likes of MLK, Jr., Mother Theresa, Muhammad Yunis and the Grameen Bank, Lech Walesa, Desmond Tutu, and Nelson Mandela.
I beg of the Nobel committe: please, please, please don't embarrass yourself by selecting a self-serving hypocrite like Al Gore!
I beg of the Nobel committe: please, please, please don't embarrass yourself by selecting a self-serving hypocrite like Al Gore!
Carter: America Tortures
There are a few people who, when they say something, I assume the opposite to be true. Jimmy Carter is one of those people. I base this upon the fact that every single election he has ever overseen and declared to be fair has been demonstrably filled with corruption and led to the installation of a dictator. His every action in international affairs has been to support dictatorship around the world, especially if it is at the expense of the U.S. So when Carter says he knows that America tortures, I become convinced that we do nothing of the sort.
Jimmy Carter was not only one of the worst Presidents in U.S. history, but he has shown himself to be a terrible human being.
Jimmy Carter does not have the best interests of the U.S. or its people in mind. He is a national embarrassment. I include him in my list of dangerous demagogues whose ideas I find repugnant, including those of Lou Dobbs and Pat Buchanan. The only difference is that the last two sincerely beleive they are trying to help the U.S. Carter knows he's undermining the country. Dobbs and Buchanan are merely wrong about most things -- Carter is a traitor.
Jimmy Carter was not only one of the worst Presidents in U.S. history, but he has shown himself to be a terrible human being.
Jimmy Carter does not have the best interests of the U.S. or its people in mind. He is a national embarrassment. I include him in my list of dangerous demagogues whose ideas I find repugnant, including those of Lou Dobbs and Pat Buchanan. The only difference is that the last two sincerely beleive they are trying to help the U.S. Carter knows he's undermining the country. Dobbs and Buchanan are merely wrong about most things -- Carter is a traitor.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Clinton's 5 G's
Guiliani in the debate today reminded us of Clinton's proposal to give $5000 to every child born. When I told my wife this, she looked at me a little puzzled, then suddenly brightened up, saying, "Oh my God! She's trying to get poor people to have more kids!" Does an extra $5000 matter much to either the rich or middle classed? No. Of course not. There will be no change in behavior. But $5000 is a lot of money to a poor person. It's something that would encourage someone who thinks it is a lot of money to have more children.
Now, I know, the $5000 is in a bond, and is for the child. For now. Because how long would it be before someone argued that such children didn't need the money later, but that they needed it now, when they are a child? It would not take long before that money was given to the parents -- and then the scenario laid out above would definitely occur. Do we really need to be encouraging poor people to have more children? Why would Clinton do something like this with such obvious consequences?
Now, who do the Democrats consider to be their constituency and voting based?
You're pretty clever Hillary -- but I'm on to you.
Now, I know, the $5000 is in a bond, and is for the child. For now. Because how long would it be before someone argued that such children didn't need the money later, but that they needed it now, when they are a child? It would not take long before that money was given to the parents -- and then the scenario laid out above would definitely occur. Do we really need to be encouraging poor people to have more children? Why would Clinton do something like this with such obvious consequences?
Now, who do the Democrats consider to be their constituency and voting based?
You're pretty clever Hillary -- but I'm on to you.
Rhetoric, Science, Politics
The headline at Fox News reads: "Two Americans, Briton Win Nobel Prize in Medicine for 'Knockout Mice'"
The headline at CNN, under "latest news" read: "Nobel Price in Medicine Goes to Stem Cell Researchers" (though on the Science page it reads: "Mice gene trio win medicine Nobel").
I could not even find the story on MSNBC.
The research that received the Nobel price had everything to do with a technique in recombinant gene technology, and was only tangentially about stem cells. Which makes me wonder why under CNN's "latest news" the reference was to stem cells and not to "knockout" mice, as did the Fox report. It is a subtle form of rhetoric -- to get the readers who won't bother to read the article to think stem cell research won a Nobel Prize. This is a prime example of the kinds of subtle bias we see in the media -- subtle enough to have "plausible deniability." Unfortunately, the result will likely be many people who don't understand the research talking about stem cells, when that's not what the research was about, fundamentally.
I won't even get into why MSNBC didn't seem to see fit to cover one of the Nobel Prizes at all. I guess great scientific breakthroughs that improve mankind's world aren't on their agenda.
The headline at CNN, under "latest news" read: "Nobel Price in Medicine Goes to Stem Cell Researchers" (though on the Science page it reads: "Mice gene trio win medicine Nobel").
I could not even find the story on MSNBC.
The research that received the Nobel price had everything to do with a technique in recombinant gene technology, and was only tangentially about stem cells. Which makes me wonder why under CNN's "latest news" the reference was to stem cells and not to "knockout" mice, as did the Fox report. It is a subtle form of rhetoric -- to get the readers who won't bother to read the article to think stem cell research won a Nobel Prize. This is a prime example of the kinds of subtle bias we see in the media -- subtle enough to have "plausible deniability." Unfortunately, the result will likely be many people who don't understand the research talking about stem cells, when that's not what the research was about, fundamentally.
I won't even get into why MSNBC didn't seem to see fit to cover one of the Nobel Prizes at all. I guess great scientific breakthroughs that improve mankind's world aren't on their agenda.
The Kingdom of God
Barack Obama recently asked a church audience in South Carolina to help him become “an instrument of God” and join him in creating “a Kingdom right here on Earth."
I do not like such rhetoric coming from either conservatives or liberals. But Obama means this in a different way than do conservatives. With conservatives, it is a question of personal ethics. With liberals like Obama, it is a question of economics. Do not be mistaken: Obama's concerns are materialistic, not spiritual. And we have seen previous attempts to make for a worldly Kingdom of God here on Earth. If he means what he says, he aligns himself with the likes of Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, and Chavez in their attempts to create a Heaven on Earth. The implications are troubling: each of these men attempted to in a real sense "finish God's work" which He had poorly done of making the earth and human beings in it. As a Christian, this should be most troubling. What person has the right to assume that God's work on earth is incomplete and that they know how to make heaven on Earth? And for an agnostic or atheist, this should sound at least silly, and at worst dangerous.
But there will be those who buy into his utopian vision. Impatient for Heaven, people want to create it on Earth. And I would venture to guess that their vision in no way matches that of Heaven itself. No, it rather is a vision of their own making. "If I were God, this is how I would formulate the world." And indeed, Obama and others like him are precisely interested in making the world in their own image. And it doesn't matter how good a person someone is, or how moral or ethical, or how well-intentioned (oh, beware of the well-intentioned!). What is at issue is the disconnect these people have with the world. They abide by Marx's dictim that "The point is not to understand the world, but to change it." This is a recipe for disaster. And it has been, repeatedly -- some more egregious than others. No, the point is to understand the world before you understand how you can change it to get the actual outcomes you seek. This, of course, assumes that a politician's intentions are to realize the goals he seeks, and not to merely gain more power for himself.
One last word for those who still think we should try to create Heaven on Earth: we have, as William Blake rightly observes in "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell": "If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite." And prior to that, he observes that if when the world is clensed, "the whole creation will be consumed and appear infinite and holy whereas it now appears finite & corrupt." And there is the point, the world appears to us to be finite and corrupt, when it is in fact infinite and holy. If you cannot understand that the world is in fact and already holy -- if you agree with Obama that we can and should try to make "Heaven on Earth" -- then you need to have your doors of perception clensed. To paraphrase Heraclitus: "Men have supposed some things to be unjust, others just, while God sees the world as beautiful and good and just."
I do not like such rhetoric coming from either conservatives or liberals. But Obama means this in a different way than do conservatives. With conservatives, it is a question of personal ethics. With liberals like Obama, it is a question of economics. Do not be mistaken: Obama's concerns are materialistic, not spiritual. And we have seen previous attempts to make for a worldly Kingdom of God here on Earth. If he means what he says, he aligns himself with the likes of Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, and Chavez in their attempts to create a Heaven on Earth. The implications are troubling: each of these men attempted to in a real sense "finish God's work" which He had poorly done of making the earth and human beings in it. As a Christian, this should be most troubling. What person has the right to assume that God's work on earth is incomplete and that they know how to make heaven on Earth? And for an agnostic or atheist, this should sound at least silly, and at worst dangerous.
But there will be those who buy into his utopian vision. Impatient for Heaven, people want to create it on Earth. And I would venture to guess that their vision in no way matches that of Heaven itself. No, it rather is a vision of their own making. "If I were God, this is how I would formulate the world." And indeed, Obama and others like him are precisely interested in making the world in their own image. And it doesn't matter how good a person someone is, or how moral or ethical, or how well-intentioned (oh, beware of the well-intentioned!). What is at issue is the disconnect these people have with the world. They abide by Marx's dictim that "The point is not to understand the world, but to change it." This is a recipe for disaster. And it has been, repeatedly -- some more egregious than others. No, the point is to understand the world before you understand how you can change it to get the actual outcomes you seek. This, of course, assumes that a politician's intentions are to realize the goals he seeks, and not to merely gain more power for himself.
One last word for those who still think we should try to create Heaven on Earth: we have, as William Blake rightly observes in "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell": "If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite." And prior to that, he observes that if when the world is clensed, "the whole creation will be consumed and appear infinite and holy whereas it now appears finite & corrupt." And there is the point, the world appears to us to be finite and corrupt, when it is in fact infinite and holy. If you cannot understand that the world is in fact and already holy -- if you agree with Obama that we can and should try to make "Heaven on Earth" -- then you need to have your doors of perception clensed. To paraphrase Heraclitus: "Men have supposed some things to be unjust, others just, while God sees the world as beautiful and good and just."
Monday, October 08, 2007
Shutting Down Argument
Isn't it, on the surface at least, odd that liberals in the U.S. are attacking free speech in this country? First, there's political correctness, which is a clear attack on free speech. It also has the effect of not letting anyone know who the real jerks are in society, as they don't speak up as much, or as clearly, as they once used to. The most recent attacks, however, have been on conservative talk show hosts. Sure' there is plenty to disagree with them over, but the most recent attacks have been entirely fabricated. I am, of course, talking about the attacks on O'Reilly and Limbaugh. The first required the more egregious forms of selective editing to literally construct a false accusation. It was downright bizarre -- did Media Matters really think they could get away with what they did, with the current state of information technology and availability? Of course, they also know that many of their target audience will just accept them at their word. They prey on the ignorant. And that should worry us, that they would be willing to misrepresent what someone said to persuade those they know to be ignorant and lazy (too lazy to find out what was really said, at least). Shouldn't that bother you, to know that that is what the people at Media Matters think of you? And then the purposeful misrepresentation of Limbaugh's comments about "fake soldiers," which again had to be taken out of context to be understood the way they were. They had to be taken out of context of his ongoing broadcasts, where it was clear whom he was refering to. And now there are actually attempts to get resolutions passed against Limbaugh and committees set up to monitor his show for "irregularities." I don't know about you, but the government monitoring talk radio for "irregularities" has a very wrong-side-of-the-Iron-Curtain Cold War feel to it.
I said above that it appears, on the surface, odd that liberals in the U.S. are attacking free speech. But in fact, it is not all that odd. They have been doing so for a while now, particularly through political correctness. And we should equally be aware of what it is that they mean by "freedom of speech." If you pay close attention to the way they talk about it, you will see that they do not mean that you should have the freedom to say what is on your mind. They use it more often than not to argue that people should not criticize what they say. To them, freedom of speech is freedom from having what they say criticized by others. That is not what freedom of speech is. It is in fact the freedom to both say what you want, and to criticize what others say. If you cannot criticize what others say, there is no freedom of speech. That is precisely the kind of speech which needs to be protected.
But these protections should only be against the government. It is the government which has no right under the Constitution to prevent anyone from speaking, whether it is directly, through force, or indirectly, through laws like the "Fairness Docrtine." If I don't like what someone says, I don't have to listen to them. If I don't like what a talk show host says, I don't have to tune in, and I don't have to postiively respond to their advertisers. That is my right. But the government does not have the right to prevent anyone from speaking. It does not have the right to shut down any T.V. or radio station for what anyone says on it. It does not have the right to prevent any book from being published. If their ideas are not finding a voice, it is because nobody wants to listen.
And that is the bottom line, isn't it? Why else would you adopt strong-arm bullying tactics? You don't need to force your opposition to stop speaking if you have a stronger argument. When you have to resort to force in face of someone else's argument, that is a tacit admission that your argument is weak to the point of failure. You know you don't have a leg to stand on, so you lash out. This is true if the argument is from the Left or the Right, from conservatives or liberals.
I said above that it appears, on the surface, odd that liberals in the U.S. are attacking free speech. But in fact, it is not all that odd. They have been doing so for a while now, particularly through political correctness. And we should equally be aware of what it is that they mean by "freedom of speech." If you pay close attention to the way they talk about it, you will see that they do not mean that you should have the freedom to say what is on your mind. They use it more often than not to argue that people should not criticize what they say. To them, freedom of speech is freedom from having what they say criticized by others. That is not what freedom of speech is. It is in fact the freedom to both say what you want, and to criticize what others say. If you cannot criticize what others say, there is no freedom of speech. That is precisely the kind of speech which needs to be protected.
But these protections should only be against the government. It is the government which has no right under the Constitution to prevent anyone from speaking, whether it is directly, through force, or indirectly, through laws like the "Fairness Docrtine." If I don't like what someone says, I don't have to listen to them. If I don't like what a talk show host says, I don't have to tune in, and I don't have to postiively respond to their advertisers. That is my right. But the government does not have the right to prevent anyone from speaking. It does not have the right to shut down any T.V. or radio station for what anyone says on it. It does not have the right to prevent any book from being published. If their ideas are not finding a voice, it is because nobody wants to listen.
And that is the bottom line, isn't it? Why else would you adopt strong-arm bullying tactics? You don't need to force your opposition to stop speaking if you have a stronger argument. When you have to resort to force in face of someone else's argument, that is a tacit admission that your argument is weak to the point of failure. You know you don't have a leg to stand on, so you lash out. This is true if the argument is from the Left or the Right, from conservatives or liberals.
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Truth in Advertising
This is from Brit Hume's show on Fox News:
"Truth or Consequences
The Washington state Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot stop political candidates from lying in campaign ads. The court ruled five-to-four that a state law aimed at punishing political candidates for false advertising violates free speech rights.
Justice Jim Johnson wrote for the majority — "There can be no doubt that false personal attacks are too common in political campaigns, with wide-ranging detrimental consequences ... However, government censorship ... is not a constitutionally permitted remedy."
But Justice Barbara Madsen called the ruling — "An invitation to lie with impunity." And she added — "It is little wonder that so many view political campaigns with distrust and cynicism." "
It is illegal in this country, and rightly so, for a company to lie in its advertisement. It is not a violation of freedom of speech to prevent a company from making claims about its products that simply are not true of them. It protects the comsumer and creates the kind of transparency needed to have a successful free market.
What, then, could possibly justify this decision? Isn't someone running for office offering a service, and thus advertising his product? And in many ways, couldn't such a candidate potentially be more harmful to more people than a falsely-advertised product?
What seems more likely is that the court isn't at all interested in freedom of speech, but is actually interested in protecting politicians from what they say about a lot of issues. Politicians make all sorts of statements about the economy, social issues, etc. that are demonstrably untrue. What would happen if candidates were made by law to say what is true? How many policies could they support if they had to tell the truth about the policies, and why they are supporting them?
Let us hope that this goes to a higher court, and that the higher court has more sense than this one.
"Truth or Consequences
The Washington state Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot stop political candidates from lying in campaign ads. The court ruled five-to-four that a state law aimed at punishing political candidates for false advertising violates free speech rights.
Justice Jim Johnson wrote for the majority — "There can be no doubt that false personal attacks are too common in political campaigns, with wide-ranging detrimental consequences ... However, government censorship ... is not a constitutionally permitted remedy."
But Justice Barbara Madsen called the ruling — "An invitation to lie with impunity." And she added — "It is little wonder that so many view political campaigns with distrust and cynicism." "
It is illegal in this country, and rightly so, for a company to lie in its advertisement. It is not a violation of freedom of speech to prevent a company from making claims about its products that simply are not true of them. It protects the comsumer and creates the kind of transparency needed to have a successful free market.
What, then, could possibly justify this decision? Isn't someone running for office offering a service, and thus advertising his product? And in many ways, couldn't such a candidate potentially be more harmful to more people than a falsely-advertised product?
What seems more likely is that the court isn't at all interested in freedom of speech, but is actually interested in protecting politicians from what they say about a lot of issues. Politicians make all sorts of statements about the economy, social issues, etc. that are demonstrably untrue. What would happen if candidates were made by law to say what is true? How many policies could they support if they had to tell the truth about the policies, and why they are supporting them?
Let us hope that this goes to a higher court, and that the higher court has more sense than this one.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
A Few Thoughts on Economics
In order to have a living complex system, which means that grows at an exponential rate, you have to have a few attributes. 1) You have to have a sufficient density of entities in the system; 2) they have to be able to interact freely to create rules that allow for complex interactions; 3) there must be a hierarchy of complex subsystems within the system as a whole that are themselves capable of freely creating their own rules of behavior. All of which means that 4) there must be a reduction of top-down control, meaning a reduction of dominance of one particular subsystem in the system as a whole.
An understanding of how one gets the creation of complex systems with emergent properties of behavior (Smith's "Invisible Hand") would go a long way to helping one to understand growth in general, and economic growth in particular.
I've noticed in conversations with people that economic thinking is counter-intuitive, but if you can get the person to actually listen to the explanation, they end up with no choice but to agree with you. We seem to have evolved to understand the world in ways that are counterintuitive to both quantum physics and economics. The former for reasons of dealing with macroscopic reality; the latter for reasons of having evolved in small social groups. Truly economc systems evolved only in the last few thousand years, and we have not had time to evolve to them. Economic systems are complex systems with emergent properties, and we do not always fully understand such systems on an intutitive level. However, people can be educated to understand the nature of complex systems in general, and economic systems in particular -- and that is what we really need to work to do. Precisely because, though correct, economic thinking is counter-intuitive.
An understanding of how one gets the creation of complex systems with emergent properties of behavior (Smith's "Invisible Hand") would go a long way to helping one to understand growth in general, and economic growth in particular.
I've noticed in conversations with people that economic thinking is counter-intuitive, but if you can get the person to actually listen to the explanation, they end up with no choice but to agree with you. We seem to have evolved to understand the world in ways that are counterintuitive to both quantum physics and economics. The former for reasons of dealing with macroscopic reality; the latter for reasons of having evolved in small social groups. Truly economc systems evolved only in the last few thousand years, and we have not had time to evolve to them. Economic systems are complex systems with emergent properties, and we do not always fully understand such systems on an intutitive level. However, people can be educated to understand the nature of complex systems in general, and economic systems in particular -- and that is what we really need to work to do. Precisely because, though correct, economic thinking is counter-intuitive.
Friday, September 21, 2007
The Jena 6
The Jena 6 controversy has nothing to do with race.
Let me repeat that: the Jena 6 controversy (with which I agree with the protestors) has NOTHING to do with race.
What it has to do with is the ongoing criminalization of childhood.
In a world where 5 year old boys can be brought up on sexual harrassment charges for kissing another 5 year old, we should not be surprised that a high school fight amongst teenagers has turned into criminal charges. I will leave aside the fact that anyone who thinks a 5 year old can sexually harrass someone is a sick, twisted pervert who themselves should be put away for obviously being a pedophile (what else is it when you see a five year old sexually?), and focus instead on the fact that we are labeling everything children do as pathological.
If a child can't sit still or pay attention (something they never seem to have a problem with when doing what they want to do), we fill them full of Ritalin. (I will refer you to the South Park episode on Ritalin where they give a completely accurate, time-honored, valid alternative to drugs.)
If two children get into a fight, the parents of the children get sued, the school gets sued, the children are arrested and charges are brought up, etc. There was a time when children would get into a fight over something, and then be over it an hour later, and be the best of friends two hours later. The reason for this is that we are social mammals, and we have to establish our hierarchies. That is done through non-deadly aggressive displays -- including fighting. When we do not allow those hierarchies to naturally establish themselves, the violent feelings escalate and escalate until the violence that does break out can and oftentimes does turn deadly.
I am not saying that there should not be punishments -- just that those punishments should not involve the government, but should instead be taken care of entirely in-school and within the communities. Why do we think it is better to send our children to prison than to spank them? But that is the choice we have made. Because we have interfered with our natural social behaviors, especially the aggressive behaviors that allow us to know our place in the social hierarchy, we have created situations of ever-escalating violence. Because we do not allow for varying levels of punishment, we end up saying that all behaviors are equal, and if all behaviors are equal, then why hold back if you are going to do something wrong? Further, children -- even teenagers -- should not be treated as adults. That is another false equality we are trying to create. Our children are not adults. I know the egalitarians around the world are criging at this, but I will repeat it: our children are not adults. When we treat them as adults, we end up with 12 year olds dressing as adults, 10 year olds having sex, and grown men thinking it is okay to have sex with 5 year olds. We have Kindergarteners brought up on sexual harrassment charges, childhood behavior pathologized so our children can be drugged up and pacified (so we won't have to actually parent), and every little fight turned into "attempted murder."
Indeed, Free the Jena 6!
Let me repeat that: the Jena 6 controversy (with which I agree with the protestors) has NOTHING to do with race.
What it has to do with is the ongoing criminalization of childhood.
In a world where 5 year old boys can be brought up on sexual harrassment charges for kissing another 5 year old, we should not be surprised that a high school fight amongst teenagers has turned into criminal charges. I will leave aside the fact that anyone who thinks a 5 year old can sexually harrass someone is a sick, twisted pervert who themselves should be put away for obviously being a pedophile (what else is it when you see a five year old sexually?), and focus instead on the fact that we are labeling everything children do as pathological.
If a child can't sit still or pay attention (something they never seem to have a problem with when doing what they want to do), we fill them full of Ritalin. (I will refer you to the South Park episode on Ritalin where they give a completely accurate, time-honored, valid alternative to drugs.)
If two children get into a fight, the parents of the children get sued, the school gets sued, the children are arrested and charges are brought up, etc. There was a time when children would get into a fight over something, and then be over it an hour later, and be the best of friends two hours later. The reason for this is that we are social mammals, and we have to establish our hierarchies. That is done through non-deadly aggressive displays -- including fighting. When we do not allow those hierarchies to naturally establish themselves, the violent feelings escalate and escalate until the violence that does break out can and oftentimes does turn deadly.
I am not saying that there should not be punishments -- just that those punishments should not involve the government, but should instead be taken care of entirely in-school and within the communities. Why do we think it is better to send our children to prison than to spank them? But that is the choice we have made. Because we have interfered with our natural social behaviors, especially the aggressive behaviors that allow us to know our place in the social hierarchy, we have created situations of ever-escalating violence. Because we do not allow for varying levels of punishment, we end up saying that all behaviors are equal, and if all behaviors are equal, then why hold back if you are going to do something wrong? Further, children -- even teenagers -- should not be treated as adults. That is another false equality we are trying to create. Our children are not adults. I know the egalitarians around the world are criging at this, but I will repeat it: our children are not adults. When we treat them as adults, we end up with 12 year olds dressing as adults, 10 year olds having sex, and grown men thinking it is okay to have sex with 5 year olds. We have Kindergarteners brought up on sexual harrassment charges, childhood behavior pathologized so our children can be drugged up and pacified (so we won't have to actually parent), and every little fight turned into "attempted murder."
Indeed, Free the Jena 6!
Monday, September 03, 2007
Ingratitude
Why must I be made to fail
Because I fought for your success?
Why should I be made to lose
Because I wanted you to win?
I brought you gifts more precious
Than silver, gold, and rubies
And your response has been to throw
Them in the mud and piss on them.
The ignorant now rule the wise,
The foolish run the show.
Why buy the real when a mirage
Will satisfy the average man
Who’s willing to buy every ruse?
And don’t we know when everything
Is up for sale it’s value that we lose?
Our up is down, our down is up,
And when we miss the mark
All we have to do is yell that it’s not fair –
We’ll expand the bull’s eye too.
We forget that to miss the mark
Is what we once called “sin.”
But don’t you worry – we’ll hold your hand –
You won’t have to learn a thing –
And you’ll be happy not knowing how
You came to shout aloud, “Sieg heil!”
Because I fought for your success?
Why should I be made to lose
Because I wanted you to win?
I brought you gifts more precious
Than silver, gold, and rubies
And your response has been to throw
Them in the mud and piss on them.
The ignorant now rule the wise,
The foolish run the show.
Why buy the real when a mirage
Will satisfy the average man
Who’s willing to buy every ruse?
And don’t we know when everything
Is up for sale it’s value that we lose?
Our up is down, our down is up,
And when we miss the mark
All we have to do is yell that it’s not fair –
We’ll expand the bull’s eye too.
We forget that to miss the mark
Is what we once called “sin.”
But don’t you worry – we’ll hold your hand –
You won’t have to learn a thing –
And you’ll be happy not knowing how
You came to shout aloud, “Sieg heil!”
Friday, August 24, 2007
In the Multiverse
If there are really many universes,
As many physicists now claim, if there
Are infinite universes out there –
Then I exist an infinite number
Of times and places, and so do my wife
And baby daughter. In some, sadly, I
Do not exist; in some, my wife and I,
We never met. And that’s the tragedy.
But out there too my mother also lives
And, living, knows and loves my daughter who,
In my own universe, she’s never seen
And, knowing that, I think on it with joy.
As many physicists now claim, if there
Are infinite universes out there –
Then I exist an infinite number
Of times and places, and so do my wife
And baby daughter. In some, sadly, I
Do not exist; in some, my wife and I,
We never met. And that’s the tragedy.
But out there too my mother also lives
And, living, knows and loves my daughter who,
In my own universe, she’s never seen
And, knowing that, I think on it with joy.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Police Party Hearty
The following article: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294076,00.html states that the town was not compromised by the police all being off duty. I would be curious to see what the crime rate was that night. If it was a small enough town, it probably didn't have much if any effect. And while we know that more police on the streets does result in a decrease in crime, has anyone done a study of what happens in the absence of police?
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Harriet Hawkin's "Strange Attractors"
Where to even begin with my admiration of Hawkins’ book? I managed to take nineteen pages of notes from this small book. Is it possible for an author to be completely right about literature? Perhaps not – but for my money, Hawkins comes closest to anyone I have read, particularly in the way she applies chaos theory to analyzing literature. She points out that chaos theory is an excellent way to analyze literature, since “deterministic chaos is the context, the medium we inhabit in everyday life, ubiquitously allowing for, and indeed mandating individuality as well as unpredictability within a physically determined order” (2). Considering this, we can immediately see how chaos theory
helps to explain why, after centuries, certain works maintain their operational fangs and claws and terrible beauty. They are the artistic equivalents of deterministic chaos, and as such evoke chaotic responses, contradictory interpretations, altogether different generic adaptations. Therefore, as in the artistic tradition itself, their complex metaphorical signifiers keep on floating around in the minds of individual readers (and generations) long after the text was first read. (8)
Chaos theory helps explain why certain works have long-term value both within and among cultures. More complex works create more and more ways of seeing the text, breed different interpretations, have people arguing about the text for centuries (sometimes even millennia). Any work that creates a large number of interpretations is, according to this theory, a great work that has lasting value.
Hawkins further shows how complex works create those who attempt to emulate that work – usually in the creation of less complex works. An example she gives is Milton’s Paradise Lost, of which Crichton’s Jurassic Park was a less complex emulation – which itself had a less complex emulation in the movie version. She points out that another one of the ways of knowing a work is a great work of art is to see how many times people try to replicate it. Most of the replicants will be less complex than the original, and will, therefore, just as likely be forgotten. But occasionally, there will come along works of art which go beyond mere emulation to create another highly complex work of art that will itself inspire future emulation.
The above work for older works, but how can we determine if a new work is sufficiently complex enough to fit her definition of a lasting work of value? She does not come right out and way, but she does give several hints. “When a fractal is viewed on any scale, comparably complex details emerge. And comparably complex details likewise emerge in individual lines, books, actions, and characterizations, as well as on the mythic, narrative and temporal scales of a complex nonlinear work” (18). One way of seeing if a work meets this level of complexity is to ask yourself what it would take to write up a set of instructions to have a writer write any given work. A work is complex if the “instructions” on how to write it (as romance publishers give their writers) would be longer than the work produced (13). This brings us back to theory, because one could, in a sense, see literary analysis as an attempt (actually, various attempts by various people) to write parts of the instructions on how to write any given work of literature. Using psychological analysis, for example, one could learn various elements of the psychologies of the characters in the work (let us say, a novel). Marxist analysis could point out the various class concerns the author had in mind. Things like formalism and structuralism could show on a formal and structural level how the novel was constructed. Poststructuralism could point out what the author left out and suggest why. And one could even go back to older theories and see what they have to say about works of literature, since “even as chaos theory calls into question comparatively exclusive [italics hers] critical paradigms, it also allows for a retroactive, retrospective understanding of earlier artistic and critical insights commonly brushed aside as outmoded or as too obvious to need further thought” (19). One could go on and on.
Chaos theory shows both how these all work together to create a set of instructions for the reader to both enter the text, to understand better various elements of it, and for potential writers to understand how and why an author did what they did in a given work. And it also provides its own elements to the instructions. For example, Hawkins points out that the butterfly effect helps explain how “an inadvertent dropping of a handkerchief, or someone else’s otherwise insignificant incapacity to tolerate alcohol ( as in Othello) – can exponentially compound with other effects and give rise to disproportionate impacts” (16). She proposes this in opposition to “linear-minded moralists [who] have sought to charge tragic heroes and heroines with correspondingly [italics hers] great (quid pro quo) crimes, vices, sins and fatal flaws,” pointing out that “as chaos theory demonstrates, and as had long been obvious in ordinary life (as in comic as well as tragic art) very small, morally neutral, individual effects” (16) can, as noted above, result in huge, tragic effects.
Further, the themes and conflicts of a potentially great work of literature must themselves be complex, while “it simultaneously establishes what chaos theorists term nonlinear replications, iterations, self-similarities – that is, regular irregularities, structural correspondences (symmetries) and (asymmetrical) contrasts – between characters and actions” (61). Such a work would also seem to never have satisfactory interpretations, because “In complex works of art, as in the fractal formations of nature, there are interactive effects within interactive effects, and the whole is larger than the sum of its parts. The holistic interaction between components cannot be analytically dissected precisely because analysis requires segregation” (77). One cannot consider a single chapter of the lengthy instructions of a work to be the complete instructions. This in particular puts deconstruction in a delicate position, since it does not acknowledge emergent properties in its analysis of a work’s smallest parts.
In the end, a great work of art is great because it replicates the complexities found in nature. That is the very reason why it satisfies: the various arts “are not literal representations, but [are] metaphorically satisfying because they ‘work like nature’” (83). All the elements found in a work of great art, “iterations, recursions, self-similarities, symmetries and asymmetries [are] operative in the nonlinear systems of nature, in contrast to the regularities and predictabilities of comparatively linear (generically determined) systems and fictions such as formulaic romance novels” (88). The instructions for such formulaic novels can be written up in an area smaller than the novels that are created. The instructions for the creation of even a relatively small work, like Milton’s Paradise Lost, would take up volumes. This is perhaps why it takes so many people longer to enjoy and appreciate great works of literature – but when they do, that is also why “in the long run, the survival of a complex literary “fractal” . . . continuously resonates, on multiple scales – imaginative, aesthetic, intellectual, orderly and disorderly – in the minds and memories of individual readers of successive generations, in very much the same way it continues to resonate in the artistic tradition” (103).
helps to explain why, after centuries, certain works maintain their operational fangs and claws and terrible beauty. They are the artistic equivalents of deterministic chaos, and as such evoke chaotic responses, contradictory interpretations, altogether different generic adaptations. Therefore, as in the artistic tradition itself, their complex metaphorical signifiers keep on floating around in the minds of individual readers (and generations) long after the text was first read. (8)
Chaos theory helps explain why certain works have long-term value both within and among cultures. More complex works create more and more ways of seeing the text, breed different interpretations, have people arguing about the text for centuries (sometimes even millennia). Any work that creates a large number of interpretations is, according to this theory, a great work that has lasting value.
Hawkins further shows how complex works create those who attempt to emulate that work – usually in the creation of less complex works. An example she gives is Milton’s Paradise Lost, of which Crichton’s Jurassic Park was a less complex emulation – which itself had a less complex emulation in the movie version. She points out that another one of the ways of knowing a work is a great work of art is to see how many times people try to replicate it. Most of the replicants will be less complex than the original, and will, therefore, just as likely be forgotten. But occasionally, there will come along works of art which go beyond mere emulation to create another highly complex work of art that will itself inspire future emulation.
The above work for older works, but how can we determine if a new work is sufficiently complex enough to fit her definition of a lasting work of value? She does not come right out and way, but she does give several hints. “When a fractal is viewed on any scale, comparably complex details emerge. And comparably complex details likewise emerge in individual lines, books, actions, and characterizations, as well as on the mythic, narrative and temporal scales of a complex nonlinear work” (18). One way of seeing if a work meets this level of complexity is to ask yourself what it would take to write up a set of instructions to have a writer write any given work. A work is complex if the “instructions” on how to write it (as romance publishers give their writers) would be longer than the work produced (13). This brings us back to theory, because one could, in a sense, see literary analysis as an attempt (actually, various attempts by various people) to write parts of the instructions on how to write any given work of literature. Using psychological analysis, for example, one could learn various elements of the psychologies of the characters in the work (let us say, a novel). Marxist analysis could point out the various class concerns the author had in mind. Things like formalism and structuralism could show on a formal and structural level how the novel was constructed. Poststructuralism could point out what the author left out and suggest why. And one could even go back to older theories and see what they have to say about works of literature, since “even as chaos theory calls into question comparatively exclusive [italics hers] critical paradigms, it also allows for a retroactive, retrospective understanding of earlier artistic and critical insights commonly brushed aside as outmoded or as too obvious to need further thought” (19). One could go on and on.
Chaos theory shows both how these all work together to create a set of instructions for the reader to both enter the text, to understand better various elements of it, and for potential writers to understand how and why an author did what they did in a given work. And it also provides its own elements to the instructions. For example, Hawkins points out that the butterfly effect helps explain how “an inadvertent dropping of a handkerchief, or someone else’s otherwise insignificant incapacity to tolerate alcohol ( as in Othello) – can exponentially compound with other effects and give rise to disproportionate impacts” (16). She proposes this in opposition to “linear-minded moralists [who] have sought to charge tragic heroes and heroines with correspondingly [italics hers] great (quid pro quo) crimes, vices, sins and fatal flaws,” pointing out that “as chaos theory demonstrates, and as had long been obvious in ordinary life (as in comic as well as tragic art) very small, morally neutral, individual effects” (16) can, as noted above, result in huge, tragic effects.
Further, the themes and conflicts of a potentially great work of literature must themselves be complex, while “it simultaneously establishes what chaos theorists term nonlinear replications, iterations, self-similarities – that is, regular irregularities, structural correspondences (symmetries) and (asymmetrical) contrasts – between characters and actions” (61). Such a work would also seem to never have satisfactory interpretations, because “In complex works of art, as in the fractal formations of nature, there are interactive effects within interactive effects, and the whole is larger than the sum of its parts. The holistic interaction between components cannot be analytically dissected precisely because analysis requires segregation” (77). One cannot consider a single chapter of the lengthy instructions of a work to be the complete instructions. This in particular puts deconstruction in a delicate position, since it does not acknowledge emergent properties in its analysis of a work’s smallest parts.
In the end, a great work of art is great because it replicates the complexities found in nature. That is the very reason why it satisfies: the various arts “are not literal representations, but [are] metaphorically satisfying because they ‘work like nature’” (83). All the elements found in a work of great art, “iterations, recursions, self-similarities, symmetries and asymmetries [are] operative in the nonlinear systems of nature, in contrast to the regularities and predictabilities of comparatively linear (generically determined) systems and fictions such as formulaic romance novels” (88). The instructions for such formulaic novels can be written up in an area smaller than the novels that are created. The instructions for the creation of even a relatively small work, like Milton’s Paradise Lost, would take up volumes. This is perhaps why it takes so many people longer to enjoy and appreciate great works of literature – but when they do, that is also why “in the long run, the survival of a complex literary “fractal” . . . continuously resonates, on multiple scales – imaginative, aesthetic, intellectual, orderly and disorderly – in the minds and memories of individual readers of successive generations, in very much the same way it continues to resonate in the artistic tradition” (103).
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Gleick and Prigogine
I read Gleick and Prigogine both with eyes that searched for metaphors that could describe the novel, and found many, especially in Gleick. Mandelbrot's observations regarding noise in a system, creating fractal time, made me realize that narrative, too, was an example of fractal time, the words acting as the "noise" in the "system" of the novel, similar to Cantor dust. This is best seen in a rewording of Gleick's own words:
Mandelbrot saw the Cantor set as a model for the occurrence of errors in an electric transmission line. Engineers saw periods of error-free transmission, mixed with periods when errors would come in bursts. Looked at more closely, the bursts, too, contained error-free periods within them. And so on – it was an example of fractal time (93c).
which I have reworded thus:
I see the Cantor set as a model for the occurrence of words (particular words) in a novel. There are periods where a given word does not appear, mixed with periods when the word does appear, mixed with periods when the word comes in bursts. Looked at more closely, the bursts, too contain periods without that word within them. And so on – it is an example of fractal time within the novel.
These dusts occur on smaller scales, each cluster giving clusters of spaces and clusters. Naturally, in a novel one can only go down so far – to the sentence-level – but one can see the general principle holds. This is what made me think to graph several words to see if any patterns would make themselves apparent – as indeed happened with the word "friend" in my novel manuscript "Hear the Screams of the Butterfly" on the page-level. This graph is what is called a "Poincaré map," which "removes a dimension from an attractor and turns a continuous line into a collection of points" (142). "Such pictures ... [begin] to reveal the fine fractal structure" (144) of the system – in this case, the novel. Thus, we see word distribution in a novel "as a Cantor set arranged in time" (Gleick, 92), where "the degree of irregularity remains constant over different scales. ... the world displays a regular regularity" (Gleick, 98). This suggested to me that meaning in a novel is both emergent and fractaline – as one goes down, one sees ever-smaller elements of meaning – elements that finally stop at the level of words – perhaps. There is also perhaps the level of multiple interpretations of words – especially in context of the emergent properties of the phrase, sentence, paragraph, etc. Going down helps us see the fractal repetitions while going up (looking at the patterns the words make, looking at how they are functioning in a particular sentence, paragraph, scene, etc.) helps us see the emergent levels of meaning. The mere repetition of a word is not enough – it has to repeat in a chaotic pattern to create the strongest levels of meaning. Each word "repeat[s] itself, displaying familiar patterns over time. ... But the repetitions [are] never quite exact. There [is] pattern, with disturbances. An orderly disorder" (15). Thus, although the word "love" is repeated more in my text, the fact that it lacks this kind of periodic behavior 9orderly disorder) while the word "friend" does tells you the word "friend" is a stronger theme-word, having been created through the tensions in the novel. How does this happen? "Information is transmitted back from the small scales to the large... And the channel transmitting the information upward is the strange attractor, magnifying the initial randomness just as the Butterfly Effect magnifies small uncertainties into large-scale weather patterns" (261). This is why the peaks of the word "friend" correspond to major plot points in the text. So we see a novel is a particular type of fractal – it is, indeed, self-similar at lower intervals, but as one goes up, new forms are made, self-similar to what came before, but having emergent properties (meanings). What we therefore see in deconstruction is a concern only with the "infinite coastline" of the novel, to the expense of the emergent meaning of that coastline in delineating the complete form of the novel.
Since the novel is now seen to be both regular and irregular, to be, in essence, fractaline, one could perhaps see Gleick's observation on 100 as a literary judgement: "The degree of irregularity corresponded to the efficiency of the object in taking up space." Is there perhaps a correlation between a novel's degree of irregularity as a fractaline object and our finding that novel aesthetically pleasing (or, at least, long-term survival)? This would be an interesting line of research for someone to pursue. This complexity that a fractal view of the novel illuminates is also another way of judging a novel (or understanding how novels have perhaps been judged in the past) since, as Gleick says, "Simple shapes are inhuman. They fail to resonate with the way nature organizes itself or with the way human perception sees the world" (116-7). Though we have to be careful when we say the word "simple," since "simple systems can do complicated things" (167), as anyone who has read Hemingway knows. Further, "as [a] system becomes chaotic ..., strictly by virtue of its unpredictability, it generates a steady stream of information" (260). This is undoubtedly why we say that both predictable stories and stories that are not retrodictable are bad stories. A chaotic story would be one that is neither predictable, but is certainly retrodictable.
Gleick also states that irregular patterns and infinitely complex shapes have "a quality of self-similarity. Above all, fractal meant self-similar" (103). Further, "self-similarity is symmetry across scale. It implies recursion, pattern inside of pattern," (103) meaning fractals are not determined by scale (107-8). The presence of meaning in a novel is also not determined by its scale. Phonemes have meaning, and so do plots, as well as every level in between. But, like eddies of air are the same as a hurricane, only at different scales, the effect of the higher levels of meaning is as different from phoneme to plot as the effects of an eddy of air are to a hurricane. All the same, an eddy of air can, building on other eddies of air, build into a hurricane over space and time in the same way as phonemes, building on other phonemes, build into a novel over space and time. This is because "each change of scale [brings] new phenomena and new kinds of behavior" (115). Therefore, the existence of meaning applies "without regard to scale" (108) in a novel. It is also natural to say that greater meaning emerges as we go up in scale, since these scales are hierarchical (116). As Gleick points out, "fractal scaling [is] not just common but universal in morphogenesis" (110). And since fractal geometry is "nature's own" (114), and a novel is a part of nature inasmuch as it is a creation by a living organism, we should not be surprised to find that novels have fractal geometry. Further, "A geometrical shape has a scale, a characteristic size. To Mandelbrot, art that satisfies lacks scale, in the sense that it contains important elements at all sizes" (117), meaning a good novel (that satisfies the reader) lacks scale, in the sense that it contains important elements at all sizes, from phonemes to plot.
On the other hand, I did not get nearly as much from Prigogine in regards to opening up new ways of understanding the novel, except in some general ways. I strengthened my belief that to really understand any text, one has to know something about its creation when Prigogine says, "these far-from-equilibrium phenomena illustrate an essential and unexpected property of matter: physics may henceforth describe structures as adapted to outside conditions" (14), with far-from-equilibrium states being those that have strong tension in them (the very definition of a story). He also makes a statement that can easily be used to describe a novel: "One of the most interesting aspects of dissipative structures is their coherence. The system behaves as a whole, as if it were the site of long-range sources. ...the system is structured as though each molecule were "informed" about the overall state of the system" (171), a dissipative system being one that has both structure and disorder in it (143), that is, chaotic. On can see a sentence as having this very structure (Turner, The Culture of Hope). One can, in a sense, see how each "molecule" of the word "friend" is "informed" about the "overall state of the system" of the novel, helping it to cohere and have meaning. Also, Prigogine does away with the postmodern view that nothing new can be created when he says, "living societies continually introduce new ways of exploiting existing resources or of discovering new ones" (193-4). This is further supported by Gleick's statement that "nonlinearity means that the act of playing the game has a way of changing the rules" (24), meaning that in the very act of writing a new story or poem, a writer changes the rules of story- or poem-writing. We therefore not only can, but always do create new forms (if you play the game of literature, you necessarily change the rules), which means that postmodernism is fundamentally wrong when it says there are not new voices or styles and therefore all literature (or any art) can do now is collage and montage. We find postmodernism in this position because it falsely believed literary change to be linear, when it is really nonlinear (it feeds back on itself, etc.).
Mandelbrot saw the Cantor set as a model for the occurrence of errors in an electric transmission line. Engineers saw periods of error-free transmission, mixed with periods when errors would come in bursts. Looked at more closely, the bursts, too, contained error-free periods within them. And so on – it was an example of fractal time (93c).
which I have reworded thus:
I see the Cantor set as a model for the occurrence of words (particular words) in a novel. There are periods where a given word does not appear, mixed with periods when the word does appear, mixed with periods when the word comes in bursts. Looked at more closely, the bursts, too contain periods without that word within them. And so on – it is an example of fractal time within the novel.
These dusts occur on smaller scales, each cluster giving clusters of spaces and clusters. Naturally, in a novel one can only go down so far – to the sentence-level – but one can see the general principle holds. This is what made me think to graph several words to see if any patterns would make themselves apparent – as indeed happened with the word "friend" in my novel manuscript "Hear the Screams of the Butterfly" on the page-level. This graph is what is called a "Poincaré map," which "removes a dimension from an attractor and turns a continuous line into a collection of points" (142). "Such pictures ... [begin] to reveal the fine fractal structure" (144) of the system – in this case, the novel. Thus, we see word distribution in a novel "as a Cantor set arranged in time" (Gleick, 92), where "the degree of irregularity remains constant over different scales. ... the world displays a regular regularity" (Gleick, 98). This suggested to me that meaning in a novel is both emergent and fractaline – as one goes down, one sees ever-smaller elements of meaning – elements that finally stop at the level of words – perhaps. There is also perhaps the level of multiple interpretations of words – especially in context of the emergent properties of the phrase, sentence, paragraph, etc. Going down helps us see the fractal repetitions while going up (looking at the patterns the words make, looking at how they are functioning in a particular sentence, paragraph, scene, etc.) helps us see the emergent levels of meaning. The mere repetition of a word is not enough – it has to repeat in a chaotic pattern to create the strongest levels of meaning. Each word "repeat[s] itself, displaying familiar patterns over time. ... But the repetitions [are] never quite exact. There [is] pattern, with disturbances. An orderly disorder" (15). Thus, although the word "love" is repeated more in my text, the fact that it lacks this kind of periodic behavior 9orderly disorder) while the word "friend" does tells you the word "friend" is a stronger theme-word, having been created through the tensions in the novel. How does this happen? "Information is transmitted back from the small scales to the large... And the channel transmitting the information upward is the strange attractor, magnifying the initial randomness just as the Butterfly Effect magnifies small uncertainties into large-scale weather patterns" (261). This is why the peaks of the word "friend" correspond to major plot points in the text. So we see a novel is a particular type of fractal – it is, indeed, self-similar at lower intervals, but as one goes up, new forms are made, self-similar to what came before, but having emergent properties (meanings). What we therefore see in deconstruction is a concern only with the "infinite coastline" of the novel, to the expense of the emergent meaning of that coastline in delineating the complete form of the novel.
Since the novel is now seen to be both regular and irregular, to be, in essence, fractaline, one could perhaps see Gleick's observation on 100 as a literary judgement: "The degree of irregularity corresponded to the efficiency of the object in taking up space." Is there perhaps a correlation between a novel's degree of irregularity as a fractaline object and our finding that novel aesthetically pleasing (or, at least, long-term survival)? This would be an interesting line of research for someone to pursue. This complexity that a fractal view of the novel illuminates is also another way of judging a novel (or understanding how novels have perhaps been judged in the past) since, as Gleick says, "Simple shapes are inhuman. They fail to resonate with the way nature organizes itself or with the way human perception sees the world" (116-7). Though we have to be careful when we say the word "simple," since "simple systems can do complicated things" (167), as anyone who has read Hemingway knows. Further, "as [a] system becomes chaotic ..., strictly by virtue of its unpredictability, it generates a steady stream of information" (260). This is undoubtedly why we say that both predictable stories and stories that are not retrodictable are bad stories. A chaotic story would be one that is neither predictable, but is certainly retrodictable.
Gleick also states that irregular patterns and infinitely complex shapes have "a quality of self-similarity. Above all, fractal meant self-similar" (103). Further, "self-similarity is symmetry across scale. It implies recursion, pattern inside of pattern," (103) meaning fractals are not determined by scale (107-8). The presence of meaning in a novel is also not determined by its scale. Phonemes have meaning, and so do plots, as well as every level in between. But, like eddies of air are the same as a hurricane, only at different scales, the effect of the higher levels of meaning is as different from phoneme to plot as the effects of an eddy of air are to a hurricane. All the same, an eddy of air can, building on other eddies of air, build into a hurricane over space and time in the same way as phonemes, building on other phonemes, build into a novel over space and time. This is because "each change of scale [brings] new phenomena and new kinds of behavior" (115). Therefore, the existence of meaning applies "without regard to scale" (108) in a novel. It is also natural to say that greater meaning emerges as we go up in scale, since these scales are hierarchical (116). As Gleick points out, "fractal scaling [is] not just common but universal in morphogenesis" (110). And since fractal geometry is "nature's own" (114), and a novel is a part of nature inasmuch as it is a creation by a living organism, we should not be surprised to find that novels have fractal geometry. Further, "A geometrical shape has a scale, a characteristic size. To Mandelbrot, art that satisfies lacks scale, in the sense that it contains important elements at all sizes" (117), meaning a good novel (that satisfies the reader) lacks scale, in the sense that it contains important elements at all sizes, from phonemes to plot.
On the other hand, I did not get nearly as much from Prigogine in regards to opening up new ways of understanding the novel, except in some general ways. I strengthened my belief that to really understand any text, one has to know something about its creation when Prigogine says, "these far-from-equilibrium phenomena illustrate an essential and unexpected property of matter: physics may henceforth describe structures as adapted to outside conditions" (14), with far-from-equilibrium states being those that have strong tension in them (the very definition of a story). He also makes a statement that can easily be used to describe a novel: "One of the most interesting aspects of dissipative structures is their coherence. The system behaves as a whole, as if it were the site of long-range sources. ...the system is structured as though each molecule were "informed" about the overall state of the system" (171), a dissipative system being one that has both structure and disorder in it (143), that is, chaotic. On can see a sentence as having this very structure (Turner, The Culture of Hope). One can, in a sense, see how each "molecule" of the word "friend" is "informed" about the "overall state of the system" of the novel, helping it to cohere and have meaning. Also, Prigogine does away with the postmodern view that nothing new can be created when he says, "living societies continually introduce new ways of exploiting existing resources or of discovering new ones" (193-4). This is further supported by Gleick's statement that "nonlinearity means that the act of playing the game has a way of changing the rules" (24), meaning that in the very act of writing a new story or poem, a writer changes the rules of story- or poem-writing. We therefore not only can, but always do create new forms (if you play the game of literature, you necessarily change the rules), which means that postmodernism is fundamentally wrong when it says there are not new voices or styles and therefore all literature (or any art) can do now is collage and montage. We find postmodernism in this position because it falsely believed literary change to be linear, when it is really nonlinear (it feeds back on itself, etc.).
Monday, August 13, 2007
On "Time, Order, Chaos"
I found particularly interesting J.T. Fraser's essay wherein he observed that the "Triad Cantor Set; it has a dimension of 0.6309" (7n), which is uncannily close to the Fibonacci ratio of 0.618, the ratio of the simplest kind of fractal. Considering my previous comparison of the distribution of words as being similar to a Cantor Set, it would be interesting to see if one could get the dimensionality of word distribution to see if it would be somewhere near these two numbers. I personally have no idea how one could possibly go about doing this, considering my poor background knowledge of mathematics, but it should be possible. Also, I found his observation that "the hierarchical theory of time recognizes five stable, hierarchically nested integrative levels of nature. By hierarchically nested is meant that each integrative level subsumes the functions and structures of the one or ones beneath it, and each adds to the potentialities of its predecessors certain new degrees of freedom" (10). I found this interesting both from the point of view of understanding how new instincts can arise through the combination of old ones, and from the point of view of understanding how meaning can arise through the various hierarchical levels of the novel, from the phoneme, through the sentence-level, to the plot.
Paul A. Harris' essay on Perec I have found particularly useful in thinking of new ways of teaching my rhetoric class. I recently applied the idea of constraints used in the essay, particularly Perec's refusal to use "e" in one of his novels, in my rhetoric class, making my students write just a paragraph without using an "e", and the results were remarkable. Naturally, the paragraph they wrote without "e" were, for the most part, stilted (there was one exception, where the writer actually wrote a very beautiful passage), but in the essays I had them write afterward, to tell me what they thought of the exercise, all the students said it was a great exercise, that helped them really think about their writing, and they recommended I use that pedagogical technique in my next class I teach. In the case of the novel, the essay shows just how important rules are to creation. And if the arbitrary rules can be important to creating new, interesting styles, just imagine how important the natural rules of language must be.
Argyros says in his essay that evolution is "a process of complexification that incorporates its past as the fine grain of the present" (139). Is this, perhaps, one way of defining one of the parameters of a great novel? Also of interest was the comments on the nature of metaphor as the comparison of higher umwelts with lower umwelts (141). This idea is particularly interesting for writers to think about in their writing, helping them to create more and better (and more interesting) metaphors.
Finally, I found Thomas Weissert's essay on narrative quite interesting, especially in light of the work I am doing on poetics as an instinct (and my tying it to the narrative instinct). Narrative helps us separate what is important out from the noise, and helps us turn noise into meaning. Especially when we engage in ritual. One could even look at the ritual of a story as: boy meets girl, boy falls in love with girl, tragedy ensues; while it is the noise surrounding this ritual that makes this ritual into Romeo and Juliet verses The Sorrows of Young Werther. This is because "we use filtering and preconceived structures to obtain the narrative identity. We use the identity to recognize subsequent changes in the identity and, depending on the level of nature we describe, the changes define the meaning we can attribute to the narrative. The changes come from the background noise that to some degree obscures our view of the repetition of the pattern. So it is from the noise that we ultimately get meaning" (171). Furthermore, this noise "drowns out the possibility of divining meaning precisely, if at all. But without noise there can be no meaning. This noise represents a level of fuzziness beyond which we cannot see" (172). The ritual of boy meets girl, etc. gives information, but it does not give meaning, while each of the specific examples given do carry meaning (though the meaning of each is indeed ambiguous). One could apply this too to such chaotic patterns (noise) in word distribution as I discovered in my own novel, which would show how such word patterns both make my novel more, not less, ambiguous, and simultaneously more meaningful.
Paul A. Harris' essay on Perec I have found particularly useful in thinking of new ways of teaching my rhetoric class. I recently applied the idea of constraints used in the essay, particularly Perec's refusal to use "e" in one of his novels, in my rhetoric class, making my students write just a paragraph without using an "e", and the results were remarkable. Naturally, the paragraph they wrote without "e" were, for the most part, stilted (there was one exception, where the writer actually wrote a very beautiful passage), but in the essays I had them write afterward, to tell me what they thought of the exercise, all the students said it was a great exercise, that helped them really think about their writing, and they recommended I use that pedagogical technique in my next class I teach. In the case of the novel, the essay shows just how important rules are to creation. And if the arbitrary rules can be important to creating new, interesting styles, just imagine how important the natural rules of language must be.
Argyros says in his essay that evolution is "a process of complexification that incorporates its past as the fine grain of the present" (139). Is this, perhaps, one way of defining one of the parameters of a great novel? Also of interest was the comments on the nature of metaphor as the comparison of higher umwelts with lower umwelts (141). This idea is particularly interesting for writers to think about in their writing, helping them to create more and better (and more interesting) metaphors.
Finally, I found Thomas Weissert's essay on narrative quite interesting, especially in light of the work I am doing on poetics as an instinct (and my tying it to the narrative instinct). Narrative helps us separate what is important out from the noise, and helps us turn noise into meaning. Especially when we engage in ritual. One could even look at the ritual of a story as: boy meets girl, boy falls in love with girl, tragedy ensues; while it is the noise surrounding this ritual that makes this ritual into Romeo and Juliet verses The Sorrows of Young Werther. This is because "we use filtering and preconceived structures to obtain the narrative identity. We use the identity to recognize subsequent changes in the identity and, depending on the level of nature we describe, the changes define the meaning we can attribute to the narrative. The changes come from the background noise that to some degree obscures our view of the repetition of the pattern. So it is from the noise that we ultimately get meaning" (171). Furthermore, this noise "drowns out the possibility of divining meaning precisely, if at all. But without noise there can be no meaning. This noise represents a level of fuzziness beyond which we cannot see" (172). The ritual of boy meets girl, etc. gives information, but it does not give meaning, while each of the specific examples given do carry meaning (though the meaning of each is indeed ambiguous). One could apply this too to such chaotic patterns (noise) in word distribution as I discovered in my own novel, which would show how such word patterns both make my novel more, not less, ambiguous, and simultaneously more meaningful.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Zero Sum Games
In a free economy everyone has the opportunity to get better because the economy is a non-zero-sum game. Most people in developing nations would rather be poor in the U.S. than middle classed in their own countries. And it's because the working poor have it better off here than do most people (except the ruling elite, of course) in developing nations. Certainly the U.S. isn't perfect, and it doesn't have as free an economy as it could and should, but its relative freedom allows for a non-zero-sum ecnomy that makes it possible for all boats to rise. I don't particularly care if other boats rise faster, either, as that sort of "fiarness," or egalitarianism, only pushes the economy toward increasing zero-sumness. The point is, in a free economy, I am not hurt in any way, shape, or form if there are others who have more than I do, becaue they are not taking anything from me in a positive sum game. Their wealth does not impoverish me. To complain about someone else's wealth is like complaining about someone else being ethical, as though their being good somehow prevented me from being good. The first attitude resulte din the gulag, and the second attitude resulted in the attacks by the Islamic terrorists. The bottom line is that the belief in a zero-sum world has resulted in a lot of deaths, and will continue to do so until we recognize that the world isn't a zero-sum game, and never has been, and never will be.
Shared Prosperity
Hillary Clinton hs been speaking of "shared propserity" -- not a bad code word for socialism (dare I say what it really is: communism?), wouldn't you say? Well, here's a few rough numbers, to put this into perspective.
Take the money from the Gates Foundation, approximately $100 billion dollars. Divide it by the U.S. population, about 300 million people. Each person would get a whopping . . . $333! I think Bill Gates can do far better things with his money at his foundation than just give it away "fairly".
Or how about if we really go big. If we take all the money from the top one tenth of one percent (0.01%), or the richest 300,000 people, we get $16,800 trillion (these are 2005 numbers) which, when divided by the U.S. population, gives each person $56,00. Not bad, don't you think? Sounds like a wonderful idea, I hear some of you saying. But suppose we did do just this one day -- seized all this money and distributed it evenly? Do you suppose that any of those 300,000 people would be interested in trying to make that kind of money again? Unlikely. And I would guess that most of us are employed by one of those 300,000 people, who would now not be so keen to keep doing what they are doing (that is, providing everyone jobs, places to shop, cheap goods, etc.). How quickly would this kind of idea drive the country into abject poverty?
Now, I know that this is not the kind of idea Hillary Clinton is really in favor of. What I have given you here is a radical kind of thought experiment. But it does make the point that, while it may make people better off in the short term, in the long term, redistributionist policies impoverish us all. Beware of anyone using this kind of rhetoric. "Shared prosperity" will do nothing more than lead to shared impoverishment. But don't worry, the Leftists will at least rule us absolutely by then. (One only hopes my rhetoric here is elevated and not prophetic)
Take the money from the Gates Foundation, approximately $100 billion dollars. Divide it by the U.S. population, about 300 million people. Each person would get a whopping . . . $333! I think Bill Gates can do far better things with his money at his foundation than just give it away "fairly".
Or how about if we really go big. If we take all the money from the top one tenth of one percent (0.01%), or the richest 300,000 people, we get $16,800 trillion (these are 2005 numbers) which, when divided by the U.S. population, gives each person $56,00. Not bad, don't you think? Sounds like a wonderful idea, I hear some of you saying. But suppose we did do just this one day -- seized all this money and distributed it evenly? Do you suppose that any of those 300,000 people would be interested in trying to make that kind of money again? Unlikely. And I would guess that most of us are employed by one of those 300,000 people, who would now not be so keen to keep doing what they are doing (that is, providing everyone jobs, places to shop, cheap goods, etc.). How quickly would this kind of idea drive the country into abject poverty?
Now, I know that this is not the kind of idea Hillary Clinton is really in favor of. What I have given you here is a radical kind of thought experiment. But it does make the point that, while it may make people better off in the short term, in the long term, redistributionist policies impoverish us all. Beware of anyone using this kind of rhetoric. "Shared prosperity" will do nothing more than lead to shared impoverishment. But don't worry, the Leftists will at least rule us absolutely by then. (One only hopes my rhetoric here is elevated and not prophetic)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)