"Thou shalt not extinguish thine anger, but shall master it,
that thy conscience may not be blunted by adjustment
to wrong causes."
-The Dutch Ten Commandments to Foil the Nazis
31.12.03
30.12.03
QUOTE: A perfect example of non-value-neutral realist political theory (via Slate):
"For too long, politicians have told the most of us that are doing all right that what's really wrong with America is the rest of us: them. … We've nearly them'd ourselves to death. Them, and them, and them. But this is America. There is no them; there is only us."
Oh Bill... if only you'd had your mind out of your pants, you might not have been such a tremendous disappointment to people like me...
"For too long, politicians have told the most of us that are doing all right that what's really wrong with America is the rest of us: them. … We've nearly them'd ourselves to death. Them, and them, and them. But this is America. There is no them; there is only us."
Oh Bill... if only you'd had your mind out of your pants, you might not have been such a tremendous disappointment to people like me...
MY ADOPTEE:
1. I can only speak for the rabid Dean supporters in my locale, but I'm not sure I've ever seen any of them drinking coffee. I believe I had an argument with a Deaniac friend of mine about the merits of Fair Trade Coffee, which suggests to me that they probably don't frequent Starbuckses.
Though I suppose Becky, if she's reading, could probably answer that question for me. I might do some research on this one.
2. In an otherwise reasonable post on why raising taxes might not be a bad idea, Matt makes the following assertion:
"This is a good opportunity to point out, however, that "socialized" medical systems are cheaper than the American status quo..."
My recollection of my British History class where we discussed the formation of Britain's National Health Service confirms this insight, but adds a caveat: socialized medicine is cheaper now, but by removing market incentives and mucking up the process by which new technologies fail or succeed, the costs in the long term, would, I think inevitably, be much higher.
1. I can only speak for the rabid Dean supporters in my locale, but I'm not sure I've ever seen any of them drinking coffee. I believe I had an argument with a Deaniac friend of mine about the merits of Fair Trade Coffee, which suggests to me that they probably don't frequent Starbuckses.
Though I suppose Becky, if she's reading, could probably answer that question for me. I might do some research on this one.
2. In an otherwise reasonable post on why raising taxes might not be a bad idea, Matt makes the following assertion:
"This is a good opportunity to point out, however, that "socialized" medical systems are cheaper than the American status quo..."
My recollection of my British History class where we discussed the formation of Britain's National Health Service confirms this insight, but adds a caveat: socialized medicine is cheaper now, but by removing market incentives and mucking up the process by which new technologies fail or succeed, the costs in the long term, would, I think inevitably, be much higher.
THOUGHTS ON HODO: Josh Marshall is not amused:
"The price of admission to the Democratic primary race is a pledge of committed support to whomever wins the nomination, period. (The sense of entitlement to other Democrats' support comes after you win the nomination, not before.) If Dean can't sign on that dotted-line, he has no business asking for the party's nomination."
And Pejman suggests a valuable concept:
"Yousefzadeh's Law Regarding Howard Dean: Dean's propensity to make stupid statements without filtering them in his head before they escape his lips is directly proportional to the wild success his campaign has enjoyed in harnessing the power of the Internet to raise funds, build an organization, and achieve frontrunner status in the race for the Democratic nomination."
"The price of admission to the Democratic primary race is a pledge of committed support to whomever wins the nomination, period. (The sense of entitlement to other Democrats' support comes after you win the nomination, not before.) If Dean can't sign on that dotted-line, he has no business asking for the party's nomination."
And Pejman suggests a valuable concept:
"Yousefzadeh's Law Regarding Howard Dean: Dean's propensity to make stupid statements without filtering them in his head before they escape his lips is directly proportional to the wild success his campaign has enjoyed in harnessing the power of the Internet to raise funds, build an organization, and achieve frontrunner status in the race for the Democratic nomination."
WELL: One of Jonah Goldberg's 2004 predictions:
"Bill Clinton is caught saying something disparaging about Howard Dean or Al Gore — or both — "by accident" as a way to signal his displeasure at the Dean boomlet without "officially" interfering in the race."
It won't happen, because Bill Clinton is way smarter than that. Don't be surprised to see his people within the party refuse to work for Dean, or not do very much if they have to work for him. If you go against the nominee, you become sour-grapes-guy, rather than the fearless defender of the real Democratic Party, which is clearly what Clinton wants to be.
"Bill Clinton is caught saying something disparaging about Howard Dean or Al Gore — or both — "by accident" as a way to signal his displeasure at the Dean boomlet without "officially" interfering in the race."
It won't happen, because Bill Clinton is way smarter than that. Don't be surprised to see his people within the party refuse to work for Dean, or not do very much if they have to work for him. If you go against the nominee, you become sour-grapes-guy, rather than the fearless defender of the real Democratic Party, which is clearly what Clinton wants to be.
AMUSINGNESSES OF THE DAY:
"Right now I have to go and rename my firstborn “Hugh.” (She isn’t going to like it but I owe him big.)"
-evangelical outpost
"Blogs are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made."
-Commenter on DanielDrezner.com, revising Bismarck
"Occam's Razor, revised: do not multiply clauses unneccesarily"
-from my Linguistics 272 notebook. What possessed me to write that down escapes me at the moment, but it seems like a good rule for academic writing.
"Right now I have to go and rename my firstborn “Hugh.” (She isn’t going to like it but I owe him big.)"
-evangelical outpost
"Blogs are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made."
-Commenter on DanielDrezner.com, revising Bismarck
"Occam's Razor, revised: do not multiply clauses unneccesarily"
-from my Linguistics 272 notebook. What possessed me to write that down escapes me at the moment, but it seems like a good rule for academic writing.
QUOTE: I have an old issue of Raygun with an interview between Tom Morello (of Rage Against the Machine) and Billy Bragg (who talks a lot of sense about socialism), and everytime I'm at home, I read it. It contains the most pithy summary of libertarianism I've ever read, which I sometimes reference in conversations about politics. I thought I'd put it up here for everyone to enjoy:
"It's very strange that a country like this that was born in revolution, the only thing that seems to have survived from the revolution is this ass-about libertarian tradition which is kind of like, 'I don't care what you do, you can have sex with your children as long as I don't have to pay any tax!' "
"It's very strange that a country like this that was born in revolution, the only thing that seems to have survived from the revolution is this ass-about libertarian tradition which is kind of like, 'I don't care what you do, you can have sex with your children as long as I don't have to pay any tax!' "
WELL: Per evangelical outpost's adopt-a-pundit program, I'll be sharing duties on Matthew Yglesias with J.P. Carter. This should be interesting. You may wish to adopt a blog/pundit of your own. I may end up taking another one, though I'll have to find a good candidate first.
29.12.03
LINK: I was both entertained and informed by this interview with Jeff Jarvis, a blogger I check on occasion and will now be checking more frequently. Nothing like a man with his head screwed on the right way:
"I called myself a pacifist early in the age of Vietnam and did not change my mind until September 11. There's an old joke that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. A hawk is a pacifist in the foxhole."
And it's also nice to hear that he shares my biggest annoyance in life:
"What personal fault do you most dislike? > Open-mouthed chewing. Drives me nuts. Drilled into me by my mother. An obsession. Can't bear to hear somebody else smacking. Trivial? Absolutely. But profoundly irksome."
"I called myself a pacifist early in the age of Vietnam and did not change my mind until September 11. There's an old joke that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. A hawk is a pacifist in the foxhole."
And it's also nice to hear that he shares my biggest annoyance in life:
"What personal fault do you most dislike? > Open-mouthed chewing. Drives me nuts. Drilled into me by my mother. An obsession. Can't bear to hear somebody else smacking. Trivial? Absolutely. But profoundly irksome."
LINK: Michael J. Totten skewers HoDo (as Howard Dean will henceforth be referred to).
"Then why the need to clarify? Bush, Gephardt, and Lieberman never have to issue statements like this."
Ouch.
"Then why the need to clarify? Bush, Gephardt, and Lieberman never have to issue statements like this."
Ouch.
LINK: Jacob T Levy brilliantly dissects what those of us who are Third Way Democrats have to look forward to... and it may not all be bad.
LINK: Be amused by what colleges are expecting from their undergrad applicants. I always thought the idea of an undergraduate essay was silly from the get-go--what does a 17 year-old know about anything, least of all themselves or what they want to do with their lives?--but these are ridiculous.
Graduate schools, fortunately, don't make you do that sort of thing.
Graduate schools, fortunately, don't make you do that sort of thing.
ALL-TIME DESERT ISLAND TOP FIVE: Albums that are as good as everyone says they are:
5. The Queen Is Dead, The Smiths
4. Loaded, The Velvet Underground
3. Automatic For the People, R.E.M.
2. Born to Run, Bruce Springsteen
1. The Joshua Tree, U2
Well, that was obvious enough, wasn't it?
Please note the following which did not make the list: The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, etc.
Please also note the following: disqualfied because they are double albums, which always have more music than they should: Exile on Main Street, Blonde on Blonde*, Electric Ladyland**
*actually disqualified for "Sad-Eyed Lady of the Lowlands," because no song on an album should ever be 13 minutes long.
**actually disqualified for "Voodoo Child," because no-one wants to hear Jimi Hendrix solo endlessly while fifteen shmoes talk in the background.
5. The Queen Is Dead, The Smiths
4. Loaded, The Velvet Underground
3. Automatic For the People, R.E.M.
2. Born to Run, Bruce Springsteen
1. The Joshua Tree, U2
Well, that was obvious enough, wasn't it?
Please note the following which did not make the list: The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, etc.
Please also note the following: disqualfied because they are double albums, which always have more music than they should: Exile on Main Street, Blonde on Blonde*, Electric Ladyland**
*actually disqualified for "Sad-Eyed Lady of the Lowlands," because no song on an album should ever be 13 minutes long.
**actually disqualified for "Voodoo Child," because no-one wants to hear Jimi Hendrix solo endlessly while fifteen shmoes talk in the background.
LINK: I'm cheesed off enough by this Matt Yglesias post to feel the need to break my self-imposed 24-hour blogging break to respond.
1. Isn't it amazing how denying a premise of an argument makes the entire conclusion sound weak? Christians don't believe that the books of the Bible were written, and canonized, and translated by men; they were done by men in concert with the Holy Ghost--men do the writing, and the choosing, but it's not coincidental what they write or choose. But if you deny the premise, then it seems silly to assume that just because some men wrote it, it must be true.
2. "The Gospels, too, are telling different stories of the life of Christ." Shocking, isn't it? You know, I'd imagine that if you took any premise for a story (for example, 'man has difficult relationship with his mother'), and gave it to four different storytellers (say, Sophocles, Shakespeare, Steinbeck and Alfred Hitchcock), you'd end up with four entirely different works (Oedipus Rex, Hamlet, The Grapes of Wrath, Psycho). Even if you had them write about the exact same series of events, you'd still get different stories, because they'd all want to bring out different things in the source material. This shouldn't be surprising.
3. "As such, this morning on WAMU I heard a series of bluegrass songs, including one extolling the virtues of the Bible, noting that "every word is true"... it's not particularly clear what is supposed to be literally true in the Bibles folks read."
Matt also manages to elide the difference between literalism and fundamentalism. I'm not sure anyone is, strictly speaking, a literalist--that is, every word is true, without need for any interpretation whatsoever. Most Christians of the conservative stripe are, I believe, fundamentalists--that is, the Bible has to be read as a document written at different times, by different people, using different rhetorical devices and styles, and for different purposes. Corinthians 1 and Song of Solomon are in the same Bible, but you sure don't read them the same way. Augustine picks up on this point in his Epistle 92, when he notes that animal allegories for Jesus are quite frequent (Lion of Judah, Lamb of God, etc), but this doesn't mean anyone believes Jesus actually is any of those things. I hate to harp on this last part so much, but non-Christians sometimes have a hard time giving credit for sophisticated interpretation when it's going on.
1. Isn't it amazing how denying a premise of an argument makes the entire conclusion sound weak? Christians don't believe that the books of the Bible were written, and canonized, and translated by men; they were done by men in concert with the Holy Ghost--men do the writing, and the choosing, but it's not coincidental what they write or choose. But if you deny the premise, then it seems silly to assume that just because some men wrote it, it must be true.
2. "The Gospels, too, are telling different stories of the life of Christ." Shocking, isn't it? You know, I'd imagine that if you took any premise for a story (for example, 'man has difficult relationship with his mother'), and gave it to four different storytellers (say, Sophocles, Shakespeare, Steinbeck and Alfred Hitchcock), you'd end up with four entirely different works (Oedipus Rex, Hamlet, The Grapes of Wrath, Psycho). Even if you had them write about the exact same series of events, you'd still get different stories, because they'd all want to bring out different things in the source material. This shouldn't be surprising.
3. "As such, this morning on WAMU I heard a series of bluegrass songs, including one extolling the virtues of the Bible, noting that "every word is true"... it's not particularly clear what is supposed to be literally true in the Bibles folks read."
Matt also manages to elide the difference between literalism and fundamentalism. I'm not sure anyone is, strictly speaking, a literalist--that is, every word is true, without need for any interpretation whatsoever. Most Christians of the conservative stripe are, I believe, fundamentalists--that is, the Bible has to be read as a document written at different times, by different people, using different rhetorical devices and styles, and for different purposes. Corinthians 1 and Song of Solomon are in the same Bible, but you sure don't read them the same way. Augustine picks up on this point in his Epistle 92, when he notes that animal allegories for Jesus are quite frequent (Lion of Judah, Lamb of God, etc), but this doesn't mean anyone believes Jesus actually is any of those things. I hate to harp on this last part so much, but non-Christians sometimes have a hard time giving credit for sophisticated interpretation when it's going on.
28.12.03
WELL: Bloggery may be lighter than normal for the next few days, as I'll be up in Midland hobnobbing with the fabulous Claire and Camille... which means that I'll either write next-to-nothing, or finally get around to some things I've been meaning to post about... such as why (despite 3.5 years in Michigan political science) I don't trust polls all that much, or what my desert island, all-time top-five 'albums that are as good as everyone says they are' are (#1 will, obviously, be The Joshua Tree by U2... others to come). And possibly other things that strike my fancy, like my complaints about Gandalf in The Return of the King (for a wizard, he didn't seem to do much of anything that involved, you know, magic and stuff). We'll see.
27.12.03
LINK: I was going to take issue with J.P. on the subject of his post, but as I was writing up the syllogisms and figuring out the analogies, it occurred to me that he'd stuck in all the necessary bits to make it work. I still have some reservations that he's underplaying the role of grace in allowing good actions to happen, and is maybe glossing over some of the complications that come from the inevitability of sin, but it's a blog post, not an essay. So, yeah, read it--it's interesting.
update: "We have removed our focus from the “fear of the Lord”, which induces us to do His will..." something strikes me as off with this formulation. I think this might be an instance of my first-generation Protestantness coming out. I think (it's late, I may think differently in the morning) that we do what God wants no matter what (how Calvinist is that of me?), and the question of our attitude towards God merely differentiates harmony and dissonance towards those ends. But this may be a distinction without a difference.
update: "We have removed our focus from the “fear of the Lord”, which induces us to do His will..." something strikes me as off with this formulation. I think this might be an instance of my first-generation Protestantness coming out. I think (it's late, I may think differently in the morning) that we do what God wants no matter what (how Calvinist is that of me?), and the question of our attitude towards God merely differentiates harmony and dissonance towards those ends. But this may be a distinction without a difference.
WELL: You probably missed this Yglesias post on the comparative merits of Barnes and Noble versus Borders, and any of these by Terry Teachout on being back in his old hometown, but I had occasion today to sort of link these two.
So I got a book as a present, and a very thoughtful one at that, but one I happen to already own. It was purchased at Barnes and Noble, which I avoid like the plague, because I find their selection to be woefully limited, and their categorizations to be somewhat confusing. But I went anyway. I immediately replaced the book I was given (Yankees Century) with another baseball one-- Bill James' Historical Baseball Abstract, and had a little money left, so I checked out my other options.
I far prefer Borders, still, because their orderings of books make more sense (things in corners are more specialized versions of things in the open)--so reference books or, say, U.S. biographies are in a corner, where at Barnes and Noble the philosophy section was in the back corner, not at all visible, behind religious fiction, or something else not entirely compatible with it. If at Borders I wanted to get a replacement for my now-lost copy of Czeslaw Milosz's The Captive Mind, I go to the 'Eastern Europe' history section, which is clearly marked. I'm not sure there was one at B&N.
But enough of the carping--one thing that struck me as great was the vast selection, even in that inferior-quality store, of serious literature. I ended up getting a paperback version of David Copperfield with my remaining money, and it's your average everyday mass-produced paperback--but with the sort of notes and essays you'd expect in the Oxford edition (having the Oxford edition from the library right now, I can say my mass-marketed one compares quite favorably). And I had my choice of editions, as well as every other major Dickens work--and the same holds true for Balzac, or Hemingway, or anyone else I looked at. I can remember the Waldenbooks in Midland having two whole shelves devoted to serious literature. The philosophy section in this B&N was easily twice the size of the one first in the B&N in Saginaw.
And I think people generally critical of the trend of stores to get bigger (as Teachout notes) generally miss out on this positive trend, because they (like Yglesias) don't really have an idea of what having your choice of editions of Pere Goriot means when five years ago you'd have had none to buy, even if you'd wanted to.
Also, a question for Yglesias' readers, who tended to prefer Borders because they were allowed to sit in comfortable chairs and read whole books without paying for them: have you guys ever heard of a library?
So I got a book as a present, and a very thoughtful one at that, but one I happen to already own. It was purchased at Barnes and Noble, which I avoid like the plague, because I find their selection to be woefully limited, and their categorizations to be somewhat confusing. But I went anyway. I immediately replaced the book I was given (Yankees Century) with another baseball one-- Bill James' Historical Baseball Abstract, and had a little money left, so I checked out my other options.
I far prefer Borders, still, because their orderings of books make more sense (things in corners are more specialized versions of things in the open)--so reference books or, say, U.S. biographies are in a corner, where at Barnes and Noble the philosophy section was in the back corner, not at all visible, behind religious fiction, or something else not entirely compatible with it. If at Borders I wanted to get a replacement for my now-lost copy of Czeslaw Milosz's The Captive Mind, I go to the 'Eastern Europe' history section, which is clearly marked. I'm not sure there was one at B&N.
But enough of the carping--one thing that struck me as great was the vast selection, even in that inferior-quality store, of serious literature. I ended up getting a paperback version of David Copperfield with my remaining money, and it's your average everyday mass-produced paperback--but with the sort of notes and essays you'd expect in the Oxford edition (having the Oxford edition from the library right now, I can say my mass-marketed one compares quite favorably). And I had my choice of editions, as well as every other major Dickens work--and the same holds true for Balzac, or Hemingway, or anyone else I looked at. I can remember the Waldenbooks in Midland having two whole shelves devoted to serious literature. The philosophy section in this B&N was easily twice the size of the one first in the B&N in Saginaw.
And I think people generally critical of the trend of stores to get bigger (as Teachout notes) generally miss out on this positive trend, because they (like Yglesias) don't really have an idea of what having your choice of editions of Pere Goriot means when five years ago you'd have had none to buy, even if you'd wanted to.
Also, a question for Yglesias' readers, who tended to prefer Borders because they were allowed to sit in comfortable chairs and read whole books without paying for them: have you guys ever heard of a library?
HAVE YOURSELF A NERDLY LITTLE CHRISTMAS: I'm very happy that I got both The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary and Bartlett's Familiar Quotations for Christmas. The Dictionary is the two-volume one, with etymology, and it's just beautiful and wonderful as you can imagine (I'm a little less than fond of their style decisions on page spreads, but that's just me). Bartlett's has already supplied the middle quote on your left, and will no doubt be a wonderful source for the future. I added them to my parents' old World Civilizations textbook (for when you need to tell the difference between Assyrians and Babylonians), and my copy of Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the King James Bible (for those times when you need to know every verse in which the world 'the' appears).
Wonderful.
Wonderful.
WHAT TRAGEDY: Matt Yglesias starts out asking such an interesting question about how we can defend our version of democracy, then ruins the post by jawing on about D.C. statehood.
LINK: I notice that Jonathan Ichikawa has a blog. He was a year older than me at the evangelical church I used to go to. I notice that he, like me, does the philosophy thing. I notice that, unlike me, he has become a utilitarian, and a fairly militant one at that. That's probably why he's at Brown as a grad student, and not Michigan.* But he is a Buffy fan, and that will cover a multitude of sins, as they say.
*Nick envisions some God-dispensed karmic justice where everyone who is not a deontologist has to make due with something slightly less than what would make them most happy. It occurs to me that this is a fine dantean contrapasso, in its own way.
*Nick envisions some God-dispensed karmic justice where everyone who is not a deontologist has to make due with something slightly less than what would make them most happy. It occurs to me that this is a fine dantean contrapasso, in its own way.
LINK: I note this for all you election 2004 nerds out there.
Semi-interesting notes: I ran my predictions (based on general statewide electoral trends, as I have intuited them) for who would win what state, and I came up with this:
Bush: 273
Generic Democrat: 265
So, naturally, all my Democratic friends are happy, because this means that they only have to win over a mid-sized state or a couple of small ones to win the election, right?
Wrong. Essentially, I got my numbers by giving every state where I think who wins in 2004 is not immediately obvious: Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York and Minnesota.* to the Democrats. And I'm less than entirely convinced they can run the board.
*Why those four?
Michigan: Granholm won last year, sure, but not by a margin nearly as big as one would've expected based on the run-up to the election. Winning Michigan is a matter of (for the Democrats) raising turnout in Detroit and Flint or (for Republicans) raising turnout in Oakland County and the western part of the state. Needless to say, no one knows how that's gonna turn out until the actual election happens.
Pennsylvania: Democratic Governor, Republican Senators. Classic Democrats-in-the-cities, Republicans-in-the-country divide, except it's not clear based on electoral trends who has the advantage. If there's a Senate election next time around, this one could well tip Republican.
New York: New Yorkers have made quite the habit lately of electing relatively moderate Republicans to prominent offices. Bush can win 1. if he runs as a moderate, which would be easy if Howard Dean were the Dem. nominee, and 2. if the upstate vote turnout is reasonably high.
Minnesota: The DFL has always been something of an oddball in Democratic Party politics. Minus a charismatic internal leader who can help them get their act together, it's not clear where the votes will end up shaking out (think Norm Coleman and Jesse Ventura).
Semi-interesting notes: I ran my predictions (based on general statewide electoral trends, as I have intuited them) for who would win what state, and I came up with this:
Bush: 273
Generic Democrat: 265
So, naturally, all my Democratic friends are happy, because this means that they only have to win over a mid-sized state or a couple of small ones to win the election, right?
Wrong. Essentially, I got my numbers by giving every state where I think who wins in 2004 is not immediately obvious: Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York and Minnesota.* to the Democrats. And I'm less than entirely convinced they can run the board.
*Why those four?
Michigan: Granholm won last year, sure, but not by a margin nearly as big as one would've expected based on the run-up to the election. Winning Michigan is a matter of (for the Democrats) raising turnout in Detroit and Flint or (for Republicans) raising turnout in Oakland County and the western part of the state. Needless to say, no one knows how that's gonna turn out until the actual election happens.
Pennsylvania: Democratic Governor, Republican Senators. Classic Democrats-in-the-cities, Republicans-in-the-country divide, except it's not clear based on electoral trends who has the advantage. If there's a Senate election next time around, this one could well tip Republican.
New York: New Yorkers have made quite the habit lately of electing relatively moderate Republicans to prominent offices. Bush can win 1. if he runs as a moderate, which would be easy if Howard Dean were the Dem. nominee, and 2. if the upstate vote turnout is reasonably high.
Minnesota: The DFL has always been something of an oddball in Democratic Party politics. Minus a charismatic internal leader who can help them get their act together, it's not clear where the votes will end up shaking out (think Norm Coleman and Jesse Ventura).
24.12.03
MY CHRISTMAS:
One of my most vivid memories is of coming back West from prep school and later from college at Christmas time. Those who went farther than Chicago would gather in the old dim Union Station at six o'clock of a December evening, with a few Chicago friends, already caught up into their own holiday gayeties, to bid them a hasty good-by. I remember the fur coats of the girls returning from Miss This-or-That's and the chatter of frozen breath and the hands waving overhead as we caught sight of old acquaintances, and the matching of invitations: "Are you going to the Ordways'? the Herseys'? the Schultzes'?" and the long green tickets clasped tight in our gloved hands. And last the murky yellow cars of the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul railroad looking cheerful as Christmas itself on the tracks beside the gate.
When we pulled out into the winter night and the real snow, our snow, began to stretch out beside us and twinkle against the windows, and the dim lights of small Wisconsin stations moved by, a sharp wild brace came suddenly into the air. We drew in deep breaths of it as we walked back from dinner through the cold vestibules, unutterably aware of our identity with this country for one strange hour, before we melted indistinguishably into it again.
That's my Middle West--not the wheat or the prairies or the lost Swede towns, but the thrilling returning trains of my youth, and the street lamps and sleigh bells in the frosty dark and the shadows of holly wreaths thrown by lighted windows on the snow. I am part of that, a little solemn with the feel of those long winters...
-F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby
One of my most vivid memories is of coming back West from prep school and later from college at Christmas time. Those who went farther than Chicago would gather in the old dim Union Station at six o'clock of a December evening, with a few Chicago friends, already caught up into their own holiday gayeties, to bid them a hasty good-by. I remember the fur coats of the girls returning from Miss This-or-That's and the chatter of frozen breath and the hands waving overhead as we caught sight of old acquaintances, and the matching of invitations: "Are you going to the Ordways'? the Herseys'? the Schultzes'?" and the long green tickets clasped tight in our gloved hands. And last the murky yellow cars of the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul railroad looking cheerful as Christmas itself on the tracks beside the gate.
When we pulled out into the winter night and the real snow, our snow, began to stretch out beside us and twinkle against the windows, and the dim lights of small Wisconsin stations moved by, a sharp wild brace came suddenly into the air. We drew in deep breaths of it as we walked back from dinner through the cold vestibules, unutterably aware of our identity with this country for one strange hour, before we melted indistinguishably into it again.
That's my Middle West--not the wheat or the prairies or the lost Swede towns, but the thrilling returning trains of my youth, and the street lamps and sleigh bells in the frosty dark and the shadows of holly wreaths thrown by lighted windows on the snow. I am part of that, a little solemn with the feel of those long winters...
-F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby
23.12.03
EXPERIMENT: If I pointed out that Brett Favre had (dramatic understatement)a pretty good game yesterday(/dramatic understatement) under what had to be difficult circumstances, and that consequently, anyone who observed football would have to admit he was one of the best quarterbacks ever, I wonder if anyone would object?
22.12.03
MARGINAL UTILITY OF EFFORT:
I got an e-mail from Prof. Sears (whose grad art history seminar I took this term) with some brief comments on my term paper. She noted that while my paper was good, she felt that I had not drawn out all my conclusions fully, nor had I really framed the questions involved as well as I could.
However, I also got an A in the class.
So what I've been mulling over all day is this: clearly, there was no room for my grade to improve, no matter how much more work I had done on my paper. Sure, I would've gotten the satisfaction of having gone all-out in a scholarly way (which would mean a lot to a nerd such as myself), but in light of my other responsibilities, I did the minimum necessary to get the grade I wanted. This, my friends will tell you, fits in with my general pattern.
So, is it ever in your interest to do more than you have to do for a class? Does this change once you get to grad school?
I got an e-mail from Prof. Sears (whose grad art history seminar I took this term) with some brief comments on my term paper. She noted that while my paper was good, she felt that I had not drawn out all my conclusions fully, nor had I really framed the questions involved as well as I could.
However, I also got an A in the class.
So what I've been mulling over all day is this: clearly, there was no room for my grade to improve, no matter how much more work I had done on my paper. Sure, I would've gotten the satisfaction of having gone all-out in a scholarly way (which would mean a lot to a nerd such as myself), but in light of my other responsibilities, I did the minimum necessary to get the grade I wanted. This, my friends will tell you, fits in with my general pattern.
So, is it ever in your interest to do more than you have to do for a class? Does this change once you get to grad school?
GOOD POINT:
"In the Spirit of the Holidays: EVIL!
Every morning I get up, pick the paper off the porch, and look at a summary of the important events happening around the world. Bad things happen all the time, but I am only exposed to a heavily edited and brief summary of them. I really don't see a lot of things that I can do about them, and I rarely see anything hideous that I might possibly be capable of.
Every morning, George W. Bush gets up and hell comes off the porch to visit him. The kinds of photos that no responsible editor would allow published are on his desk every morning. As much detail as he can stand is put into the reports he sees. Thousands of important things are presented for him to do and he can maybe glance at a tenth of them. Every day he sees horrors that he could reproduce, for a while, with the easy stroke of a pen.
It doesn't really bother me that George W. Bush uses the word "evil" to describe that which is abhorrent. A situation my detached perspective might see as shades of gray, his unfiltered view probably has to measure by the surrounding light it absorbs because it is so black. My friends and I who support the overthrow of fascists like Saddam talk about the existence of wood chippers and rape rooms. George W. Bush has access to videos of the real things in use and other horrors beyond our comprehension. What is more, George W. Bush has the capability to make those things happen here. If using the word "evil" helps him distance himself from the behavior that causes those atrocities, let him say it a thousand times a day. If using the word "evil" helps him eliminate the actual horrors, let him say it a million times. "
"In the Spirit of the Holidays: EVIL!
Every morning I get up, pick the paper off the porch, and look at a summary of the important events happening around the world. Bad things happen all the time, but I am only exposed to a heavily edited and brief summary of them. I really don't see a lot of things that I can do about them, and I rarely see anything hideous that I might possibly be capable of.
Every morning, George W. Bush gets up and hell comes off the porch to visit him. The kinds of photos that no responsible editor would allow published are on his desk every morning. As much detail as he can stand is put into the reports he sees. Thousands of important things are presented for him to do and he can maybe glance at a tenth of them. Every day he sees horrors that he could reproduce, for a while, with the easy stroke of a pen.
It doesn't really bother me that George W. Bush uses the word "evil" to describe that which is abhorrent. A situation my detached perspective might see as shades of gray, his unfiltered view probably has to measure by the surrounding light it absorbs because it is so black. My friends and I who support the overthrow of fascists like Saddam talk about the existence of wood chippers and rape rooms. George W. Bush has access to videos of the real things in use and other horrors beyond our comprehension. What is more, George W. Bush has the capability to make those things happen here. If using the word "evil" helps him distance himself from the behavior that causes those atrocities, let him say it a thousand times a day. If using the word "evil" helps him eliminate the actual horrors, let him say it a million times. "
LINK: As a general rule, I disapprove of everything Will Baude at Crescat Sententia has to say. I've found his completely unapologetic, without conditions advocacy for premarital sex to be especially annoying, as he does that annoying thing utilitarians sometimes do when they just wave off a concern a deontologist might have without even pretending to take it seriously... because we're all just sticks-in-the-mud, or we don't get how people actually work. We should just be prepared to slide along with everyone else on questions of morals. J.P. Carter, as usual, makes the substantive reply, with which I more or less totally agree.
Also, a snide remark, if I may:
"Furthermore, sex is a very important way of gaining knowledge about somebody..."
Did you ever consider the possibility of talking with her?
Also, a snide remark, if I may:
"Furthermore, sex is a very important way of gaining knowledge about somebody..."
Did you ever consider the possibility of talking with her?
QUOTE: Hugh Hewitt:
"Hours after the Homeland Security alert level was raised on Sunday, a poster at the blog Dean for America made this comment which is representative of opinion among the Dean Dongs: "Dean's remarks about national security and the Saddam capture not making the US any safer has [sic] been validated by today's Orange Alert."
There's no arguing with such reasoning, even by pointing out that although banks continued to be robbed after Dillinger was killed, banks were indisputably safer than when he was alive and among the robbers..."
"Hours after the Homeland Security alert level was raised on Sunday, a poster at the blog Dean for America made this comment which is representative of opinion among the Dean Dongs: "Dean's remarks about national security and the Saddam capture not making the US any safer has [sic] been validated by today's Orange Alert."
There's no arguing with such reasoning, even by pointing out that although banks continued to be robbed after Dillinger was killed, banks were indisputably safer than when he was alive and among the robbers..."
LINK: Ha. GWB will win by a lot, but not by 45+. States any Democratic candidate will win, pretty much no matter what:
California
Oregon
Washington
New Mexico
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Maine
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Delaware
Maryland
Washington DC (we'll call it a state for my purposes)
Connecticut
Vermont
West Virginia
Oh, and Illinois. In a walk.
California
Oregon
Washington
New Mexico
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Maine
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Delaware
Maryland
Washington DC (we'll call it a state for my purposes)
Connecticut
Vermont
West Virginia
Oh, and Illinois. In a walk.
21.12.03
WELL: I'm very impressed at how the last couple of seasons of The Simpsons have managed to systematically destroy everything I once enjoyed about the show, generally by stealing elements from previous, good episodes and then running their premises into the ground (Frank Grimes Jr., or tonight's episode where Grandma Simpson comes back).
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY: From Seymour Glass' door:
"Concerning the Gods, there are those who deny the very existence of the Godhead; others say that it exists, but neither bestirs nor concerns itself nor has forethought for anything. A third party attribute to it existence and forethought, but only for great and heavenly matters, not for anything that is on the earth. A fourth party admit things on earth as well as in heaven, but only in general, and not with respect to each individual. A fifth, of whom were Ulysses and Socrates, are those that cry:--
'I move not without Thy knowledge!' -Epictetus."
"Concerning the Gods, there are those who deny the very existence of the Godhead; others say that it exists, but neither bestirs nor concerns itself nor has forethought for anything. A third party attribute to it existence and forethought, but only for great and heavenly matters, not for anything that is on the earth. A fourth party admit things on earth as well as in heaven, but only in general, and not with respect to each individual. A fifth, of whom were Ulysses and Socrates, are those that cry:--
'I move not without Thy knowledge!' -Epictetus."
LINK: this list reminds me of Seymour Glass' from Franny and Zooey, excepting that the sources aren't nearly as good.
20.12.03
RIGHT NOW: "Original Faubus Fables," Charles Mingus, Mingus Ah Um
Charles Mingus: name me someone who's ridiculous, Danny
Danny (presumably): Govahnnnnnnnnah Fawwwwwww-bus!
CM: why is he so sick and ridiculous?
Danny: he won't permit/ us in his schools
CM: then he's a fool!
(and while we're at it, "Mississippi Goddam" by Nina Simone)
Charles Mingus: name me someone who's ridiculous, Danny
Danny (presumably): Govahnnnnnnnnah Fawwwwwww-bus!
CM: why is he so sick and ridiculous?
Danny: he won't permit/ us in his schools
CM: then he's a fool!
(and while we're at it, "Mississippi Goddam" by Nina Simone)
SHAMELESS: When finishing off my statement of purpose for Princeton, I definitely led off my "research interests" section with what I know (via insider knowledge) will be the subject of Larry Bartels' next book.
I feel slightly less guilty about doing this as I am actually interested in doing research on the topic he'll be writing on. But still...
I feel slightly less guilty about doing this as I am actually interested in doing research on the topic he'll be writing on. But still...
19.12.03
WELL III: Just finished my last exam, which is the last one given at U of M by Prof. Achen, who will be moving on to greener pastures at Princeton next term. His exams were always my favorites because he put ridiculously small word limits on complex topics. As he said this time around:
"I tried to be a little more generous with the word limits this time"
Allow me to give you an example of what this works out to. Omitting, as I will, 2.5 paragraphs of explanation, here's question #3:
(a) What do average voters know about the Iraq issue, in your opinion?
(b) As the voters became more favorable to President Bush after the capture, what were they thinking, in your view?
(c) In your view, does democracy still make sense if that's how the voters think about crucial issues*? Answer with a connection to your theory of democracy.
Word limit: 75 frickin' words! Seesh.
*his answer to this particular question would be 'yes,' lest you think he's one of those biased-liberal professors.
And after I turned in my exams, he gave me a firm handshake, and said "take care of yourself. good luck"
Princeton's pretty damn lucky, that's for sure.
"I tried to be a little more generous with the word limits this time"
Allow me to give you an example of what this works out to. Omitting, as I will, 2.5 paragraphs of explanation, here's question #3:
(a) What do average voters know about the Iraq issue, in your opinion?
(b) As the voters became more favorable to President Bush after the capture, what were they thinking, in your view?
(c) In your view, does democracy still make sense if that's how the voters think about crucial issues*? Answer with a connection to your theory of democracy.
Word limit: 75 frickin' words! Seesh.
*his answer to this particular question would be 'yes,' lest you think he's one of those biased-liberal professors.
And after I turned in my exams, he gave me a firm handshake, and said "take care of yourself. good luck"
Princeton's pretty damn lucky, that's for sure.
A LITTLE MUSIC STUFF:
I went out last Saturday and saw the Femmetet, which includes singer/songwriter Kristy Hanson. As someone who has not been to a good show since Yo La Tengo four years ago, I was very impressed by what I heard. I bought Kristy's cd, and, well, have listened to pretty much nothing else since. I'm a little surprised by this, as I don't, as a general rule, dig the female singer-songwriter thing, but, well, she's amazingly good. Buy cd. Listen. See her live. Amazing!
Also, I've been listening quite a bit lately to a 9th Grade favorite of mine, Manic Street Preachers' Everything Must Go. It's not simply a good album from the height of 90s British Rock (it came out right after Pulp's Different Class and Oasis' What's the Story Morning Glory?, and before OK Computer and Spiritualized's Ladies and Gentlemen We Are Floating in Space), it might very well be the best of them. I was struck when listening to "Removables," probably the least good song from the album, how much better it was anything else that had come up on 'random' so far that day.
For those unfamiliar with the Manics, they were a derivitive-punk British band centered around the political ventings of Richey James. Their politics were not so much left- or right-leaning as anti-everything (thus: "Somebody told me to vote Conservative/ tragedy is not known under the dimmest of lights..." and "White liberal hates slavery/ needs Thai labor to clean his home..."). After a very rocky debut (the now unfortunately named Generation Terrorists), they released two mini-masterpieces, Gold Against the Soul and The Holy Bible, which produced, for example, the best song ever about World War I ("La Tristessa Durera"), the best song ever about anorexia ("4 st. 7 lb."), the best put-downs of Communist sympathy and P.C.-think ("Revol" and "P.C.P."), and pretty much the most terrifying song ever ("The Intense Humming of Evil," which opens with a snippet from the first speech at the Nuremberg Trials).
Then Richey James mysteriously disappeared. His car was found at a notorious suicide spot, but no trace of him was ever found. Thus came Everything Must Go: it's about some stuff, but it's really about the three remaining band members working through what can only be imagined as their intense anguish about the loss of their friend. The best description I ever heard of it was "Give 'Em Enough Rope as produced by Phil Spector." It moves in broad brushstrokes, it takes the Big Chord concept of early U2 to it's apotheosis. It is simply marevlous listening, and everyone should give it a try.
I went out last Saturday and saw the Femmetet, which includes singer/songwriter Kristy Hanson. As someone who has not been to a good show since Yo La Tengo four years ago, I was very impressed by what I heard. I bought Kristy's cd, and, well, have listened to pretty much nothing else since. I'm a little surprised by this, as I don't, as a general rule, dig the female singer-songwriter thing, but, well, she's amazingly good. Buy cd. Listen. See her live. Amazing!
Also, I've been listening quite a bit lately to a 9th Grade favorite of mine, Manic Street Preachers' Everything Must Go. It's not simply a good album from the height of 90s British Rock (it came out right after Pulp's Different Class and Oasis' What's the Story Morning Glory?, and before OK Computer and Spiritualized's Ladies and Gentlemen We Are Floating in Space), it might very well be the best of them. I was struck when listening to "Removables," probably the least good song from the album, how much better it was anything else that had come up on 'random' so far that day.
For those unfamiliar with the Manics, they were a derivitive-punk British band centered around the political ventings of Richey James. Their politics were not so much left- or right-leaning as anti-everything (thus: "Somebody told me to vote Conservative/ tragedy is not known under the dimmest of lights..." and "White liberal hates slavery/ needs Thai labor to clean his home..."). After a very rocky debut (the now unfortunately named Generation Terrorists), they released two mini-masterpieces, Gold Against the Soul and The Holy Bible, which produced, for example, the best song ever about World War I ("La Tristessa Durera"), the best song ever about anorexia ("4 st. 7 lb."), the best put-downs of Communist sympathy and P.C.-think ("Revol" and "P.C.P."), and pretty much the most terrifying song ever ("The Intense Humming of Evil," which opens with a snippet from the first speech at the Nuremberg Trials).
Then Richey James mysteriously disappeared. His car was found at a notorious suicide spot, but no trace of him was ever found. Thus came Everything Must Go: it's about some stuff, but it's really about the three remaining band members working through what can only be imagined as their intense anguish about the loss of their friend. The best description I ever heard of it was "Give 'Em Enough Rope as produced by Phil Spector." It moves in broad brushstrokes, it takes the Big Chord concept of early U2 to it's apotheosis. It is simply marevlous listening, and everyone should give it a try.
WELL II: All due respect to Ben on the MLBPA question, but I think he's getting it wrong. The collective bargaining agreement says that players can't restructure their contracts to accept drastically smaller amounts of money. This is what the MLBPA is worried about:
1. A-Rod signs with the Red Sox and cuts out, oh, $30 million or so from his contract, because that's the only way the owners are willing to make the trade.
2. Some other team asks a slightly smaller star to take a slightly smaller paycut. e.g. Ichiro in Seattle, in midseason, so that the Mariners can go out and get themselves (whatever it is they need that year). Under pressure from the owners, and the fans (why should Ichiro be so selfish?), he relents.
3. Prospects are asked to restructure their contracts to help make swaps of big players (Kevin Brown for Jeff Weaver plus prospects, for example) more financially viable. Since these people have virtually no leverage, and owners can screw up their entire careers if the players don't go along, they will.
So what you end up with is the reality that any contract a player signs will be virtually meaningless, since the owners will just put on pressure to restructure whenever they want (whether for a good reason or no reason at all). And the people who'd really end up getting hurt by this aren't the big stars, they're the guys in AAA who are trying to scrape together a living.
1. A-Rod signs with the Red Sox and cuts out, oh, $30 million or so from his contract, because that's the only way the owners are willing to make the trade.
2. Some other team asks a slightly smaller star to take a slightly smaller paycut. e.g. Ichiro in Seattle, in midseason, so that the Mariners can go out and get themselves (whatever it is they need that year). Under pressure from the owners, and the fans (why should Ichiro be so selfish?), he relents.
3. Prospects are asked to restructure their contracts to help make swaps of big players (Kevin Brown for Jeff Weaver plus prospects, for example) more financially viable. Since these people have virtually no leverage, and owners can screw up their entire careers if the players don't go along, they will.
So what you end up with is the reality that any contract a player signs will be virtually meaningless, since the owners will just put on pressure to restructure whenever they want (whether for a good reason or no reason at all). And the people who'd really end up getting hurt by this aren't the big stars, they're the guys in AAA who are trying to scrape together a living.
WELL: Gonna disagree with evangelical outpost on this one, thanks much.
Being one of those liberal types who supported the war on Iraq (without any reservations whatsoever), and living, as I do, in one of the most liberal towns in America (Ann Arbor), I often got asked the chickenhawk question: well, why don't you go and fight in Iraq, if you find it to be so important? I replied that if I was drafted, I would serve, and without mental reservation. But asking this question always struck me as disingenuous: why is it that if I support the war, I have to be prepared to fight it? Especially as I am, well, rather slight of frame, and have capacities that would be better utilized by putting me just about anywhere other than the front lines.
I think it's the same sort of thing in this instance. If those pesky Canadians invade, I'll be standing side-by-side with you, J.P., no matter how brutal things get. But it seems like set of personal abilities does not make me the ideal recruit for the Marines. I think there's an analogy in Christianity--not everyone has the same spiritual gifts, so not everyone will end up being a pastor, or in the choir, on teaching Sunday school. The diversity of gifts and their distribution across needs is vital to liberty, too.
Being one of those liberal types who supported the war on Iraq (without any reservations whatsoever), and living, as I do, in one of the most liberal towns in America (Ann Arbor), I often got asked the chickenhawk question: well, why don't you go and fight in Iraq, if you find it to be so important? I replied that if I was drafted, I would serve, and without mental reservation. But asking this question always struck me as disingenuous: why is it that if I support the war, I have to be prepared to fight it? Especially as I am, well, rather slight of frame, and have capacities that would be better utilized by putting me just about anywhere other than the front lines.
I think it's the same sort of thing in this instance. If those pesky Canadians invade, I'll be standing side-by-side with you, J.P., no matter how brutal things get. But it seems like set of personal abilities does not make me the ideal recruit for the Marines. I think there's an analogy in Christianity--not everyone has the same spiritual gifts, so not everyone will end up being a pastor, or in the choir, on teaching Sunday school. The diversity of gifts and their distribution across needs is vital to liberty, too.
QUOTE: Sara Butler!
"I think that's more or less on target, and the implicit criticism of the way things are these days certainly appeals to my old-fashioned sensibilities. However, I'm not sure I can agree with Mrs. Morse that the natural purpose of human sexuality is all that clear. I'm far more interested in which is the most virtuous way to use human sexuality, and, in addition to not being convinced that Mrs. Morse is entirely right about the "natural" purposes of sexuality, I'm just not convinced that what is "natural" and what is virtuous coincide. On the other hand, Will doesn't seem to think there is such a thing as virtue and that scares the crap out of me.
So, what does it mean to have sex virtuously...ahhhh, well, hmmm, I think it has something to do with acting in accordance with one's nature....now, of course, part of man's nature is that he has reason and will and can decide to act in all kinds of ways that are not according to his nature, which makes figuring out how he ought to act all the more troublesome. It's a lot easier to figure out the "purpose" of "artificial" institutions like marriage because they don't really occur in nature in any form. Marriage is a human institution (well, or a divinely instituted one, I guess, the main point is that while we may naturally identify ourselves as men and women, we don't naturally identify ourselves as husbands and wives, or, as Will put it, "Hormones do not recognize marriage contracts."); thus it is a little more simple to figure out the purpose of marriage, since we instituted it for that purpose, than it is to figure out the purpose of naturally occuring things like sex."
"I think that's more or less on target, and the implicit criticism of the way things are these days certainly appeals to my old-fashioned sensibilities. However, I'm not sure I can agree with Mrs. Morse that the natural purpose of human sexuality is all that clear. I'm far more interested in which is the most virtuous way to use human sexuality, and, in addition to not being convinced that Mrs. Morse is entirely right about the "natural" purposes of sexuality, I'm just not convinced that what is "natural" and what is virtuous coincide. On the other hand, Will doesn't seem to think there is such a thing as virtue and that scares the crap out of me.
So, what does it mean to have sex virtuously...ahhhh, well, hmmm, I think it has something to do with acting in accordance with one's nature....now, of course, part of man's nature is that he has reason and will and can decide to act in all kinds of ways that are not according to his nature, which makes figuring out how he ought to act all the more troublesome. It's a lot easier to figure out the "purpose" of "artificial" institutions like marriage because they don't really occur in nature in any form. Marriage is a human institution (well, or a divinely instituted one, I guess, the main point is that while we may naturally identify ourselves as men and women, we don't naturally identify ourselves as husbands and wives, or, as Will put it, "Hormones do not recognize marriage contracts."); thus it is a little more simple to figure out the purpose of marriage, since we instituted it for that purpose, than it is to figure out the purpose of naturally occuring things like sex."
QUOTE: I am pleasantly amused by the following from Tyler Cowen:
"Many people are knee-jerk deontologists and believe in common sense morality. Making them more thoughtful will not always improve the final outcome, but rather can increase their ability to rationalize wrong acts." [italics mine]
Because, of course, being a deontologist means you probably haven't spent enough time thinking about morality...
"Many people are knee-jerk deontologists and believe in common sense morality. Making them more thoughtful will not always improve the final outcome, but rather can increase their ability to rationalize wrong acts." [italics mine]
Because, of course, being a deontologist means you probably haven't spent enough time thinking about morality...
WELL: I'm never reading one of his books again (although I haven't since sixth grade, so it's not like he's losing much):
"Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people--the best people, the most enlightened people--do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form."
--Michael Crichton, in a speech to the San Francisco Commonwealth Club, September 2003
"Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people--the best people, the most enlightened people--do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form."
--Michael Crichton, in a speech to the San Francisco Commonwealth Club, September 2003
CHRISTMAS COMES EARLY: for this Yankees fan: A-Rod may not get traded.
And it's the Union that might keep it from happening.
Oh, this is too wonderful for me...
And it's the Union that might keep it from happening.
Oh, this is too wonderful for me...
LINK: I have a great deal of sympathy for Matt Powell's view on dating v. courtship. I'm somewhat in the middle on this question between my prescriptivist instincts (which tell me Matt is absolutely right), and the fact that the way dating rituals are carried out in society requires an entirely different sort of answer.
Matt, if you're reading, you may have some interest in Sara Butler's work, which mines the same general area, and I've been quite satisfied with what she has to say.
Matt, if you're reading, you may have some interest in Sara Butler's work, which mines the same general area, and I've been quite satisfied with what she has to say.
HILARIOUS: Letter Dan Drzener received in response to his recent Slate column:
"When will liberals such as yourself grow up and stand up for what is right in this cruel, vicious world?.... What is your point besides a pathological hatred of President Bush?.... Your constant harping, piddling criticisms and infantile tantrums about President Bush is just too much to take."
"When will liberals such as yourself grow up and stand up for what is right in this cruel, vicious world?.... What is your point besides a pathological hatred of President Bush?.... Your constant harping, piddling criticisms and infantile tantrums about President Bush is just too much to take."
QUOTE: Salon gets the Rolling Stones wrong:
""Let It Bleed" is soaked in addiction ("All my friends are junkies")..."
This would be a valid analysis, were the next line of the song not "that's not really true." Thus:
"I'm a flea-bit peanut monkey
all my friends are junkies
that's not really true...
...well I hope we're not too messianic
or a trifle too satanic
we love to play the blues"
It's pretty much a song deflating the myths people tried to build up around them. Score one for listening to the whole song.
""Let It Bleed" is soaked in addiction ("All my friends are junkies")..."
This would be a valid analysis, were the next line of the song not "that's not really true." Thus:
"I'm a flea-bit peanut monkey
all my friends are junkies
that's not really true...
...well I hope we're not too messianic
or a trifle too satanic
we love to play the blues"
It's pretty much a song deflating the myths people tried to build up around them. Score one for listening to the whole song.
18.12.03
LINK: Bask in the love and happiness that is madpony.
Also, kristin madpony offers the following, which pretty much also applies to those who spend their finals weeks writing 25-page papers about exciting topics like the historiography of Lenin in 1917:
1. Stock up on all of the finals week essentials: blue books, caffeine, scantrons, caffeine, number two pencils, caffeine, caffeine, and caffeine. And caffeine.
2. Forget that figure, food is your friend this week. Failed your botany test? Eat a pizza. Who said there was anything wrong with drowning your sorrows in a box of oreos? Someday when you finally get that degree, you'll be able to afford the liposuction anyway. Yay obesity!
3. But on that note, alcohol is not your friend. Alcohol is your dirty, unfaithful, backstabbing ex-friend. Until the moment when you complete your last exam, at which time you will be reunited with your buddy in a bottle to live happily ever after for the rest of Christmas break.
4. Just don't even talk to your boyfriend or girlfriend this week. Just don't. Finals week is a very stressful time, and quite often, your loved one could mistake their intense hatred of chemistry for an intense hatred of YOU.
5. Being attractive during finals week is simply not important. What is important is your happiness. So put on the pajamas and the slippers and wear them to class, to the mall, to work, and to IHOP (see number 7.) Do shower and change your clothes from time to time, but only if you feel like it.
6. Got God in your life? This is a good time to become extremely religious. Visit a church, say a prayer, carry a Bible in your backpack. And when people ask you why you aren't studying, say you've put your test "in God's hands." Because Jesus cares whether or not you fail Understanding Art. He really, really does.
7. Spread your studying out, doing a little bit each day in the week before your tests. HAHAHAHA J/K wait until approximately 8 hours before your test, drive to the nearest IHOP, pop 2 or 3 Adderall, and study like it's your JOB until you pass out face first in your Belgian waffles. Test and repeat.
Also, kristin madpony offers the following, which pretty much also applies to those who spend their finals weeks writing 25-page papers about exciting topics like the historiography of Lenin in 1917:
1. Stock up on all of the finals week essentials: blue books, caffeine, scantrons, caffeine, number two pencils, caffeine, caffeine, and caffeine. And caffeine.
2. Forget that figure, food is your friend this week. Failed your botany test? Eat a pizza. Who said there was anything wrong with drowning your sorrows in a box of oreos? Someday when you finally get that degree, you'll be able to afford the liposuction anyway. Yay obesity!
3. But on that note, alcohol is not your friend. Alcohol is your dirty, unfaithful, backstabbing ex-friend. Until the moment when you complete your last exam, at which time you will be reunited with your buddy in a bottle to live happily ever after for the rest of Christmas break.
4. Just don't even talk to your boyfriend or girlfriend this week. Just don't. Finals week is a very stressful time, and quite often, your loved one could mistake their intense hatred of chemistry for an intense hatred of YOU.
5. Being attractive during finals week is simply not important. What is important is your happiness. So put on the pajamas and the slippers and wear them to class, to the mall, to work, and to IHOP (see number 7.) Do shower and change your clothes from time to time, but only if you feel like it.
6. Got God in your life? This is a good time to become extremely religious. Visit a church, say a prayer, carry a Bible in your backpack. And when people ask you why you aren't studying, say you've put your test "in God's hands." Because Jesus cares whether or not you fail Understanding Art. He really, really does.
7. Spread your studying out, doing a little bit each day in the week before your tests. HAHAHAHA J/K wait until approximately 8 hours before your test, drive to the nearest IHOP, pop 2 or 3 Adderall, and study like it's your JOB until you pass out face first in your Belgian waffles. Test and repeat.
THREE FOR EVANGELICAL OUTPOST, NO. 3: My response to my own query about Job, which you can still comment on, if you like:
Fundamentally, I think God was right: Job was not faithful to God just because God did good things for him. All the bad stuff happened, Job got upset, but God comes in and sets him straight... and Job accepts it.
But I think there's a little misdirection at the beginning of the story, because we are tempted, like Job, to think that God is being unreasonable or unfair. Much of Job's argumentation is about how good he is, and how he does the things for God that he's supposed to do. But one of his interlocutors makes a good point:
know therefore that God exacteth of thee less than thine iniquity deserveth.
-Job 11:6
And what precisely is Job's iniquity? He assumes that the things he does automatically require God to give him good things, as if God's grace was the figurative check at the end of Job's work week, owed to him for services rendered. But, of course, it doesn't actually work that way.
So why does God do what he does to Job? Rather, I think, because He loves Job, but sees that little problem he has which prevents him from going at God the right way, and wants to set him straight.
Thoughts?
Fundamentally, I think God was right: Job was not faithful to God just because God did good things for him. All the bad stuff happened, Job got upset, but God comes in and sets him straight... and Job accepts it.
But I think there's a little misdirection at the beginning of the story, because we are tempted, like Job, to think that God is being unreasonable or unfair. Much of Job's argumentation is about how good he is, and how he does the things for God that he's supposed to do. But one of his interlocutors makes a good point:
know therefore that God exacteth of thee less than thine iniquity deserveth.
-Job 11:6
And what precisely is Job's iniquity? He assumes that the things he does automatically require God to give him good things, as if God's grace was the figurative check at the end of Job's work week, owed to him for services rendered. But, of course, it doesn't actually work that way.
So why does God do what he does to Job? Rather, I think, because He loves Job, but sees that little problem he has which prevents him from going at God the right way, and wants to set him straight.
Thoughts?
THREE FOR EVANGELICAL OUTPOST, NO. 2: Do I self-identify as an evangelical? Three answers:
1. It depends on what you mean by 'evangelical.' I spent six or seven years at what, so far as I'm aware, was a fairly orthodox (ha) evangelical church. I had two main problems with them as a matter of theology: the first was that they insisted that the evangelical side of the faith required actually going out to complete strangers and striking up conversations with them about Christianity. I categorically reject the notion that evangelism has to take the same form for all people; I think it's a matter of what spiritual gifts you have and how you can best apply them. If the latter is within evangelicalism, then I suppose I am one.
The second concern I had was something that has occasionally been commented on, which is what the precise status of the Christian-in-the-world is supposed to be. There was a certain reservedness in my church, on both a cultural and intellectual level. I suspect this bias does not apply to evangelicals who blog, but they happened to be harsh enough about it at a tender enough stage in my development that it made a pretty big impact.
2. Prior to my stint in an evangelical church, I spent my formative years in the Reformed Church of America. I'm a Heidelberg Catechism sort of guy, and I always have been. I believe in justification through faith alone, the sole authority of the Bible, and the priesthood of all believers, and I make common cause with anyone who thinks the same.
3. When it comes to breaking up into sects of Christians, I generally think of this experience I had at a Promise Keepers rally some years ago (I was a precocious 8th grader, that's for sure):
guy on stage: [yelling] what church do you go to?
crowd: [incomprehensible shouting]
guy on stage: who's your lord and savior?
crowd: Jesus Christ!
which I believe pretty much says it all
1. It depends on what you mean by 'evangelical.' I spent six or seven years at what, so far as I'm aware, was a fairly orthodox (ha) evangelical church. I had two main problems with them as a matter of theology: the first was that they insisted that the evangelical side of the faith required actually going out to complete strangers and striking up conversations with them about Christianity. I categorically reject the notion that evangelism has to take the same form for all people; I think it's a matter of what spiritual gifts you have and how you can best apply them. If the latter is within evangelicalism, then I suppose I am one.
The second concern I had was something that has occasionally been commented on, which is what the precise status of the Christian-in-the-world is supposed to be. There was a certain reservedness in my church, on both a cultural and intellectual level. I suspect this bias does not apply to evangelicals who blog, but they happened to be harsh enough about it at a tender enough stage in my development that it made a pretty big impact.
2. Prior to my stint in an evangelical church, I spent my formative years in the Reformed Church of America. I'm a Heidelberg Catechism sort of guy, and I always have been. I believe in justification through faith alone, the sole authority of the Bible, and the priesthood of all believers, and I make common cause with anyone who thinks the same.
3. When it comes to breaking up into sects of Christians, I generally think of this experience I had at a Promise Keepers rally some years ago (I was a precocious 8th grader, that's for sure):
guy on stage: [yelling] what church do you go to?
crowd: [incomprehensible shouting]
guy on stage: who's your lord and savior?
crowd: Jesus Christ!
which I believe pretty much says it all
THREE FOR EVANGELICAL OUTPOST, NO. 1:
Sign me up, though blog linkage will have to wait until my last exam is done (Friday afternoon).
Sign me up, though blog linkage will have to wait until my last exam is done (Friday afternoon).
17.12.03
MY RESULTS: from the ethical philosophy selector:
1. Aquinas (100%)
2. Aristotle (82%)
3. Ockham (82%)
4. John Stuart Mill (75%)
5. Kant (72%)
6. Jeremy Bentham (69%)
7. St. Augustine (67%)
8. Jean-Paul Sartre (58%)
9. Spinoza (55%)
10. Ayn Rand (53%)
11. Prescriptivism (51%)
Quoth evangelical outpost:
"Aquinas
(Thomists – Morally solid even if they do think too much. Make good Catholics.)"
I'd make a good Catholic [snicker].
Yeah, except for that justification by faith alone thing.
Though, come to think of it, this probably explains why I'm a Presbyterian.
1. Aquinas (100%)
2. Aristotle (82%)
3. Ockham (82%)
4. John Stuart Mill (75%)
5. Kant (72%)
6. Jeremy Bentham (69%)
7. St. Augustine (67%)
8. Jean-Paul Sartre (58%)
9. Spinoza (55%)
10. Ayn Rand (53%)
11. Prescriptivism (51%)
Quoth evangelical outpost:
"Aquinas
(Thomists – Morally solid even if they do think too much. Make good Catholics.)"
I'd make a good Catholic [snicker].
Yeah, except for that justification by faith alone thing.
Though, come to think of it, this probably explains why I'm a Presbyterian.
LINK: Matthew Yglesias runs a clinic on international relations game theory. I have three concerns:
1. I'm reluctant to place any dispute, even a purely theoretical one, one a two-dimensional axis with the dimensions undefined. What you make those two policy questions into matters a lot, especially since Matt is trying to imply that there is or could be linkage between them, but it's not impossible to imagine a set of circumstances where you have two relatable but not linked foreign policy questions.
2. At least part of his analysis seems to hinge on the preferences of the actors being circular and not elliptical. It is, however, one of my base contentions no one is ever indifferent between options, and that one will always be more important than the other. If the preferences of all the actors skew horizontal rather than vertical (and again, it really matters what the issues are to determine how this would work out), then that radically alters the likely outcome.
3. Bringing in D in the final part of his post is a little bit misleading. The Pareto Optimal set is the blue-ish area on his graph only so long as A, B and C are the relevant actors. If D is included, then the Pareto Optimal set becomes the triangle BCD, so it shouldn't be surpising at all if the proposal D makes is within this set and close to it's ideal point. But then again, they'd do that if the Status Quo was outside the Pareto Optimal set for any other, non-catastrophic reason, so I'm skeptical about how much you can read into that.
1. I'm reluctant to place any dispute, even a purely theoretical one, one a two-dimensional axis with the dimensions undefined. What you make those two policy questions into matters a lot, especially since Matt is trying to imply that there is or could be linkage between them, but it's not impossible to imagine a set of circumstances where you have two relatable but not linked foreign policy questions.
2. At least part of his analysis seems to hinge on the preferences of the actors being circular and not elliptical. It is, however, one of my base contentions no one is ever indifferent between options, and that one will always be more important than the other. If the preferences of all the actors skew horizontal rather than vertical (and again, it really matters what the issues are to determine how this would work out), then that radically alters the likely outcome.
3. Bringing in D in the final part of his post is a little bit misleading. The Pareto Optimal set is the blue-ish area on his graph only so long as A, B and C are the relevant actors. If D is included, then the Pareto Optimal set becomes the triangle BCD, so it shouldn't be surpising at all if the proposal D makes is within this set and close to it's ideal point. But then again, they'd do that if the Status Quo was outside the Pareto Optimal set for any other, non-catastrophic reason, so I'm skeptical about how much you can read into that.
16.12.03
LINK: I submit the following from J.P. Carter at evangelical outpost as a very pithy and accurate summary of Protestant ethical thought. Oh, and a fine example of how to be pissed off at something someone says and to turn that into a positive argument for your own position, using ample citations to back up your position.
"Does Ms. Postrel think that Saddam is some form of human anomaly? Does she believe that he's simply a psychopath and that he differs so much from “good” people like...well, like her? If so I believe she has a misguided and naïve view of human nature. She would do well to reflect on the words of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, a Russian who understood the nature of man all too well:
If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being, and who is willing to destroy his own heart?
I know where the line between good and evil is drawn. I've looked deep into my own heart and trembled at what I saw. And that, Ms. Postrel, is reason number 7, 598 why I’m not an atheist."
"Does Ms. Postrel think that Saddam is some form of human anomaly? Does she believe that he's simply a psychopath and that he differs so much from “good” people like...well, like her? If so I believe she has a misguided and naïve view of human nature. She would do well to reflect on the words of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, a Russian who understood the nature of man all too well:
If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being, and who is willing to destroy his own heart?
I know where the line between good and evil is drawn. I've looked deep into my own heart and trembled at what I saw. And that, Ms. Postrel, is reason number 7, 598 why I’m not an atheist."
HEY! My comments section has itself a troll now. Clearly a sign that I've arrived.
Just a general note for posters: I accept general differences of opinion on all manner of topics, and am acutely aware of the need for humor and vitriol, at appropriate moments. Howvever, generally inflammatory or ad hominem comments will be deleted, and repeat offenders will be banned.
Just a general note for posters: I accept general differences of opinion on all manner of topics, and am acutely aware of the need for humor and vitriol, at appropriate moments. Howvever, generally inflammatory or ad hominem comments will be deleted, and repeat offenders will be banned.
HAHA: From my Art History paper, a footnote:
"De Genesi ad litteram, 18. note: Latinate names will be retained for the purposes of citation for three reasons: first, much of the scholarly literature as well as the notes to the Libri Carolini address Augustine’s works by these names, so for purposes of congruity I will retain their system. Secondly, there exist a fair number of Augustine’s works for which English translations of the titles fail to accurate capture the meaning in the original Latin (De doctrina christiana being an accepted case thereof). Thirdly, I’m proud of the progress I have made in my Latin this term, and would like to show that off a little bit."
"De Genesi ad litteram, 18. note: Latinate names will be retained for the purposes of citation for three reasons: first, much of the scholarly literature as well as the notes to the Libri Carolini address Augustine’s works by these names, so for purposes of congruity I will retain their system. Secondly, there exist a fair number of Augustine’s works for which English translations of the titles fail to accurate capture the meaning in the original Latin (De doctrina christiana being an accepted case thereof). Thirdly, I’m proud of the progress I have made in my Latin this term, and would like to show that off a little bit."
QUOTE: This is a slightly not-as-good formulation of what was in his last SOTU, but I still like it anyway. If any Democrat ever utters anything comparable to this, I would vote for them in a heartbeat:
"I believe, firmly believe — and you've heard me say this a lot, and I say it a lot because I truly believe it — that freedom is the almighty God's gift to every person — every man and woman who lives in this world."
"I believe, firmly believe — and you've heard me say this a lot, and I say it a lot because I truly believe it — that freedom is the almighty God's gift to every person — every man and woman who lives in this world."
VARIOUS AND SUNDRY THOUGHTS ON THE DEAN FOREIGN POLICY SPEECH: which are not mine:
TNR has a piece that confirms my long-time suspicion that people will stick to their party affiliation rather than a rational collection of their policy interests (translation: people are kind of sheep when it comes to politics.*)
Matt Yglesias' thoughts on TAPPED: "Yesterday, though, the impassioned Howard Dean seems to have vanished in favor of an earnest policy wonk." Fabulous! We'll get that Bush-Gore rematch, after all.
David Brooks writes critically about Dean. I think this is spot on:
"Dean is not a modern-day Woodrow Wilson. He is not a mushy idealist who dreams of a world government. Instead, he spoke of international institutions as if they were big versions of the National Governors Association, as places where pragmatic leaders can go to leverage their own resources and solve problems.
The world Dean described is largely devoid of grand conflicts or moral, cultural and ideological divides. It is a world without passionate nationalism, a world in which Europe and the United States are not riven by any serious cultural differences, in which sensible people from around the globe would find common solutions, if only Bush weren't so unilateral.
At first, the Bush worldview seems far more airy-fairy and idealistic. The man talks about God, and good versus evil. But in reality, Dean is the more idealistic and naïve one. Bush at least recognizes the existence of intellectual and cultural conflict. He acknowledges that different value systems are incompatible."
Pejman says quite a bit I agree with:
"Dan Drezner does a great job taking apart Dean's speech. I'll just add the following:
1. Do a "Ctrl F" search for the word "Iran." See what you find.
2. Nothing? Well, maybe that's a fluke. Try a "Ctrl F" for "China." Do you get lucky?
3. No? Good grief. Try "Japan." Anything there?
4. Nope? How about "Africa"?
5. Still nothing? Try "India," or "Pakistan" or "Kashmir." I mean isn't a potential nuclear clash supposed to be deserving of attention?"
*Not that there's anything wrong with that. In some ways, it makes more sense: why not follow the people whose outlook you generally agree with who know more about the subject than you do?
TNR has a piece that confirms my long-time suspicion that people will stick to their party affiliation rather than a rational collection of their policy interests (translation: people are kind of sheep when it comes to politics.*)
Matt Yglesias' thoughts on TAPPED: "Yesterday, though, the impassioned Howard Dean seems to have vanished in favor of an earnest policy wonk." Fabulous! We'll get that Bush-Gore rematch, after all.
David Brooks writes critically about Dean. I think this is spot on:
"Dean is not a modern-day Woodrow Wilson. He is not a mushy idealist who dreams of a world government. Instead, he spoke of international institutions as if they were big versions of the National Governors Association, as places where pragmatic leaders can go to leverage their own resources and solve problems.
The world Dean described is largely devoid of grand conflicts or moral, cultural and ideological divides. It is a world without passionate nationalism, a world in which Europe and the United States are not riven by any serious cultural differences, in which sensible people from around the globe would find common solutions, if only Bush weren't so unilateral.
At first, the Bush worldview seems far more airy-fairy and idealistic. The man talks about God, and good versus evil. But in reality, Dean is the more idealistic and naïve one. Bush at least recognizes the existence of intellectual and cultural conflict. He acknowledges that different value systems are incompatible."
Pejman says quite a bit I agree with:
"Dan Drezner does a great job taking apart Dean's speech. I'll just add the following:
1. Do a "Ctrl F" search for the word "Iran." See what you find.
2. Nothing? Well, maybe that's a fluke. Try a "Ctrl F" for "China." Do you get lucky?
3. No? Good grief. Try "Japan." Anything there?
4. Nope? How about "Africa"?
5. Still nothing? Try "India," or "Pakistan" or "Kashmir." I mean isn't a potential nuclear clash supposed to be deserving of attention?"
*Not that there's anything wrong with that. In some ways, it makes more sense: why not follow the people whose outlook you generally agree with who know more about the subject than you do?
LINK: Pejman, who generally has a good quote of the day, has an especially good one today. Go and check out.
LINK: Dan Drezner has a nice summary of the state of EU Constitution negotiations, for those interested in that sort of thing. I am, of course, a big fan of the Spanish-Polish alliance which now seems to be flexing it's muscles on behalf of all the countries in Europe whose names do not rhyme with 'blance' and 'fermany.'
15.12.03
ALL THAT FOR NOTHING? Yale says the magic words:
"Supplemental materials [i.e., letters of recommendation] received by our office will be forwarded to the program to which you have applied in accordance with an established schedule. Supplemental materials received after the deadline will also be sent to the program to which you applied."
"Supplemental materials [i.e., letters of recommendation] received by our office will be forwarded to the program to which you have applied in accordance with an established schedule. Supplemental materials received after the deadline will also be sent to the program to which you applied."
WELL: I feel like this right now.
But without the mass genocide and all.
I'm currently 19 pages through a 25 page paper on Lenin in St. Petersburg in 1917, and I'm calling it a night.
I still have to cover Pipes on the leadup to the October Revolution, the social history critique, and my response to it.
Which means I won't have to worry about running out of things to say.
So that's what I do tomorrow after I finish putting my citations into my Augustine and the Image paper... why didn't I put them in when I wrote it for my presentation two months ago (or whenever)?
Hindsight, man, it's 20/20.
If you're bored, you can see if this is still up. Fairly amusing, I must say.
And I'm also horribly, horribly jealous that someone's out there right now not writing a paper.
But without the mass genocide and all.
I'm currently 19 pages through a 25 page paper on Lenin in St. Petersburg in 1917, and I'm calling it a night.
I still have to cover Pipes on the leadup to the October Revolution, the social history critique, and my response to it.
Which means I won't have to worry about running out of things to say.
So that's what I do tomorrow after I finish putting my citations into my Augustine and the Image paper... why didn't I put them in when I wrote it for my presentation two months ago (or whenever)?
Hindsight, man, it's 20/20.
If you're bored, you can see if this is still up. Fairly amusing, I must say.
And I'm also horribly, horribly jealous that someone's out there right now not writing a paper.
14.12.03
QUOTE: God wears many hats, as Iraqi blogger Alaa reminds us:
"And above all Praise be to Allah the Almighty the Avenger."
"And above all Praise be to Allah the Almighty the Avenger."
QUOTE:
"Although affliction cometh not forth of the dust, neither doth trouble spring out of the ground; yet man is born unto trouble, as the sparks fly upward."
-Job 5:6-7
Is not Job the best book of the Bible, at least from a purely literary standpoint? The choice of phrasing is impeccable, the argumentation is serious and manages to convey real emotional content in a way a lesser writing would not, and standing at the center of it all is one of the biggest (if not the biggest) problem for Christians to grapple with.
So here's my serious question, for anyone who cares to answer (evangelical outpost may care to answer; I'd be interested in seeing if his take is different than mine): we know God doesn't allow Job to suffer because of anything Job does (at least nothing that's specifically listed), and we know God's of the opinion that He doesn't have to justify his actions (and Christians such as myself are inclined to take His word for it): so, why does God allow Job to suffer?
Thoughts?
"Although affliction cometh not forth of the dust, neither doth trouble spring out of the ground; yet man is born unto trouble, as the sparks fly upward."
-Job 5:6-7
Is not Job the best book of the Bible, at least from a purely literary standpoint? The choice of phrasing is impeccable, the argumentation is serious and manages to convey real emotional content in a way a lesser writing would not, and standing at the center of it all is one of the biggest (if not the biggest) problem for Christians to grapple with.
So here's my serious question, for anyone who cares to answer (evangelical outpost may care to answer; I'd be interested in seeing if his take is different than mine): we know God doesn't allow Job to suffer because of anything Job does (at least nothing that's specifically listed), and we know God's of the opinion that He doesn't have to justify his actions (and Christians such as myself are inclined to take His word for it): so, why does God allow Job to suffer?
Thoughts?
13.12.03
NON-BASEBALL SPORTS CONTENT: The Big Ten men's basketball standings... Michigan, all the way near the top; Michigan State waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down at the bottom.
LINK: David, as usual, almost gets it right. Of course you can't do national reconstruction on the cheap, and it's worth every dollar we spend. David, unfortunately, forgets who proposed the $87 billion for Iraq, and which party spent all of its time vociferously opposing spending the money.
LET ALL YANKEES FANS REJOICE: That the screwed-up Sheff situation might work out, after all:
"...Speaking of matters Steinbrenner is handling himself, an official of one team that spoke with the Yankees on Friday said the Yankees are keeping Gary Sheffield at a distance while they "move in on Vladimir Guerrero." Neither the Yankees nor Guerrero's agent, Fernando Cuza, made an appearance in New Orleans on Friday. But the official said the Yankees had become sufficiently convinced that Guerrero's interest in them was sincere that they were launching a major effort to sign him.
At the same time, they haven't told Sheffield the three-year, $39-million contract he thought he'd negotiated was officially defunct -- but only because they aren't telling Sheffield anything about anything at the moment."
"...Speaking of matters Steinbrenner is handling himself, an official of one team that spoke with the Yankees on Friday said the Yankees are keeping Gary Sheffield at a distance while they "move in on Vladimir Guerrero." Neither the Yankees nor Guerrero's agent, Fernando Cuza, made an appearance in New Orleans on Friday. But the official said the Yankees had become sufficiently convinced that Guerrero's interest in them was sincere that they were launching a major effort to sign him.
At the same time, they haven't told Sheffield the three-year, $39-million contract he thought he'd negotiated was officially defunct -- but only because they aren't telling Sheffield anything about anything at the moment."
12.12.03
SCHOOLYARD POLITICS: Seriously, guys, aren't you a little old to be doing this sort of thing?
Apparently not.
Apparently not.
QUOTE: vis-a-vis the apportionment question, Prof. Achen recommended the Harlan dissent in Baker v. Carr as an example of the sort of reasoning I'm embracing. To wit:
"A State's choice to distribute electoral strength among geographical units, rather than according to a census of population, is certainly no less a rational decision of policy than would be its choice to levy a tax on property rather than a tax on income. Both are legislative judgments entitled to equal respect from this Court."
So let's consider what this might actually look like. Let's say Michigan in the next reapportionment only has 4 House seats. Which of the following is going to be more representitive?
A. To have the House seats apportioned by equally distributing the population
B. To have the House seats representing regions of the state (for example, SE Michigan, Western Michigan (Grand Rapids area), Northern Michigan (above Midland and over to Traverse City), the U.P.).
The second option is definitely not 'equal' in the strict sense that the numbers would be wildly different for each district, but the end result is better because it groups people together by what issues (and the lifestyle) they have in common. e.g. urban sprawl is a bigger issue in Ann Arbor and Plymouth than it is in, oh, West Jordan or Ishpeming.
This is, of course, in some ways an oversimplification because Oakland County is not Washtenaw County, and a million other things like that, but I think the general principle is a good one.
"A State's choice to distribute electoral strength among geographical units, rather than according to a census of population, is certainly no less a rational decision of policy than would be its choice to levy a tax on property rather than a tax on income. Both are legislative judgments entitled to equal respect from this Court."
So let's consider what this might actually look like. Let's say Michigan in the next reapportionment only has 4 House seats. Which of the following is going to be more representitive?
A. To have the House seats apportioned by equally distributing the population
B. To have the House seats representing regions of the state (for example, SE Michigan, Western Michigan (Grand Rapids area), Northern Michigan (above Midland and over to Traverse City), the U.P.).
The second option is definitely not 'equal' in the strict sense that the numbers would be wildly different for each district, but the end result is better because it groups people together by what issues (and the lifestyle) they have in common. e.g. urban sprawl is a bigger issue in Ann Arbor and Plymouth than it is in, oh, West Jordan or Ishpeming.
This is, of course, in some ways an oversimplification because Oakland County is not Washtenaw County, and a million other things like that, but I think the general principle is a good one.
AND: Actually, while I'm still thinking about this reapportionment set of questions, let me shoot down Matthew Yglesias' suggestion, I think, fairly easily:
Any system other than plurality rule by it's very nature is descriminatory*, because it manages to both contravene the principle of one-man, one-vote, and because it's inherently biased against people who only have one candidate they want to get elected (there's a huge difference, after all, in asking people to order Bush, Nader and Gore (though this would be biased against people who only wanted, for example, to vote for Gore, since they'd have no second choice) and asking them to order Dean, Kerry, Lieberman, Kucinich, Edwards, Gephardt, Mosley-Braun, Sharpton and Clark). These sorts of proposals tend to get made by people who spend lots of time following politics, and can thus make those sorts of fine-grained distinctions, and tend to ignore how this would work out for people who vote but don't really follow politics.
*Except, of course, for intensity rules, though those descriminate against people with more than one choice. Plurality rule is nice because it puts everyone on an even playing field, regardless of the sophistication of their thinking about the candidates running.
AND as I look at the rule he proposes again, it looks like a Hamiltonian apportionment system, as is used in some party caucuses, though I think the Hamiltonian system has fewer problems because it sets the bar of X/N, weeds out all the candidates who fail to get a certain percentage of the votes, then re-votes amongst the remaining candidates, apportioning by X/N. Of course, even this rule has structural flaws that I won't get into right now because I should probably think about having to get up for work in the morning...
Any system other than plurality rule by it's very nature is descriminatory*, because it manages to both contravene the principle of one-man, one-vote, and because it's inherently biased against people who only have one candidate they want to get elected (there's a huge difference, after all, in asking people to order Bush, Nader and Gore (though this would be biased against people who only wanted, for example, to vote for Gore, since they'd have no second choice) and asking them to order Dean, Kerry, Lieberman, Kucinich, Edwards, Gephardt, Mosley-Braun, Sharpton and Clark). These sorts of proposals tend to get made by people who spend lots of time following politics, and can thus make those sorts of fine-grained distinctions, and tend to ignore how this would work out for people who vote but don't really follow politics.
*Except, of course, for intensity rules, though those descriminate against people with more than one choice. Plurality rule is nice because it puts everyone on an even playing field, regardless of the sophistication of their thinking about the candidates running.
AND as I look at the rule he proposes again, it looks like a Hamiltonian apportionment system, as is used in some party caucuses, though I think the Hamiltonian system has fewer problems because it sets the bar of X/N, weeds out all the candidates who fail to get a certain percentage of the votes, then re-votes amongst the remaining candidates, apportioning by X/N. Of course, even this rule has structural flaws that I won't get into right now because I should probably think about having to get up for work in the morning...
11.12.03
JOHN EDWARDS-PALOOZA: Since one of the guys I'd vote for over Bush won't be winning the nom, let us all take a moment to bask in how he sounds and acts like a fully formed human being:
"In the book's afterword, Edwards semi-apologizes for writing about Wade: "When I began to think about this book, I did not know how much I would say about Wade, or particularly about his death, and I thought it would be best not to say that much about it. But as I attempted to explain my life as an advocate and as a man, I found it impossible not to speak of him. As much as anyone is—as much as my other children, Cate, Emma Claire, and Jack, as much as my parents, my grandmother, and my wife—Wade is who I am." He concludes the book, "I have learned two great lessons—that there will always be heartache and struggle, and that people of strong will can make a difference. One is a sad lesson; the other is inspiring. I choose to be inspired." "
and, for some levity, a joke (I think this came from Ted Barlow's lightbulb joke contest a few months back):
Q. How many John Edwardses does it take to change a light bulb?
A. One, just like regular people.
"In the book's afterword, Edwards semi-apologizes for writing about Wade: "When I began to think about this book, I did not know how much I would say about Wade, or particularly about his death, and I thought it would be best not to say that much about it. But as I attempted to explain my life as an advocate and as a man, I found it impossible not to speak of him. As much as anyone is—as much as my other children, Cate, Emma Claire, and Jack, as much as my parents, my grandmother, and my wife—Wade is who I am." He concludes the book, "I have learned two great lessons—that there will always be heartache and struggle, and that people of strong will can make a difference. One is a sad lesson; the other is inspiring. I choose to be inspired." "
and, for some levity, a joke (I think this came from Ted Barlow's lightbulb joke contest a few months back):
Q. How many John Edwardses does it take to change a light bulb?
A. One, just like regular people.
LINKS: It's a great day for me when both Matthew Yglesias and Ted Barlow hit on the very topic I was discussing with the soon-to-depart (for the greener pastures of Princeton) Prof. Achen just yesterday. Allow me to get into full-out contrarian mode:
I think districts which are "gerrymandered" on the basis of political affiliation are a good thing, because they produce more representitve districts than neutral or competitive districts. Look at it this way: if you're a Democrat in a congressional district that swings 60-40 Republican, you're pretty much completely screwed: you might get a candidate who can win once in a great while (unlikely with the advantages afforded to incumbency), but mostly you'll pour lots of energy into electoral campaigns you're going to lose, albeit closely. Whoever wins the district is less likely to listen to you because he/she will be expending all of their energy trying to woo the base of their party (for turnout purposes).
Let's say you live in a 80-20 Republican district. The odds then become much less likely that you're a Democrat, so fewer people on the whole will believe they don't have appropriate representation (on the party level, anyway, and assuming, as I do, that internal differences within parties are largely moot for electoral purposes). For the minority who are of the opposite party, it will obviously not be easy for them to attract attention to their political issues, but, then again, they will be consigned to their fate as electoral losers (and expend less energy there) and more likely to try alternative ways of getting their congressman's attention. Additionally, 80-20 districts open up the possibility of the "One Big Sell," where the candidate agrees to shill for an interest who will foot the bill of their campaigns, and is then free to vote their conscience on a great many more issues than they would be able to if they required the absolute unified support of their party to win.
In conclusion, Congress is a land of contrasts.
Thoughts?
I think districts which are "gerrymandered" on the basis of political affiliation are a good thing, because they produce more representitve districts than neutral or competitive districts. Look at it this way: if you're a Democrat in a congressional district that swings 60-40 Republican, you're pretty much completely screwed: you might get a candidate who can win once in a great while (unlikely with the advantages afforded to incumbency), but mostly you'll pour lots of energy into electoral campaigns you're going to lose, albeit closely. Whoever wins the district is less likely to listen to you because he/she will be expending all of their energy trying to woo the base of their party (for turnout purposes).
Let's say you live in a 80-20 Republican district. The odds then become much less likely that you're a Democrat, so fewer people on the whole will believe they don't have appropriate representation (on the party level, anyway, and assuming, as I do, that internal differences within parties are largely moot for electoral purposes). For the minority who are of the opposite party, it will obviously not be easy for them to attract attention to their political issues, but, then again, they will be consigned to their fate as electoral losers (and expend less energy there) and more likely to try alternative ways of getting their congressman's attention. Additionally, 80-20 districts open up the possibility of the "One Big Sell," where the candidate agrees to shill for an interest who will foot the bill of their campaigns, and is then free to vote their conscience on a great many more issues than they would be able to if they required the absolute unified support of their party to win.
In conclusion, Congress is a land of contrasts.
Thoughts?
HOT STOVIN' IT: I promise this is absolutely the last baseball post for a week.
Or until tomorrow.
Either way.
Anyway, A Small Victory and all Yankees fans everywhere should not fret: Pettitte leaving and Brown coming in isn't that bad. The contrarian case is actually stronger than you might think, but it's premised on two realizations:
1. Kevin Brown is a replacement for Roger Clemens. Javier Vazquez is the replacement for Pettitte. So Brown's a little iffier... not like there weren't major question marks over a 40-year old last season.
2. Pettitte is a fine example of a good but not great pitcher made better by being a Yankee. Look at his stat line... it's good, but it's not killer. Even if he'd stayed, he would've been starter #2, at best (behind Moose) and probably #3. Pay nearly $40 million for your #3 guy? Who do you think they are, the Yankees?
Or until tomorrow.
Either way.
Anyway, A Small Victory and all Yankees fans everywhere should not fret: Pettitte leaving and Brown coming in isn't that bad. The contrarian case is actually stronger than you might think, but it's premised on two realizations:
1. Kevin Brown is a replacement for Roger Clemens. Javier Vazquez is the replacement for Pettitte. So Brown's a little iffier... not like there weren't major question marks over a 40-year old last season.
2. Pettitte is a fine example of a good but not great pitcher made better by being a Yankee. Look at his stat line... it's good, but it's not killer. Even if he'd stayed, he would've been starter #2, at best (behind Moose) and probably #3. Pay nearly $40 million for your #3 guy? Who do you think they are, the Yankees?
MY AFTERNOON NIGHTMARE: began thusly:
NICK [knocks on door to Prof. Curley's office]
PROF CURLEY: Come on in. [Nick comes in] Oh, hi Nick. [begins shuffling papers around on his desk]. I have your letters for you, but usually they have a form that you send along with them. Do you have those?
NICK: Actually, I gave them to you about a month ago...
NICK [knocks on door to Prof. Curley's office]
PROF CURLEY: Come on in. [Nick comes in] Oh, hi Nick. [begins shuffling papers around on his desk]. I have your letters for you, but usually they have a form that you send along with them. Do you have those?
NICK: Actually, I gave them to you about a month ago...
LINK: Amusing Harvard/Yale comparison piece. They do end up making Yale sound like Michigan State with money, though.
HOT STOVIN' IT: see A Small Victory for someone who shares my pain at the moment. Andy Pettitte gone! Egads!
So where do we go from here? Kevin Brown for Jeff Weaver (thus allowing two teams to get rid of big problems of theirs). Then we'd have Mussina, Vazquez, Brown, Contreras and Leiber/Wells (thus allowing us one decent out-of-the-bullpen serious innings guy). Sheff to RF and Vlad (gonna have to happen now) to center, put Bernie Williams at 2B and have him and Soriano switch between playing and DH-ing (a la Giambi and Johnson the last couple of years). Or get Vlad and Sheff and trade Soriano for some prospects.
Remaining optimistic, despite knowing the reality.
So where do we go from here? Kevin Brown for Jeff Weaver (thus allowing two teams to get rid of big problems of theirs). Then we'd have Mussina, Vazquez, Brown, Contreras and Leiber/Wells (thus allowing us one decent out-of-the-bullpen serious innings guy). Sheff to RF and Vlad (gonna have to happen now) to center, put Bernie Williams at 2B and have him and Soriano switch between playing and DH-ing (a la Giambi and Johnson the last couple of years). Or get Vlad and Sheff and trade Soriano for some prospects.
Remaining optimistic, despite knowing the reality.
LINK: I direct your attention over to this nice post from evangelical outpost about why he's not a libertarian. I read it, and I think I can safely say that I wholeheartedly agree with everything he says.
LINK: Madpony is the best thing since sliced bread. Their stories are as funny as I wish all of mine could be. And (sorry to mention this, Dara, but it has to be said) brown-hair madpony (real name: Kristin) is kind of hot. I do have my priorities, after all.
LINK: Pejman holds forth on a subject near and dear to my heart, and quotes the following approvingly:
"Posters and tracts that were distributed had many slogans in favor of US intereference in Iran. A poster read "Establish democracy with American boots", another one read "foreign oppression is preferable to domestic oppression" . The cover of a student magazine carried by everyone stated "Establishing democracy and freedom has the highest value even if its through occupation and foreign interference"."
"Posters and tracts that were distributed had many slogans in favor of US intereference in Iran. A poster read "Establish democracy with American boots", another one read "foreign oppression is preferable to domestic oppression" . The cover of a student magazine carried by everyone stated "Establishing democracy and freedom has the highest value even if its through occupation and foreign interference"."
10.12.03
THIS ONE'S FOR BECKY: So I checked out the latest polls on Howard Dean (with some trenchant analysis thereupon found here), and here's something that doesn't bode well for the general election:
Candidate support amongst Democrats, based on ideology:
Liberal Moderate Conservative
Dean 40 17 11
So it's pretty clear he's got the liberal wing of the party wrapped up, but it's not clear that he's going to do much better outside of that part of the party (Gore's endorsement doesn't help him much because it's unclear 1. how much sway Gore has amongst Dem. establishment types, who don't make a difference when it comes to primary outcomes but make a huge difference when it comes to national coordination of strategies* 2. Gore's not really a moderate Democrat anymore, and hasn't been (as Andrew Sullivan noted) since his acceptance speech at the DNC convention).
Let's be charitable and assume that party loyalty will allow him to treble his moderate and conservative support (by no means a clear thing). He'd still be winning only a slight majority of Democratic moderates, and only a third of conservatives... and this is in the Democratic Party, where his support should be strongest. Trouble trouble trouble.
*I don't think it's coincidental (and it bodes badly for Dean) that Liberman and Bill Clinton talked on the phone for quite some time after the news of Gore's support broke. This is the coming Democratic Party schism.
Candidate support amongst Democrats, based on ideology:
Liberal Moderate Conservative
Dean 40 17 11
So it's pretty clear he's got the liberal wing of the party wrapped up, but it's not clear that he's going to do much better outside of that part of the party (Gore's endorsement doesn't help him much because it's unclear 1. how much sway Gore has amongst Dem. establishment types, who don't make a difference when it comes to primary outcomes but make a huge difference when it comes to national coordination of strategies* 2. Gore's not really a moderate Democrat anymore, and hasn't been (as Andrew Sullivan noted) since his acceptance speech at the DNC convention).
Let's be charitable and assume that party loyalty will allow him to treble his moderate and conservative support (by no means a clear thing). He'd still be winning only a slight majority of Democratic moderates, and only a third of conservatives... and this is in the Democratic Party, where his support should be strongest. Trouble trouble trouble.
*I don't think it's coincidental (and it bodes badly for Dean) that Liberman and Bill Clinton talked on the phone for quite some time after the news of Gore's support broke. This is the coming Democratic Party schism.
LINK: Can we skip the next seven months or so and just go straight to the point where TNR endorses Bush for President? They don't like Dean (for lots of perfectly reasonable reasons), and every other lefty mag will be falling all over themselves to fawn over Howie. In keeping with their old-new contrarian position, it's inevitable.
LINK: Show some love to Evangelical Outpost for his effort to discover good recent Christian art that doesn't suck.
Similarly, let me add my huzzah to this proposal to immediately rectify the problem of Christian art:
"2. Take Thomas Kinkade to the outskirts of Monterey and stone him."
Save a rock for me, boys.
Similarly, let me add my huzzah to this proposal to immediately rectify the problem of Christian art:
"2. Take Thomas Kinkade to the outskirts of Monterey and stone him."
Save a rock for me, boys.
LINK: Leave it to David to get mad when someone agrees with his position.
""If it were true - as conceited shrewdness, proud of not being deceived, thinks - that one should believe nothing which he cannot see by means of his physical eyes, then first and foremost one ought to give up believing in love."*
Every good scientist knows how dumb this is. Have you ever seen an atom with your eyes? Of course not, but they are still there!"
The operative part of that sentence (is operative too big a word for you? let me know. I could probably find a smaller one you'd understand) is the clause in between the dashes, where he's clearly expressing that the view the sentence talks about is one he personally rejects (excepting the clause after the final comma, where K offers an instance of what he considers to be an exception to the trust-only-your-eyes rule). So Kierkegaard, like David, thinks that people who believe only what they see with their eyes are wrong. Let's do a little syllogism, then:
1: (via David) Kierkegaard was a complete idiot!
2: David agrees with Kierkegaard on the point in question.
Conclusion: David must also be a complete idiot.
Way to go there, David!
*Also, as they teach you in liberal arts classes (and in debate, too, so you don't have any excuse for not knowing this), it's important to give sources and contexts for quotes, otherwise you lose valuable parts of meaning. K wrote under many different psuedonyms that advanced different arguments, and each argument can only be placed within the larger framework by knowing whether he's writing it as Hilarius Bookbinder, Constantin Constantinius, or Johannes Climacus.
Further, just because it's attributed to someone doesn't mean they actually said it. To wit:
"All that is sold melts into the air" -Kierkegaard
"Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made" -Kierkegaard
"We can't try to understand the New York Times' effect on man" -Kierkegaard
None of these were actually said by Kierkegaard (they are Marx, Immanuel Kant, and the BeeGees, respectively), which you would know if context were provided.
""If it were true - as conceited shrewdness, proud of not being deceived, thinks - that one should believe nothing which he cannot see by means of his physical eyes, then first and foremost one ought to give up believing in love."*
Every good scientist knows how dumb this is. Have you ever seen an atom with your eyes? Of course not, but they are still there!"
The operative part of that sentence (is operative too big a word for you? let me know. I could probably find a smaller one you'd understand) is the clause in between the dashes, where he's clearly expressing that the view the sentence talks about is one he personally rejects (excepting the clause after the final comma, where K offers an instance of what he considers to be an exception to the trust-only-your-eyes rule). So Kierkegaard, like David, thinks that people who believe only what they see with their eyes are wrong. Let's do a little syllogism, then:
1: (via David) Kierkegaard was a complete idiot!
2: David agrees with Kierkegaard on the point in question.
Conclusion: David must also be a complete idiot.
Way to go there, David!
*Also, as they teach you in liberal arts classes (and in debate, too, so you don't have any excuse for not knowing this), it's important to give sources and contexts for quotes, otherwise you lose valuable parts of meaning. K wrote under many different psuedonyms that advanced different arguments, and each argument can only be placed within the larger framework by knowing whether he's writing it as Hilarius Bookbinder, Constantin Constantinius, or Johannes Climacus.
Further, just because it's attributed to someone doesn't mean they actually said it. To wit:
"All that is sold melts into the air" -Kierkegaard
"Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made" -Kierkegaard
"We can't try to understand the New York Times' effect on man" -Kierkegaard
None of these were actually said by Kierkegaard (they are Marx, Immanuel Kant, and the BeeGees, respectively), which you would know if context were provided.
9.12.03
QUOTE OF THE DAY: From a reckless cowboy fundamentalist, no doubt:
"And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in thee; faith in our sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade. Let not the keenees of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment--let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.
With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy...
Thy will be done, Almighty God.
Amen."
-George W. Bush? Try Franklin Roosevelt's D-Day Prayer. This is what I mean when I say Bush isn't really as bad about religion as he could be...
"And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in thee; faith in our sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade. Let not the keenees of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment--let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.
With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy...
Thy will be done, Almighty God.
Amen."
-George W. Bush? Try Franklin Roosevelt's D-Day Prayer. This is what I mean when I say Bush isn't really as bad about religion as he could be...
8.12.03
FISK I: The Nation writing about religion is a little like, well, someone writing about something they don't know anything about. Read it for yourself.
They assert three areas in which Bush is allegedly betraying his faith. The first is that he's supposedly a Manichean, because "This ancient heresy divides all of reality in two: Absolute Good and Absolute Evil," and Bush divides the world into Good and Evil, and since they use the same words, they must mean the same thing, right? Hardly. Every Christian (except for Unitarians, who aren't Christians) asserts that there exists in every person both the image of God, which is the soul, which is, for the most part good, and another aspect to themselves (subject to much theological dispute) which makes it somewhat inevitable that people will fall short of even basic moral standards time and time again. Get rid of either part, and you're committing heresy. Manicheans believed something much more specific: that a person was, literally, divided into Good and Evil, spirit and body, and that the only way to happiness was to practice self-denial to the body.
As The Nation says: "In other words, they are so evil that they abhor the good because it is good." Actually, saying evil as something which abhors the good is pretty much a definition, and one that even logical positivists could approve of.
Second, there's the charge of messianism because he believes he was called to be President. I don't believe that it's an accident that I'm at Michigan, majoring in Political Science, and going for a PhD, and I believe part of the intention there lies beyond me. Does this mean my desire to be a professor is messianic, or does it just mean that I think I've been called to do it?
Thirdly, there's the issue of prayer. To wit:
'True prayer does not pretend to tell God what we want Him to do but rather asks that God tell us what He wishes us to do."
Actually, we generally pray that God does what he wants and that what he wants and what we want end up being the same thing.
"Great publicity was given to the fact that during a prime-time news conference shortly before his speech giving the ultimatum to Saddam Hussein, Bush asked his advisers to leave him alone for ten minutes. In evangelical symbolism, that meant that a man of prayer was going to commune with God, somewhat like Moses on Mount Sinai."
Or, possibly, that he took his moral responsibilities as a leader seriously, and wanted a chance to reflect on the seriousness of the situation before him, and, you know, ask not to make the wrong decision.
They assert three areas in which Bush is allegedly betraying his faith. The first is that he's supposedly a Manichean, because "This ancient heresy divides all of reality in two: Absolute Good and Absolute Evil," and Bush divides the world into Good and Evil, and since they use the same words, they must mean the same thing, right? Hardly. Every Christian (except for Unitarians, who aren't Christians) asserts that there exists in every person both the image of God, which is the soul, which is, for the most part good, and another aspect to themselves (subject to much theological dispute) which makes it somewhat inevitable that people will fall short of even basic moral standards time and time again. Get rid of either part, and you're committing heresy. Manicheans believed something much more specific: that a person was, literally, divided into Good and Evil, spirit and body, and that the only way to happiness was to practice self-denial to the body.
As The Nation says: "In other words, they are so evil that they abhor the good because it is good." Actually, saying evil as something which abhors the good is pretty much a definition, and one that even logical positivists could approve of.
Second, there's the charge of messianism because he believes he was called to be President. I don't believe that it's an accident that I'm at Michigan, majoring in Political Science, and going for a PhD, and I believe part of the intention there lies beyond me. Does this mean my desire to be a professor is messianic, or does it just mean that I think I've been called to do it?
Thirdly, there's the issue of prayer. To wit:
'True prayer does not pretend to tell God what we want Him to do but rather asks that God tell us what He wishes us to do."
Actually, we generally pray that God does what he wants and that what he wants and what we want end up being the same thing.
"Great publicity was given to the fact that during a prime-time news conference shortly before his speech giving the ultimatum to Saddam Hussein, Bush asked his advisers to leave him alone for ten minutes. In evangelical symbolism, that meant that a man of prayer was going to commune with God, somewhat like Moses on Mount Sinai."
Or, possibly, that he took his moral responsibilities as a leader seriously, and wanted a chance to reflect on the seriousness of the situation before him, and, you know, ask not to make the wrong decision.
LINK: Bad news for OutKast. I found this weird:
"[Rosa] Parks claimed that OutKast violated her publicity and trademark rights and defamed her."
The last one I can see (maybe), but isn't it odd that Rosa Parks has trademark rights associated with her name? Maybe that's just me...
"[Rosa] Parks claimed that OutKast violated her publicity and trademark rights and defamed her."
The last one I can see (maybe), but isn't it odd that Rosa Parks has trademark rights associated with her name? Maybe that's just me...
HOT STOVIN' IT: my initial response to this was "booge?"
Let's see: Mussina, Vazquez, Wells, Contreras, Leiber? Getting closer...
Let's see: Mussina, Vazquez, Wells, Contreras, Leiber? Getting closer...
QUOTE: Jay Nordinger:
"A reader sent me something treasurable, and typical. He quoted a memorandum of his company, which said, "[Company X] observes the following holidays." Listed then were "New Year's Day," "Presidents' Day," "Memorial Day," "July 4th/Independence Day," "Labor Day," "Thanksgiving and the Day After," and, get this, "December 25th." The company couldn't bring itself to utter the C-word. Maybe they thought it was unconstitutional or something. We're lucky that they actually said "Thanksgiving," as I have noticed — and remarked in Impromptus — that Thanksgiving is being replaced by "holiday," too."
"A reader sent me something treasurable, and typical. He quoted a memorandum of his company, which said, "[Company X] observes the following holidays." Listed then were "New Year's Day," "Presidents' Day," "Memorial Day," "July 4th/Independence Day," "Labor Day," "Thanksgiving and the Day After," and, get this, "December 25th." The company couldn't bring itself to utter the C-word. Maybe they thought it was unconstitutional or something. We're lucky that they actually said "Thanksgiving," as I have noticed — and remarked in Impromptus — that Thanksgiving is being replaced by "holiday," too."
QUOTE: this is a great Springsteen story:
"Thirty years ago this fall, Bruce Springsteen released his first album, Greetings from Asbury Park, New Jersey. I knew from whence he greeted, having grown up in the same state a few years behind him. One of Springsteen's teenage bands, the Castiles, had been the entertainment at my friend Doug's eighth- grade graduation party; so when Columbia Records sent the twenty- four-year-old and his new group, the E Street Band, on a tour of midsized Northeast colleges to promote his record debut, Doug and I decided to see him in concert at Seton Hall University, an event conducted for a couple of hundred people in the cafeteria of the student center. I still recall much of the show--the kaleidoscopic original tunes, the party-song oldies such as "Twenty-Flight Rock," a funked-up Dylan cover ("I Want You")-- and one moment most vividly: About midway into "Spirits in the Night," one of the more soulful numbers on that first Springsteen album, he broke a guitar string. (Springsteen was the only guitarist in his band at the time.) He signaled the rhythm section to vamp on the tune's slow shuffle pattern, and he launched into a monologue, swaying in time as he told a sweet, funny tale about getting his first guitar and trying to learn how to play it while his father, who hated the instrument and everything it represented, tried to smoke the boy out of his bedroom through a heat vent in the floor--nonchalantly restringing the guitar as he talked. He finished the story and had the string tuned on beat, right on time for the band to kick in for the final chorus. The audience, small as it was, roared. Springsteen had simultaneously endeared himself to the crowd as a regular guy and thrilled them by proving that he was no such thing. "
"Thirty years ago this fall, Bruce Springsteen released his first album, Greetings from Asbury Park, New Jersey. I knew from whence he greeted, having grown up in the same state a few years behind him. One of Springsteen's teenage bands, the Castiles, had been the entertainment at my friend Doug's eighth- grade graduation party; so when Columbia Records sent the twenty- four-year-old and his new group, the E Street Band, on a tour of midsized Northeast colleges to promote his record debut, Doug and I decided to see him in concert at Seton Hall University, an event conducted for a couple of hundred people in the cafeteria of the student center. I still recall much of the show--the kaleidoscopic original tunes, the party-song oldies such as "Twenty-Flight Rock," a funked-up Dylan cover ("I Want You")-- and one moment most vividly: About midway into "Spirits in the Night," one of the more soulful numbers on that first Springsteen album, he broke a guitar string. (Springsteen was the only guitarist in his band at the time.) He signaled the rhythm section to vamp on the tune's slow shuffle pattern, and he launched into a monologue, swaying in time as he told a sweet, funny tale about getting his first guitar and trying to learn how to play it while his father, who hated the instrument and everything it represented, tried to smoke the boy out of his bedroom through a heat vent in the floor--nonchalantly restringing the guitar as he talked. He finished the story and had the string tuned on beat, right on time for the band to kick in for the final chorus. The audience, small as it was, roared. Springsteen had simultaneously endeared himself to the crowd as a regular guy and thrilled them by proving that he was no such thing. "
LINK: Hey! I have a great idea! The Democrats can win the presidency if they're willing to be more like the Republicans in 1994! Because we all know how well that worked out for them...
I was also struck by this:
"George W., meanwhile, is by many accounts a petty, vengeful, angry man with an enemies list a mile long. The fact that he's learned to control his temper in public certainly doesn't mean he's not stewing over perceived slights (as anyone in the media corps who's ever crossed him can tell you). "
because it instantly reminded me of this:
"When they see me talking to you they're going to act like your friends again, but those people aren't your friends. They can say what they want about me, but at least I know who I am and who my friends are."
-George W. Bush, to Alex Pelosi, according to The New York Times
I was also struck by this:
"George W., meanwhile, is by many accounts a petty, vengeful, angry man with an enemies list a mile long. The fact that he's learned to control his temper in public certainly doesn't mean he's not stewing over perceived slights (as anyone in the media corps who's ever crossed him can tell you). "
because it instantly reminded me of this:
"When they see me talking to you they're going to act like your friends again, but those people aren't your friends. They can say what they want about me, but at least I know who I am and who my friends are."
-George W. Bush, to Alex Pelosi, according to The New York Times
THESIS OF THE WEEK: The quality of any band is proportional to the amount of effort they expend getting their intros and outtros to sound right (and not just the composed parts, but the quiet, in the background bits, too*).
*Off the top of my head, the whispered 'fuck' at the beginning of Fleetwood Mac's "The Chain," any side-ending R.E.M. song ever, the collected works of Badly Drawn Boy, and the first Oasis album (especially "Cigarettes and Alcohol," which begins with the sound of an amp turned on LOUD, but not making any noise, and ends with about half a minute of goofing off). Wilco's "Dreamer in My Dreams." I'll think of more good examples later.
*Off the top of my head, the whispered 'fuck' at the beginning of Fleetwood Mac's "The Chain," any side-ending R.E.M. song ever, the collected works of Badly Drawn Boy, and the first Oasis album (especially "Cigarettes and Alcohol," which begins with the sound of an amp turned on LOUD, but not making any noise, and ends with about half a minute of goofing off). Wilco's "Dreamer in My Dreams." I'll think of more good examples later.
6.12.03
5.12.03
LINK: If you think all I do is rag on liberals, here's a hilarious collection of conservatives to hate. Except Jonah Goldberg. I like him. He's funny.
4.12.03
LINK: About half the time, I think I should marry a corporate lawyer (for the money, of course). The other half of the time, I think I should marry someone like Mary McCarthy. here's a good example of why I think that:
"Luckily, I am writing a memoir and not a work of fiction, and therefore I do not have to account for my grandmother's unpleasing character and look for the Oedipal fixation or the traumatic experience which would give her that clinical authenticity that is nowadays so desirable in portraiture. I do not know how my grandmother got the way she was; I assume, from family photographs and from the inflexibility of her habits, that she was always the same, and it seems as idle to inquire into her childhood as to ask what was ailing Iago or look for the error in toilet-training that was responsible for Lady Macbeth."
"Luckily, I am writing a memoir and not a work of fiction, and therefore I do not have to account for my grandmother's unpleasing character and look for the Oedipal fixation or the traumatic experience which would give her that clinical authenticity that is nowadays so desirable in portraiture. I do not know how my grandmother got the way she was; I assume, from family photographs and from the inflexibility of her habits, that she was always the same, and it seems as idle to inquire into her childhood as to ask what was ailing Iago or look for the error in toilet-training that was responsible for Lady Macbeth."
HOT STOVIN' IT: I find it emblematic of the Yankees-Red Sox relationship that the one time the Sox manage to swipe someone decent from under the Boss' nose, they come back with not one (Sheffield) but two big ol' signings (assuming Jeff Weaver-Kevin Brown doesn't also happen this week). My thoughts:
1. What the hell are they doing trading Nick Johnson?
This was my initial thought. I then compared his numbers to Alfonso Soriano's, and concluded that while Johnson has the better OBP, Soriano more than makes up for that deficit with good power numbers and speed (I mean, compare those SBs... seriously). Granted, Johnson was a better fielder and a more patient batter, but those things can be taught. And this does solve the having-two-equally-valuable-players-at-the-same-position problem they've had the last two seasons, and paying Giambi as much as they do, this was the only real solution.
2. Look at Vazquez. Sure, the W-L isn't too great (neither was Schilling's), but look at BAA (.229) and his WHIP (1.11). Those are Schilling numbers, kids, and he's 10 years younger, so less likely to get injured.
Go Yankees!
1. What the hell are they doing trading Nick Johnson?
This was my initial thought. I then compared his numbers to Alfonso Soriano's, and concluded that while Johnson has the better OBP, Soriano more than makes up for that deficit with good power numbers and speed (I mean, compare those SBs... seriously). Granted, Johnson was a better fielder and a more patient batter, but those things can be taught. And this does solve the having-two-equally-valuable-players-at-the-same-position problem they've had the last two seasons, and paying Giambi as much as they do, this was the only real solution.
2. Look at Vazquez. Sure, the W-L isn't too great (neither was Schilling's), but look at BAA (.229) and his WHIP (1.11). Those are Schilling numbers, kids, and he's 10 years younger, so less likely to get injured.
Go Yankees!
LINK: Sometimes, it's good for the forces of evil to triumph. But only when they're also playing the forces of evil.
So as I was watching Michigan State get embarrassed last night, and enjoying every moment, I had a thought: the real motive factor in my sports fandom is schadenfreude. I like watching Michigan pound everybody else, especially when they put certain teams (MichState, Notre Dame, Ohio State) back in their places. When I bother to watch basketball, I like the Lakers because of their general tendency to wail on their opposition. And the Yankees, of course, have the Sox, in which the 'S' in September stands for 'schadenfreude,' given the way things normally end up going. I'm sure this reveals some interesting psychological fact about me, but dnon't ask me what.
So as I was watching Michigan State get embarrassed last night, and enjoying every moment, I had a thought: the real motive factor in my sports fandom is schadenfreude. I like watching Michigan pound everybody else, especially when they put certain teams (MichState, Notre Dame, Ohio State) back in their places. When I bother to watch basketball, I like the Lakers because of their general tendency to wail on their opposition. And the Yankees, of course, have the Sox, in which the 'S' in September stands for 'schadenfreude,' given the way things normally end up going. I'm sure this reveals some interesting psychological fact about me, but dnon't ask me what.
QUOTE: Nice profile of the new Martin Luther movie on NRO:
"The film, which begins with the young lawyer's decision to enter a monastery in 1507 and ends with the Augsburg Confession in 1530, includes a very early scene — invented by the filmmakers — seemingly calculated to puzzle and offend many viewers, although it should stimulate thought as well. In a very moving scene, the young monk Luther buries, in consecrated ground, the body of a young boy who has committed suicide. Luther then makes the point, from the pulpit of the local church, that we cannot presume to know how God will judge the boy's life. Yes, he argues, God hates sin, but he sent a Redeemer to accept our punishment on our behalf. "Those who see God as [solely] angry," he says, "do not see him rightly." He reminds them, "We have a God of love."
This, unlike the suicide aspect, is surely the central teaching of Luther's life and ministry, and the fact that it ever created a controversy speaks only to the truth that the Church, although inspired by God, is and always has been made up entirely of flawed human beings. Luther never aimed to bring down the Catholic Church or replace it, only to restore to it, and to Christendom, a true understanding of the Good News of salvation through Christ.
It was a lesson that Luther learned the hard way for himself, as the film makes abundantly clear. In more than one instance, we see and hear him late at night in his bedchamber, screaming imprecations at the Devil, railing at the enemy to leave him alone. As a young monk, Luther is nearly mad with guilt over his many sins, even though an elder priest notes, "You know, in two years I've never heard you confess anything even remotely interesting."
Luther recognizes that having any sin at all prevents us from entering the kingdom of Heaven, and he cannot imagine how God can possibly forgive him. If I have sinned, he thinks, I am not worthy of salvation. And that's that.
He was right, of course, as far as that went. Luther was not worthy of salvation, nor is anybody else. We all fail to keep God's commandments, and the penalty is death. Taking these ideas perfectly seriously, Luther cannot bear the thought of his sinfulness and is driven to seek "a merciful God," as he puts it."
"The film, which begins with the young lawyer's decision to enter a monastery in 1507 and ends with the Augsburg Confession in 1530, includes a very early scene — invented by the filmmakers — seemingly calculated to puzzle and offend many viewers, although it should stimulate thought as well. In a very moving scene, the young monk Luther buries, in consecrated ground, the body of a young boy who has committed suicide. Luther then makes the point, from the pulpit of the local church, that we cannot presume to know how God will judge the boy's life. Yes, he argues, God hates sin, but he sent a Redeemer to accept our punishment on our behalf. "Those who see God as [solely] angry," he says, "do not see him rightly." He reminds them, "We have a God of love."
This, unlike the suicide aspect, is surely the central teaching of Luther's life and ministry, and the fact that it ever created a controversy speaks only to the truth that the Church, although inspired by God, is and always has been made up entirely of flawed human beings. Luther never aimed to bring down the Catholic Church or replace it, only to restore to it, and to Christendom, a true understanding of the Good News of salvation through Christ.
It was a lesson that Luther learned the hard way for himself, as the film makes abundantly clear. In more than one instance, we see and hear him late at night in his bedchamber, screaming imprecations at the Devil, railing at the enemy to leave him alone. As a young monk, Luther is nearly mad with guilt over his many sins, even though an elder priest notes, "You know, in two years I've never heard you confess anything even remotely interesting."
Luther recognizes that having any sin at all prevents us from entering the kingdom of Heaven, and he cannot imagine how God can possibly forgive him. If I have sinned, he thinks, I am not worthy of salvation. And that's that.
He was right, of course, as far as that went. Luther was not worthy of salvation, nor is anybody else. We all fail to keep God's commandments, and the penalty is death. Taking these ideas perfectly seriously, Luther cannot bear the thought of his sinfulness and is driven to seek "a merciful God," as he puts it."
LINK: I agree wholeheartedly with Jonah Goldberg in his assertion that TV has reached the end of its practical run. Can anyone name a show actually worth watching that's been around for three years or less?
LINK; TNR has an editorial up on how the Democrats need to rediscover party discipline. I submit the following question:
did the Democrats (and I'm thinking back through '32 here) ever have good party discipline?
did the Democrats (and I'm thinking back through '32 here) ever have good party discipline?
once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more:
Speech after long silence; it is right,
All other lovers being estranged or dead,
Unfriendly lamplight hid under its shade,
The curtains drawn upon unfriendly night,
That we descant and yet again descant
Upon the supreme theme of Art and Song:
Bodily decrepitude is wisdom; young
We loved each other and were ignorant.
-W.B. Yeats
Speech after long silence; it is right,
All other lovers being estranged or dead,
Unfriendly lamplight hid under its shade,
The curtains drawn upon unfriendly night,
That we descant and yet again descant
Upon the supreme theme of Art and Song:
Bodily decrepitude is wisdom; young
We loved each other and were ignorant.
-W.B. Yeats
In the greenest growth of the Maytime,
I rode where the woods were wet,
Between the dawn and the daytime;
The spring was glad that we met.
There was something the season wanted,
Though the ways and the woods smelt sweet;
The breath at your lips that panted,
The pulse of the grass at your feet.
You came, and the sun came after,
And the green grew golden above;
And the flag-flowers lightened with laughter,
And the meadow-sweet shook with love.
Your feet in the full-grown grasses
Moved soft as a weak wind blows;
You passed me as April passes,
With face made out of a rose.
By the stream where the stems were slender,
Your bright foot paused at the sedge;
It might be to watch the tender
Light leaves in the springtime hedge,
On boughs that the sweet month blanches
With flowery frost of May:
It might be a bird in the branches,
It might be a thorn in the way.
I waited to watch you linger
With foot drawn back from the dew,
Till a sunbeam straight like a finger
Struck sharp through the leaves at you.
And a bird overhead sang Follow,
And a bird to the right sang Here;
And the arch of the leaves was hollow,
And the meaning of May was clear.
I saw where the sun's hand pointed,
I knew what the bird's note said;
By the dawn and the dewfall anointed,
You were queen by the gold on your head.
As the glimpse of a burnt-out ember
Recalls a regret of the sun,
I remember, forget, and remember
What Love saw done and undone.
I remember the way we parted,
The day and the way we met;
You hoped we were both broken-hearted,
And knew we should both forget.
And May with her world in flower
Seemed still to murmur and smile
As you murmured and smiled for an hour;
I saw you turn at the stile.
A hand like a white wood-blossom
You lifted, and waved, and passed,
With head hung down to the bosom,
And pale, as it seemed, at last.
And the best and the worst of this is
That neither is most to blame
If you've forgotten my kisses
And I've forgotten your name.
-Swinburne
I rode where the woods were wet,
Between the dawn and the daytime;
The spring was glad that we met.
There was something the season wanted,
Though the ways and the woods smelt sweet;
The breath at your lips that panted,
The pulse of the grass at your feet.
You came, and the sun came after,
And the green grew golden above;
And the flag-flowers lightened with laughter,
And the meadow-sweet shook with love.
Your feet in the full-grown grasses
Moved soft as a weak wind blows;
You passed me as April passes,
With face made out of a rose.
By the stream where the stems were slender,
Your bright foot paused at the sedge;
It might be to watch the tender
Light leaves in the springtime hedge,
On boughs that the sweet month blanches
With flowery frost of May:
It might be a bird in the branches,
It might be a thorn in the way.
I waited to watch you linger
With foot drawn back from the dew,
Till a sunbeam straight like a finger
Struck sharp through the leaves at you.
And a bird overhead sang Follow,
And a bird to the right sang Here;
And the arch of the leaves was hollow,
And the meaning of May was clear.
I saw where the sun's hand pointed,
I knew what the bird's note said;
By the dawn and the dewfall anointed,
You were queen by the gold on your head.
As the glimpse of a burnt-out ember
Recalls a regret of the sun,
I remember, forget, and remember
What Love saw done and undone.
I remember the way we parted,
The day and the way we met;
You hoped we were both broken-hearted,
And knew we should both forget.
And May with her world in flower
Seemed still to murmur and smile
As you murmured and smiled for an hour;
I saw you turn at the stile.
A hand like a white wood-blossom
You lifted, and waved, and passed,
With head hung down to the bosom,
And pale, as it seemed, at last.
And the best and the worst of this is
That neither is most to blame
If you've forgotten my kisses
And I've forgotten your name.
-Swinburne
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)