Based on the general commentary, I've restored the Blogger standard comments -- which, oddly enough, are very much like the old Haloscan comments. Hopefully someday I'll be able to restore the old discussions, which I have saved as a database for now.
Thank you for your patience during this annoying hassle imposed upon us without our consent.
The Preacher and the Bear
A hymn from Georgia's own late, great Jerry Reed, complete with shotgun and straight razor.
Loud Pipes Save Lives
The argument, familiar to bikers, is now being made about electric and hybrid cars. Of course, since (as Glenn Reynolds points out) a car is far more deadly to other people on the highway than any motorcycle, the lives being saved are no longer the owner of the "loud" engine, but the bicyclists or joggers.
For a while this summer I was driving a relatively quiet motorcycle down in the Tampa/St. Pete area. I had a woman merge on top of me entirely because she was busy talking on her cell phone, not looking where she was going, and generally unaware that I was anywhere in the area. Of course, down there you have the added issue of hearing problems, since (as the locals say) 'Tampa is where everyone's grandmother goes to retire -- and St. Pete is where her mother lives.'
Lots of bicyclists and joggers, too.
Request for Comments: Comments
The most important feature of this Hall is the community. For that reason, I'm interested in making sure that it is easy for you to comment, so that you will comment more often.
I've heard from Mr. Hines that he's having some trouble with the Disqus business; and Elise didn't like it compared to Blogger's general comment system. In addition to that, it seems to be taking extra time to load the page, which is annoying for me.
I had heard that Disqus could restore the old comments from Haloscan/Echo, but so far I haven't been able to get that to work. What do you think? Should we abandon the effort, and go to the Blogger comments on the ground that they are simpler and load faster? If I do that, would you prefer a pop-up comments window, or a Disqus-style?
Living Well, Dying Well
I have been absent, struggling with the sudden catastrophic illness of a dear aunt just as I prepare to travel to France with my sister, our first trip together as adults and my first crossing of the Atlantic.
Thanks to the mercy of hospice care, things are better now for my aunt and therefore, of course, for me. I am waking up, therefore, to all of the things I ordinarily would have been attending to in the wider world during the last several weeks. One of those is 9/11. Scrolling back through a week or two of posts at my favorite sites, I found many attempts to identify the core of what we should take away from that formative experience ten years later. A commenter at Assistant Village Idiot put it this way:
For about two hours, the bad guys seemed to have invented an unstoppable new strategic weapon, with who knew what dire long term consequences, but then it proved they were stoppable by unarmed frequent flyers. And there haven’t been any kamikaze hijackings since Flight 93.Another commenter at the same site sent me to this link with an article written only days after the event, also identifying the heroism of the passengers of Flight 93 as the proper focus of 9/11 memorials:
Just 109 minutes after a new form of terrorism -- the most deadly yet invented -- came into use, it was rendered, if not obsolete, at least decidedly less effective. Deconstructed, unengineered, thwarted, and put into the dust bin of history. By Americans. In 109 minutes.I have not been called on to save anyone's life this month. I have only been asked to find a way to intervene in the intolerable suffering of a 95-year-old woman who was being ground up in a shocking medical and legal system. I have resurfaced in the world of internet commentary that normally is such an important part of my daily life to find that Grim has written several indispensable posts about how we exert ourselves to act properly. Every day someone involved in my aunt's care has the power to propel either her or me (or both of us) into the depths of extravagant misery or onto the summits of consolation and peace. What happens to us can be important, but how we act is everything. "Inasmuch as you did it unto one of the least of these My brethren, you did it unto Me."
A doctor took my aunt's hand, looked into her eyes, and offered her a heartfelt apology for letting her down, before prescribing her the morphine she needed. That doctor turned our lives around in an instant by opening her eyes and doing her duty, when institutional inertia and burnt-out fatalism from family members entrusted with my aunt's well-being might have led the doctor to turn her back. Every moment is a choice.
Here is my aunt at the age of 26 in 1941. She came of age in the Depression. She is not a drug-seeking whiner. She is not simply looking for attention. She did not bring this suffering on herself by refusing surgery that probably would have killed her. She is now in the hands of people who can help her. My aunt may be with us for some months yet; her remaining time is a gift she can spend putting her affairs in order, rather than the sentence of torture that it was.
Swords Against Death
A great headline: "Violent Crimes Drop 12%, Reason Unknown; In Other News, Record Number Of Americans Carrying Concealed Weapons."
H/t to The Sage. The title, as most of you surely know, is a reference to Fritz Leiber's second short story collection. If you haven't read it, by all means you ought to do so.
Strong Women Belong in the Home
I'm not sure how sympathetic I am to these complaints. On the one hand, I think, of course it's true: and what did you expect? On the other hand, it's hard to accept a complaint from someone in the top 1% of influential people that they are ignored compared to the people in the top 0.5%. It's true, as far as it goes; but nevertheless, you're at the table, and if you aren't "called on" you can still speak up on your own. That's more influence than whole the TEA Party has on the President's economic policy, or would have even if they marched two million strong outside his house.
Leaving all of which aside, this is the worst defense against claims of sexism that I've ever seen:
Leaving all of which aside, this is the worst defense against claims of sexism that I've ever seen:
“The president is someone who when he goes home at night he goes home to house full of very strong women,” Dunn added.There's no way that is going to fly.
An Execution in Georgia
The State of Georgia has the death penalty, but uses it fairly rarely. Of the 1,267 people executed by the United States since the restoration of the death penalty in 1976, only 51 have been from Georgia.
Unlike any of us, Ms. McPhail doubtlessly paid rapt attention to the trial and the presentation of evidence. On the other hand, as a mother it may be difficult to endorse the idea that the court was wrong, the punishment set aside, and the death of your son unavenged.
If you feel qualified to express an opinion on the subject, you may reach the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles at the address provided here. The United Church of Christ, like the Pope, is among those urging that the execution be set aside; indeed, UCC believes that the accused should be pardoned outright.
We've got one coming up next week that has gotten a great deal of attention. One of the problems with protesting an execution is that all of them get protested by certain groups organized for the purpose, which makes it hard to generate interest when there may be genuine doubts about the guilt of the accused.
Is it important, or telling, when a case is successful in generating broad interest in opposing the court's findings? The New York Times seems to believe that the reason there is so much interest in this case is primarily the success of the media campaign, and only secondarily the questions the case raises.
The victim of the killing was a Savannah police officer. His mother believes the verdict is just:
His mother, Anneliese MacPhail, called the widespread rallies "a circus," saying, "It makes me angry. They better learn that he is guilty."
She believes the case is being used by death penalty opponents to futher their cause regardless of the facts.
"It's not being told in an honest way," said MacPhail, 77, of Columbus.
If you feel qualified to express an opinion on the subject, you may reach the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles at the address provided here. The United Church of Christ, like the Pope, is among those urging that the execution be set aside; indeed, UCC believes that the accused should be pardoned outright.
"Constructions of Masculinity in Contemporary Zamoran Literature"
Mr. Sparkle sends this cache of the Trinity College, Dublin, webpage in which Trinity introduces its newest Fellow. I salute Dr. B's interest in post-colonial studies, as it must be honestly come by: at least, I am sure that no one ever successfully colonized Cimmeria!
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8
We hear a lot about gridlock, but most of the gridlock results from the fact that there is a huge disagreement about the proper role and function of the government. It may be pleasing to know that, in cases when there is common agreement that the Congress has clear and legitimate authority, it is sometimes easy to get legislation passed.
Calling the SEC on Social Security
You have to feel a bit bad for the poor woman with whom he speaks.
The real question isn't whether Social Security is a Ponzi scheme -- or, as Paul Krugman prefers, a "Ponzi game." (Games are fun!)
The real question is just when the government may properly force Americans to make a bad investment. The answer probably cannot be "never," because it is often difficult to determine if an investment is good or bad: and, indeed, some of the best investments start off as highly questionable ventures that prove out only because of a combination of faith, luck, and talent.
On the other hand, there are a few models -- like this one -- that are reliably bad investments. There are also times when (as John Stewart notes in his praise for "faceless bureaucrats" in this clip) the investment's problems are sufficiently obvious that a taxpayer might reasonably object to having their hard-earned money soaked into the venture.
Should there be a protection for citizens from being taxed to support ventures that are reliably bad investments? That seems reasonable to me. The second type of case is harder to answer.
The real question isn't whether Social Security is a Ponzi scheme -- or, as Paul Krugman prefers, a "Ponzi game." (Games are fun!)
The real question is just when the government may properly force Americans to make a bad investment. The answer probably cannot be "never," because it is often difficult to determine if an investment is good or bad: and, indeed, some of the best investments start off as highly questionable ventures that prove out only because of a combination of faith, luck, and talent.
On the other hand, there are a few models -- like this one -- that are reliably bad investments. There are also times when (as John Stewart notes in his praise for "faceless bureaucrats" in this clip) the investment's problems are sufficiently obvious that a taxpayer might reasonably object to having their hard-earned money soaked into the venture.
Should there be a protection for citizens from being taxed to support ventures that are reliably bad investments? That seems reasonable to me. The second type of case is harder to answer.
Self-Command
Steven Pinker, a philosopher with whose views I generally do not accord, has a good review of a book on self-control. While some neuroscientists have used their work to cast doubt on free will and autonomy, their lessons properly interpreted are showing us new ways of exercising command over the machine.
Immediately after students engage in a task that requires them to control their impulses — resisting cookies while hungry, tracking a boring display while ignoring a comedy video, writing down their thoughts without thinking about a polar bear or suppressing their emotions while watching the scene in "Terms of Endearment" in which a dying Debra Winger says goodbye to her children — they show lapses in a subsequent task that also requires an exercise of willpower, like solving difficult puzzles, squeezing a handgrip, stifling sexual or violent thoughts and keeping their payment for participating in the study rather than immediately blowing it on Doritos. Baumeister tagged the effect “ego depletion,” using Freud’s sense of “ego” as the mental entity that controls the passions.
Baumeister then pushed the muscle metaphor even further by showing that a depleted ego can be invigorated by a sugary pick-me-up (though not an indistinguishable beverage containing diet sweetener). And he showed that self-control, though almost certainly heritable in part, can be toned up by exercising it. He enrolled students in regimens that required them to keep track of their eating, exercise regularly, use a mouse with their weaker hand or (one that really gave them a workout) speak in complete sentences and without swearing. After several weeks, the students were more resistant to ego depletion in the lab and showed greater self-control in their lives.
Now that you know this, you have another toolset for exercising autonomy. Your unconscious mind may be making decisions from moment to moment before the issue rises to your conscious control: but if you set long-term goals, and keep track of adherence to them, you can steer.
If you find yourself having trouble, eat some chocolate, drink some soda, and then get back to it.
Repent
Lars Walker has a good insight.
The "May Day Carol" is my favorite hymn on the subject of repentance. It's a concept not much in vogue, but of eternal power for those who find it. Mr. Walker's understanding that repentance is fundamentally an act of courage is even more true for those who live in an age that will not understand, and will therefore not support, the difficult sacrifice.
The "May Day Carol" is my favorite hymn on the subject of repentance. It's a concept not much in vogue, but of eternal power for those who find it. Mr. Walker's understanding that repentance is fundamentally an act of courage is even more true for those who live in an age that will not understand, and will therefore not support, the difficult sacrifice.
A Girl and Her Dog
He's supposed to be my dog. Sometimes when they get to playing together, he seems to forget.
Libraries and Sex Offenders
The Volokh Conspiracy (these days, I suppose we could abbreviate that to "VC," but I still prefer not to do so) questions whether Tennessee can Constitutionally, under the First Amendment, ban sex offenders from libraries. There are some interesting points raised by the logic.
But content-neutral limitations on who may access this government property are, I think, constitutional so long as they are reasonable in light of the purposes to which the government chooses to dedicate the property. And while I’m not sure that such a policy is likely to be especially effective, I do think it passes the rather low bar of reasonableness, given the government’s purpose of providing an especially safe environment for children, an environment that parents and children will be eager to take advantage of.It's also reasonable given that female librarians outnumber male ones by approximately 4-1. The link is to a study of gender-bias against males who work in libraries, which include "being expected to handle physical tasks such as moving furniture, [and] being expected to work night or weekend shifts for security[.]"
That is the sort of bias which, although I suppose it really is bias, accords with rather than offends good sense. On average, men will be better suited for moving furniture; and although men are more likely to be victims of violent crime than are women, the exception to that is the crime of rape (see table 5, which estimates that women suffer rape at about ten times the rate of men).
I've spent a fair amount of my life in libraries, and it's fairly common for there to be no men at all who work in them (although, as the article notes, that is less true at academic libraries, where the ration is merely 3-1 female-male). Often libraries close after dark, and someone is going to have to stay behind to close when the most of the staff goes home. Since public libraries are public places, you can't remove people from them without some sort of legal reason. Imagine not having the capacity to remove a registered sex offender who simply came into the library every day, who sat quietly but often stared at the women behind the desks. This is surely the kind of work environment that would be considered hostile! It may also be dangerous, as stalking often is a precondition for rape, as the focus of the stalker on his victim intensifies over time. Yet the man in question is not causing a disturbance, is not a co-worker who can be punished administratively, and so forth. There needs to be a lawful cause that authorizes the police to ask him to leave if they are requested to do so. Surely this is reasonable.
UPDATE: However, I agree with Dr. Reynold's commenter: the reasonable nature of the law depends to a large degree on keeping the definition of "sex offender" pretty tight. "Not only are the punishments becoming more petty; the definition of ‘sex offender’ becomes more petty by the day. For instance, in many jurisdictions you don’t want to get caught answering nature’s emergency call by the side of the road. Who knew such distress could someday cause the yanking of your library card?"
The failure of reason here, however, isn't in keeping rapists and pedophiles out of libraries; it lies in exploding the category of "sex offender."
True Virtue
Seligman and Peterson consulted works from Aristotle to Confucius, from the Upanishads to the Torah, from the Boy Scout Handbook to profiles of Pokémon characters, and they settled on 24 character strengths common to all cultures and eras. The list included some we think of as traditional noble traits, like bravery, citizenship, fairness, wisdom and integrity; others that veer into the emotional realm, like love, humor, zest and appreciation of beauty; and still others that are more concerned with day-to-day human interactions: social intelligence (the ability to recognize interpersonal dynamics and adapt quickly to different social situations), kindness, self-regulation, gratitude.These are things that I have sometimes called true or absolute virtues. No matter what your goals, or your other moral values, courage is a virtue for you: it will help you achieve them. An ability to understand your duty and to command yourself to fulfill it will be useful to every man, and every woman, and every child. This moral reality is embedded in the structure of the world.In most societies, Seligman and Peterson wrote, these strengths were considered to have a moral valence, and in many cases they overlapped with religious laws and strictures. But their true importance did not come from their relationship to any system of ethics or moral laws but from their practical benefit: cultivating these strengths represented a reliable path to “the good life,” a life that was not just happy but also meaningful and fulfilling.
Emotional Certainty is Usually Wrong
Via our friends at Brandywine Books, a review of On Being Certain. The subject is that feeling of certainty that you have in your gut, which tells you that something "just feels right" regardless of the evidence.
That feeling is generally unreliable, the book finds. I trust this won't surprise you; but it does touch on another issue that we have discussed here from time to time. That issue is free will, given the prevalence of the subconscious mind in our thinking.
Another idea that I’d heard about before but gets replayed here is the notion that the brain understands and reacts to some situations before conscious perception can possibly intervene. Burton highlights this activity in two cases: baseball players hitting a fastball and piano players doing long, fast runs up and down the keys. In both cases, the movements involved are too fast for the conscious mind to intervene. (In baseball in particular, the body has to start moving before the perceptual process finishes alerting the conscious brain that a ball is on the way.)Our friends at Arts & Letters Daily linked to a good article on contemporary neuroscience, and the questions it raises for advocates of free will.
"Part of what's driving some of these conclusions is the thought that free will has to be spiritual or involve souls or something," says Al Mele, a philosopher at Florida State University in Tallahassee. If neuroscientists find unconscious neural activity that drives decision-making, the troublesome concept of mind as separate from body disappears, as does free will. This 'dualist' conception of free will is an easy target for neuroscientists to knock down, says Glannon. "Neatly dividing mind and brain makes it easier for neuroscientists to drive a wedge between them," he adds.I wrote about this problem There is no problem for free will here, not even for dualists; but it is free will of Aristotle's type. Indeed, the point about pianos and baseball players makes the point. Yes, the conscious mind cannot intervene in catching a speeding baseball; but the habits that permit such processing to produce the desired results were developed as a free choice, corresponding to a vision of beauty.The trouble is, most current philosophers don't think about free will like that, says Mele. Many are materialists — believing that everything has a physical basis, and decisions and actions come from brain activity. So scientists are weighing in on a notion that philosophers consider irrelevant.
You did not become a baseball player in the same way that ice melts because the sun strikes it: that is, you did not become a baseballer because you were acted on by an outside force that drove you to practice day in and day out. Rather, you became a baseball player because you wanted it. You built the habits, and developed the necessary virtues, so that your body would execute them when you didn't have time to think about it just as it would have if you had all the time in the world.
That was Aristotle's picture all along. He understood that often you would not have time to reason, but this did not undermine his idea that your rational nature made you free. It was particularly important to him that a man with the virtue of courage be courageous when there was no time to think about it: otherwise, courage was of no use in the kinds of situations when it matters most.
The Vaccine Issue
Rep. Bachmann hasn't settled up on the vaccine issue yet, but the question has caused quite a few people on the right to slam her hard. It's not too surprising to see relatively establishment publications like NRO go after her, as they are generally opposed to candidates outside of a narrow portion of the Republican Party: I remember their upset in 2008 over Huckabee's early strong performances.
There is a more damaging account from Powerline, where an apparent supporter is backing off of her candidacy over the matter.
Up to now I’ve thought Michele Bachman was the most impressive performer in the GOP field, going toe-to-toe with the “big boys” in the field, out-arguing them on several occasions, and introducing serious constitutional arguments that the rest of the field (even Perry) are too timid to attempt. She’s right to go after Rick Perry on the issue of mandating the use of the Gardisil vaccine, along with the issue of “crony capitalism,” both of which get at the issue of a potential president’s sense of the reach and limits of state power. Perry is a mixed bag on this (as is Romney obviously) and he should be pressed hard to explain himself and refine his views.The post is titled "Giving up on Bachmann," which is a farther step than I would take at this time. The very facts he cites are reason enough to explain why. We have already reached a stage in the election at which the President of 2013 is going to be one of four or perhaps five people. We are well beyond the point at which we can imagine an ideal candidate, and are now choosing among a narrow menu. Of the four likely options, I would rank them roughly as follows:But her embrace of the wacko idea that the vaccine is dangerous or causes autism, mental retardation, or other risks is simply irresponsible.
1) Rep. Bachmann
2) Gov. Perry
3) Pres. Obama
4) Former Gov. Romney
Romney comes in last for me because, on the merits, he is very close to President Obama; but he would have two terms, and an incumbent's advantage in 2016. If we cannot win this election for whatever reason, it would be better to accept four years of a lame-duck of proven ineffectiveness than risk eight years of a potentially more effective politician of the same general type.
Nevertheless, this is an important moment in judging whether Rep. Bachmann will be fit for the office. I have some sympathy for anyone who is tired of being told that a given position is unacceptable politically because 'the science is settled'; the claim misunderstands the nature of science, which is never settled, and should not be accepted on authority. I'm willing to give the Representative time to work through the issue carefully, allowing for the duties of her office and the rigors of the campaign.
Still, when she has had that time, we will need to see that she can accept and properly evaluate new evidence on the merits. That will be an important feature of a President.
AttackWatch
While I agree that this sort of thing is both ugly and improper, I think it shows a remarkable sense of optimism by the President's re-election team. After all, look at the mission statement:
"Forming the first line of defense against a barrage of misinformation won't be easy," Messina wrote in a fundraising email to campaign supporters. "Our success will depend on a team of researchers and writers to stay on the lookout for false claims about the President and his record, bring you the facts, and hold our opposition accountable."It's sort of charming that they still believe that the chief danger to the President's re-election hopes is "false claims" about the President's record. In fairness, I suppose, the 2008 election featured a tremendous number of such charges -- not about then-Senator Obama especially, but also pointed at then-Senator Clinton and then-Governor Palin.
2008 was an election without an incumbent, though. There's a lot less room for that sort of thing against a sitting President, who is going to be pretty well known by everyone. President Obama's opponents may be subject to false charges or revisionist attacks on what was previously accepted by everyone; but the President himself, for better or worse, is not going to face that problem. He is going to have to run against what people know about him, not what they merely believe.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)