Impossible

"Impossible"

From the NYT:

It was identified by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who studies the intuitive foundations of morality and ideology. He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.

“This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal.

Well, no. "Impossible" is clearly right out. The point is that the... ah, discipline... that you participate in is untethered from reality. I believe that was T99's point from a day or two back.

That doesn't imply that nothing it says is ever of any use at all. It does suggest that we ought to be very careful in granting it standing -- only in special cases, or on especially good evidence in a particular case.

GOProud

Sarah Palin & GOProud:

I don't care if anyone goes to CPAC, which garners no interest from me in the first place; but the question of how conservatives (in general) should relate to homosexual groups (in general) is a good one. Sarah Palin provides a fairly moderate suggestion.

[P]erhaps what it is that you’re suggesting in the question is should the GOP, should conservatives not reach out to others, not participate in events or forums that perhaps are rising within those forums are issues that maybe we don’t personally agree with? And I say no, it’s like you being on a panel shoot, with a bunch of the liberal folks whom you have been on and you provide good information and balance, and you allow for healthy debate, which is needed in order for people to gather information and make up their own minds about issues.

I look at participation in an event like CPAC or any other event, along, or kind of in that same vein as the more information that people have, the better.

That seems reasonable to me. You're all familiar with my own positions on the two largest "gay" issues, gays in the military and gay marriage; obviously I'm opposed to both. The reasons for being opposed are different in each case, but have to do in both cases with the bedrock status of the institution. There's a great deal of room for social experimentation in America, but that room lies within the walls guarded by the military, kept firm by the family. I must oppose anything that appears to weaken either institution.

That isn't a condemnation of homosexuality -- for example, there are probably a lot of extraordinary people who nevertheless have no business in the military. To say that they do not have any business in the military is not to condemn them as human beings. By the same token, to point out that their unions are not creating new kinship relationships across generations is merely to state fact, not to condemn what they are doing. It is a bedrock feature of my philosophy that there should be room for many different kinds of human beings.

One might argue that Christianity requires us to condemn homosexuality; I am not sure that I agree. There seem to be two approaches to this argument, both of which are doubtful. The first is the clear condemnation in the Old Testament; but it is not clear to me that the Old Testament's laws for the Jewish people are meant to apply broadly to all humanity, rather than being supplanted by the Great Commandment for Christians.

The second approach argues from St. Thomas Aquinas' three part test for sexuality: that there are three goods that God intended sexuality to fulfill, and therefore the moral kind of sex will be that which fills all three. These are: (1) generation, (2) a deepened union between the man and woman joined as 'one flesh,' and (3) mutual pleasure, which is a good of a lesser kind. Homosexuality clearly cannot fulfill the first two (being neither capable of generation, nor a tie across the sex divide that would allow deepened understanding between a unified man and woman), and the first of the three is given special importance by Aquinas.

The logical error here is this: if a thing is "good" in the eyes of God, then it is good. If mutual pleasure is the only good being achieved, still it is a good! Aquinas may be correct to say that the best kind of sexuality will achieve all three -- that seems correct to me. It does not follow that the only good kind of sexuality will do so. As long as greater goods are not being set aside in its favor, I'm not convinced that logic requires us to condemn it from these principles.

In any case, this is the long way around saying: by all means let us speak with people with whom we have some disagreements, and other agreements. In some sense that captures all of humanity, none of whom will agree with us about everything -- I suspect that several of you will disagree with me just over the material in this post! Yet I regard you still as my friends and companions, and think it is an excellent thing that we should debate and discuss both what we agree upon, and what we do not.

What Am I Missing Here?

This is a question for the men, but perhaps also for the women (because I'm inclusive and tolerant like that). What is the deal with men complaining that they don't get to have everything 100% their way anymore?

Once upon a time, the world belonged to men.

Literally.

Because men had exclusive power in both private and public life, they controlled their surrounding environment and the way in which space was designed and decorated. Consequently, the world was once a very masculine place.

Fair enough. I'd say a world where women are actively excluded from most public spaces could fairly be called "a very masculine place". It's lines like this that send me scurrying for the nearest liquor cabinet:

... we’ve made progress in the area of gender equality and women have brought their influence to bear in both the home and the workplace. However, as with many other areas of modern life, the pendulum has swung from one extreme to the other;...

Has it really? Funny - I would have sworn on a stack of Betty Friedan novels that the polar opposite of: "Once the world belonged to men" isn't "... but then we decided to share". I would have thought it was something more like, "Now the world belongs to women.

Except the world doesn't belong to women, does it? We don't control everything, or even most things. Come to think of it, I can't think of a time in history when women ever held "exclusive power". I can't think of a time when we could exclude men from the workplace, from commercial businesses, or from voting booths. The truth is that Mr. McKay has never actually experienced the 'opposite extreme' of this metaphorical pendulum. Things haven't moved to the other extreme at all, but rather to some middle ground between one pole that has persisted throughout most of human history and an opposing fantasy scenario none of us has ever witnessed.

That middle ground, apparently, can be a bleak place:

...instead of creating a world that’s friendly to both male and female space, we’ve created one that benefits female space at the expense of male space.

It seems remarkable to this wife and mother that men gave up absolute control over the world peacefully. This is a thing that hasn't happened often in our history - confronted with demands from women that men give up some of their power and share control over the world we both live in, men decided (for whatever reason) to do so voluntarily. I would hope that every man who loves his wife or mother or sister - every man who has young daughters - would rejoice at this miracle that was accomplished, not at the point of a sword but at the ballot box.

The truth is that no one is keeping men out of the workplace. No one is keeping them out of bars. As McKay admits, women were first accepted in bars during Prohibition. When it was over, no law forced bars to continue admitting women. For over 30 years my husband has had his hair cut at a barbershop. Never, even once - in any state we've lived in - has he elected to patronize a unisex salon. But more importantly, never once has he had the slightest trouble finding a barbershop. If there were sufficient demand - FROM MEN - for single sex hair establishments, there would be more barbershops.

Likewise, single sex gyms have largely given way to co-ed ones. The success of Curves (which, by the way, is nothing like a full service gym) is a testimony to the free market's ability to meet the demand for single sex workout emporiums... as is the rise of male-only gyms like Cuts and Blitz.

As a woman, I can't begin to imagine what it must be like to marinate in nostalgia for some magical time when the law of the land guaranteed me the "right" to exclude one half of humanity from places of employment. And while I don't much care for forcing legally mandated inclusiveness upon private organizations that accept no public funding, I can't help noticing that the bulk of McKay's examples involve neither force nor operation of law, but rather gradual shifts in public sensibilities: the inevitable changes in outward form that follow changes in the function of our social institutions.

No law today prevents men from negotiating private space in their own homes or spending their leisure time with male friends. Men (and now women, too) have full access to the courts and the voting booths. They have both the freedom and the ability to influence and even change the laws we live under. In today's world a man is even free to, as one of McKay's commenters so aptly phrased it, "act without consideration":

The decline in male space also correlates with a decline in male empowerment. I am 52 and my father did whatever he wanted without consideration of my mother. I get to do about half of what I want with my wife disallowing the other half. My sons will I am afraid get to do nothing they want, unless it includes and is approved by the wife.

Question for the day: are we talking about empowerment? Or entitlement?

Martyr

A Martyr:

This is the kind of thing that might make you question the mission in Afghanistan; but the man himself should be seen for the inspiring figure he is, in spite of the circumstances.

National Debt

National Debt

Assistant Village Idiot's son's friend has produced a 90-second video about the national debt as part of a contest. You can watch all five of the videos that made the finals and vote for the one you like best. His son's friend's entry is winning so far.

Superbowl Ad

Superbowl Ad:

I imagine you've all seen this advertisement:



It reminds me of a story. Way back when my son was one year old, my parents bought him a toy remote control tractor. He was much too young to understand about remote controls, or to have operated it in any case, but he liked the tractor so they bought it for him. For about two years, he played with that tractor toy as you would play with an powerless toy car.

So one day, when he was about three, I got out the remote control and stood in the kitchen. I watched him play with it for a while, and then when he backed away to do something else, I had it follow him. As soon as he turned to look, I stopped it.

Then he started forward, and I had it back away. He said, "It did do it!" Then it followed him around the room for quite a while, before I showed him how it worked.

I suspect the rest of his life has been a disappointment after that. We live in a world where there isn't much magic left, and people seem resolutely determined to drive out what remains. These people are blind, and have missed the true story: everything we think we understand is really magic, and is hiding secrets we don't yet dream of behind its mask.

Catholics & Mormons in the Lead

Catholics & Mormons in the Lead:

That sounds like the introduction to a joke, but it's the thesis of an article by a jealous evangelical Protestant. He argues that there are two reasons: theology for Catholics, and culture for Mormons.

It's an interesting question.

Dolor Occultus

Dolor occultus

An article that takes up where the recent expansion of the official list of psychiatric disorders left off: Asymptomatic Depression: Hidden Epidemic and Huge Untapped Market.

The author proposes a binary approach to diagnosis and treatment. If the patient acknowledges depression, he is treated with drugs that have a variety of unpleasant side effects, the severity of which convince him of their power to alleviate depression. If the patient does not acknowledge depression, he is diagnosed with "putative axiomatic biochemical imbalance" and treated with the same drugs, until the side effects induce a more classical presentation of depression symptoms, after which he can be treated as usual for depression.

H/t Maggie's Farm

Wikileaks & Public Service

Wikileaks & Public Service:

Although the transfer of secret diplomatic documents to Wikileaks was an act of treason, it is not the only betrayal that the episode has revealed. The betrayal of our British allies by this administration does not quite rise to the level of treason, since we cannot commit treason against any country but our own. Nevertheless, it is shocking to the conscience.

The Obama administration plainly dislikes the British, but the rest of us Americans have warm regards for the mother country. We had our disputes at first, but have been strong allies since coming to terms on our independence. That is reasonable, as the British idea of freedom and human liberty -- not the French doctrine, which served as the root of so many of the early democratic movements -- is the root of the American ideal. We have often fought together in defense of our mutual ideals, across many wars and the entire world.

How Bad is This?

How Bad Is This?

Georgia is my home state, so when I see a political story located here I have to take notice. What a doozy this one is!

Georgia Republican state Rep. Bobby Franklin (of gold-standard-wannabe fame) has introduced a bill to change the state’s criminal codes so that in “criminal law and criminal procedure” (read: in court), victims of rape, stalking, and family violence could only be referred to as “accusers” until the defendant has been convicted.

The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee says:

Burglary victims are still victims. Assault victims are still victims. Fraud victims are still victims. But if you have the misfortune to suffer a rape, or if you are beaten by a domestic partner, or if you are stalked, Rep. Franklin doesn’t think you’ve been victimized. He says you’re an accuser until the courts have determined otherwise.

To diminish a victim’s ordeal by branding him/her an accuser essentially questions whether the crime committed against the victim is a crime at all. Robbery, assault, and fraud are all real crimes with real victims, the Republican asserts with this bill.

Rep. Franklin surely is aware that the crimes for which he believes there are no victims are disproportionately committed against women—and are disproportionately committed by men.

It is a reasonable point that the victim of a rape has suffered emotional damage, and the court should give attention to the question of not inflicting further damage. It's fair to ask that the court use language that will not cause insult or offense.

Where I differ with the DLCC is here: that interest in protecting the victim has to be balanced against the bedrock legal principle of presumptive innocence. That may be of particular importance in cases where one of the questions before the court is whether a rape did, in fact, take place -- either because of disputes about consent, or questions of whether or not there was really sex at all. The court has to be careful not to prejudice the jury in either direction. If those interests cannot be balanced completely, shouldn't we err in favor of the bedrock legal principle that is protecting someone who is in jeopardy of losing freedom or life?

Perhaps not! There may well be cases when the presumption of innocence is a facade that no one can really keep up; frequently in criminal court everyone is quite sure of the guilt of the accused because of numerous past offenses. In those cases, the court may do the minimum necessary to keep up the facade for the sake of the jury, and no more than is required. Certainly in cases where there is no dispute that a rape occurred -- where the accused is merely disputing that he was the one who committed it -- it would make no sense to force the court to refer to the woman as "an accuser" rather than a victim. In cases where there is reasonable doubt, though, and where the fact of the rape is in dispute, it may be necessary for the court to consider the issue of language to ensure a fair outcome.

The issue is surely a complicated one; it is probably best be left to the discretion of the judge, rather than handled with an across-the-board legislative remedy. I agree that this attempt is clumsy and ill-advised. I'm not convinced that the motivating sentiment is immoral, or that a bill aimed at this matter should be taken as prima facie evidence of bias against women.

Permitorium Hell and Waiver Heaven

"Permitorium" Hell and Waiver Heaven

Laws that theoretically allow citizens to conduct their lawful business, but in fact leave the regime's political enemies exposed to the the whim of a bureaucrat who can refuse to grant a permit. Laws that theoretically compel all citizens to adopt an unpopular and ruinous course of business, but in fact leave the regime's political friends a loophole via waivers. None of it is consistent with free citizens co-existing with a properly limited government.

Look at the flap over the Planned Parenthood videos. People who believe in the importance of granting young women unrestricted access to what they call "reproductive healthcare" are alert to the dangers of imposing too many regulations on abortions to minors, such as parental consent requirements. Over-regulation in that context clearly undermines the essential freedom guaranteed by the law, right? Imagine how they'd react to the idea of a law "guaranteeing" the right to abortion by either subjecting it to a permit process, or outlawing it subject to the possibility of a waiver.

Lottery

The Lottery:

A voluntary tax on the stupid, it has been called; but that may be too strong. It is merely a voluntary tax on the innumerate. Just how much this is true is revealed by the statistician who broke the code:

After analyzing his results, Srivastava realized that the singleton trick worked about 90 percent of the time, allowing him to pick the winning tickets before they were scratched.

His next thought was utterly predictable: “I remember thinking, I’m gonna be rich! I’m gonna plunder the lottery!” he says. However, these grandiose dreams soon gave way to more practical concerns. “Once I worked out how much money I could make if this was my full-time job, I got a lot less excited,” Srivastava says. “I’d have to travel from store to store and spend 45 seconds cracking each card. I estimated that I could expect to make about $600 a day. That’s not bad. But to be honest, I make more as a consultant, and I find consulting to be a lot more interesting than scratch lottery tickets.”

So, in other words, if you're good enough to beat the lottery? You can make more money doing honest work.

A Pheasant Pie:

Served with a good brown ale.

Jerusalem

Jerusalem:

A new book provides a 'biography' of a city.

Over three millennia people have believed the city to be the bridge between heaven and earth. But it has usually been a dangerous crossing. Jerusalem has inspired courage, sacrifice and chivalry; art, architecture, and music. It has also sunk into persecution, brutality, butchery, squalor and venereal disease. Just to its south lies the Valley of Hinnom, notorious for child sacrifices even in the early Jewish era. As a result, it came to be known as Gehenna: hell. Given Jerusalem’s history, it is appropriate that it should have its own branch of Hades.

Jerusalem is surely one of the most fascinating cities in the world, even apart from religious history. Just the question of its relationship to water is fascinating. I have only become interested in it recently, but the more you learn about it, the stranger and more gripping the story becomes.

Historiography

Historiography:

Fox News reports that President Obama botched a Bible verse.

"Those who wait on the Lord will soar on wings like eagles, and they will run and not be weary, and they will walk and not faint," the president said during a speech to several thousand people at the breakfast.

But the actual passage, from Isaiah 40:31, states: "But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint."

The implication Fox wants you to draw from this is almost certainly backwards. Historians normally take an error of that sort to be evidence that someone was quoting from memory, as memory often contains minor errors. For example, Aristotle frequently misquotes Homer; this is usually thought to prove that Aristotle had spent a lot of time reading and thinking about Homer, so that he didn't feel it was necessary to look up the passage he wanted to reference.

So, the President's misquote is probably evidence that he's spent a fair amount of time reading the Bible. That's just the opposite of what is being implied, but it's the normal conclusion we would draw from someone who gives a close misquote.

Lost Music Found

Lost Music Found

When we were kids, my sister and I listened to a four-record set night and day, full of great folk songs. We lost it long ago and couldn't find it online. Although we could remember many of the songs, we were sure we remembered that it was called the Newport Folk Festival of some year or another. Now and then we'd find a recording of one of these festivals, but never what we remembered.

The other day a synapse tripped while my sister was trolling YouTube videos of old music recordings: the record set was called "Folk Songs and Minstrelsy." With this clue, we found a copy of the boxed set on eBay. It was a Book of the Month Vanguard recording; only the fourth record is marked "Newport Folk Festival." Googling it, I noticed that every few years someone writes an article about how much they remember loving this set and how sorry they are it was never released on CD. Some of the artists, like Odetta, were prominent enough that particular tracks, or similar ones, showed up on CDs. But, oh! this boxed set has everything I remember, and cuts I've never been able to find again:

SIDE 1

1. Sumer Is Icumen In: The Deller Consort
2. He That Will an Alehouse Keep: The Deller Consort
3. Greensleeves: The Deller Consort
4. We Be Soldiers Three: The Deller Consort
5. Come All Ye Fair and Tender Ladies: Leon Bibb
6. Squirrel: Leon Bibb
7. Cotton Eyed Joe: Leon Bibb
8. Darlin': Leon Bibb
9. Poor Lolette: Leon Bibb

SIDE 2

1. The Golden Vanity: Ronnie Gilbert
2. Go From My Window: Ronnie Gilbert
3. Johnny Is Gone for a Soldier: Ronnie Gilbert
4. Spanish Is a Loving Tongue: Ronnie Gilbert
5. House of the Rising Sun: Ronnie Gilbert
6. East Texas Red: Cisco Houston
7. The Sinking of the Reuben James: Cisco Houston

SIDE 3

1. Meet The Johnson Boys: The Weavers
2. The Wild Gooses Grasses: The Weavers
3. Aweigh, Santy Ano: The Weavers
4. Get Along, Little Dogies: The Weavers
5. The Erie Canal: The Weavers
6. We're All Dodgin': The Weavers
7. The State of Arkansas: The Weavers
8. Greenland Whale Fisheries: The Weavers
9. Eddystone Light: The Weavers

SIDE 4: Odetta

1. I've Been Driving on Bald Mountain/Water Boy
2. Saro Jane
3. God's A-Gonna Cut You Down
4. John Riley
5. John Henry
6. All The Pretty Horses
7. No More Auction Block for Me

SIDE 5: Odetta

1. The Foggy Dew
2. No More Cane on the Brazos
3. The Fox
4. He's Got the Whole World in His Hands
5. The Ox Driver
6. Another Man Done Gone
7. I'm Going Back to the Red Clay Country

SIDE 6: Cisco Houston

1. Talking Guitar Blues
2. Danville Girl
3. Old Dan Tucker
4. The Buffalo Skinners
5. The Streets of Laredo
6. Hard Travelin'
7. Bonneville Dam
8. Do Re Mi
9. The Wreck of the Old 97
10. John Hardy

SIDE 7

1. The Bold Fisherman: Ed McCurdy
2. When Cockle Shells Turn Silver Bells: Ed McCurdy
3. Frankie and Johnny: Ed McCurdy
4. Lang A-Growin': Ewan MacColl
5. Virgin Mary Had One Son: Joan Baez/Bob Gibson
6. Wayfaring Stranger: Bob Gibson
7. The Hangman: John Jacob Niles
8. I Know an Old Lady: Alan Mills

SIDE 8

1. Johnny, I Hardly Knew Ye: Tom Makem
2. The Whistling Gypsy: Tom Makem
3. The Cobbler's Song: Tom Makem
4. Railroad Bill: Cisco Houston
5. The Cat Came Back: Cisco Houston
6. East Virginia Blues: Pete Seeger
7. Old Joe Clark: Jimmy Driftwood
8. The Unfortunate Man: Jimmy Driftwood

Reviewer Jim Clark notes:

One of the frequent memories of those older than about 30 is how free childhood was back then. Most of us went outside in the morning, returned briefly for dinner, and returned to the world until bedtime. Games were organized by the kids playing them, streets were avenues to the far corners of the known world, and parents were arbitrary and bizarre creatures who appeared only to bring bad news. We lived free, had fun, and learned life's lessons at our pace and in our way. And most of us made it.

But no longer. No, today's kids are protected from germs, weather, competition, failure, loss, disappointment, and anything distasteful. Who would let their children listen to "The Cat Came Back" today? "They dropped him in the hopper when the butcher wasn't round, the cat disappeared with a blood-curdling shriek, and the town's meat tasted furry for a week."

My neighbor's Christmas present this year included equipment and software for transferring LPs to digital format. If she'll help me digitize this box set, I think I'll even learn how to upload it to YouTube.

Japenese Sword INferor

On the Inferiority of Japanese Swords:

An account:

Some doubts of the temper of these swords arose in consequence of a playful encounter which happened on board one of the ships, in which a Japanese sword suffered some injury from the cuts of an English one, which had received several cuts from the Japanese sword without receiving any dents...

FWIW.

Irish Crochet Lace

Irish Crochet Lace

I've finished my first project from the Irish Crochet Lace book that my sister sent me for Christmas. What fun! This is a christening cap for my newest grand-nephew.

Four Loko = Ethanol

"How Four Loko Became Ethanol"

A video by Mary Katherine Ham examines the way that a popular drink -- one people were eager to buy -- has been banned by the government, and is now being subsidized as ethanol.

If the people were really in charge of the government, this would not happen: not because of Four Loko, which is popular only with the young and foolish, but because we don't want ethanol in our gasoline. This wonderful product absolutely destroys small engines, such as those in chainsaws, and turns gasoline into something like varnish in about a month. I lost a chainsaw to it last year; and when I spoke with several small engine repairmen in the course of trying to get it fixed, I learned that the problem is epidemic.

(Another great idea from the EPA: make chainsaw manufacturers craft engines that run on 50:1 oil mix instead of the richer 40:1 mix. The extra oil in older small engines is of great benefit to keeping those engines from tearing themselves apart when run with the new ethanol mix. Pity they're not allowed to make them that way anymore! Environmentalists who are high-fiving each other can take a few minutes to reflect on the additional coal being burned to power the plants that are making new chainsaws, because the old ones are being destroyed and have to be replaced. Meanwhile, for your average American who just wants a small engine that works reliably? Tough luck, buddy. The government's not in the business of considering your requirements. It's in the business of telling you what to do.)

These ethanol subsidies are great for the massive agricultural corporations that dominate the corn industry. They are terrible for the average American who wants to mow his lawn or cut his own firewood. The poor college kids are getting sucked in as well. None of this is about what we want. All of it is about the government having the power to control our personal decisions, and have the power to choose winners and losers in the market. That power means they can readily command the bribes that have come to define the American political and regulatory system, whether those bribes are paid in the form of campaign contributions, plush honorariums for speeches, or generously-paid jobs or consultancies after their political career.

This activity is framed as beneficial, but it is really parasitic.

Gratuitous Gender Wars Provocation

Gratuitous Gender Wars Provocation

A reader wrote to a favorite word-maven columnist of mine with a question about word usage. Because the usage was called to mind by an episode of Laurel & Hardy, he stopped to muse about why women never seem to like either Laurel & Hardy or The Three Stooges. He said that women of his acquaintance found the humor too "mean." The word maven agreed, and extended the principle to the Marx Brothers.

Now there I have to protest. My sister and I always have been crazy for the Marx Brothers. The word maven defined genuine enthusiasm for this peerless comedy team as "being willing to watch Duck Soup three times a year." I'd happily watch it once a month, and the same goes for "A Night at the Opera." It's my husband that stares a little blankly when they come on. I have to admit that I'm no more than moderately amused by Laurel & Hardy and The Three Stooges, but I can't say they're any "meaner" than the Marx Brothers. It's true I have a high threshold for meanness as long as no animals are involved.

How about it, Hall members? Does the Y chromosome control the slapstick reflex, by and large, in your experience? Am I an outlier, corrupted by my elder sister?