|
In Case You Were Wondering
Sample page from Why Daddy is a Democrat from Little Democrats. Now, I figure that in a free society parents should be allowed indoctrinate their children with whatever ideology they please, so long as it’s not actively destructive to others.
(Overheard in the Evans household:
“Okay kids, time for bed.”
“Read us a story! Read us a story!”
“Fine, fine. Which will it be? Reflections on the Revolution in France or should we read Road to Serfdom again?”
Because, see, my kids were always very very advanced for their age. Eh, nevermind.)
Nevertheless, I think that if there were an equivalent book for little Republicans1 I would personally feel very icky about reading it to my younguns.
1 There may well be — I’ve seen some pretty hardcore homeschooling curricula. “God wants America to dominate the world so the Communists don’t destroy the human soul” sort of stuff. Bleagh.
|
   
|
|
Society of Antisocials
Following up on my last post.
Yes, introverts like to just get away from the crowd, the hustle and the bustle, the rat race. The noise! That’s always been true; as I’m fond of saying: Human nature has no history. People are people, no matter where or when you go.
But what I love about these modern times we live in is that the intarweb has become a non-social society for introverts. You see, intros are not actually antisocial. They’re more anti-societal. For me, it’s the dance that exhausts, not the partners. The need to sit up straight and suck in my gut, to smile and nod and pretend to be interested when someone is making small talk. To remember that just because I have something stuck in my teeth doesn’t mean I get to pick it out right then. To remember who is related to whom in what way, and which lines of social interaction can’t be crossed.
It’s like there’s a game afoot, and nobody told me the rules. Or maybe they did and I wasn’t listening. I spent an afternoon one time watching curling on Canadian TV. I never did figure out what was going on. I’d think man, that’s a lousy shot and the crowd would cheer. I expect 3 points this round, but there were only 2 awarded. To the other team. Huh?
Being social is just like that.
I don’t think I’m saying anything profound here, but the internet is where intros can hang out together and be sociable without having to deal that much with society. If I’m feeling like I need some people time, the whole world is at my fingertips. Is it as good as being there in person? No, of course not. But it’s something. Most days, I’m up for either a little low-stress interaction (say, email) or none at all. Better I should have to choose none at all?
Everyone knows about blogs and forums and whatnot, right? Well, if I take the time to read your blog, it means I care enough about what you have to say to seek it out. If I’m stuck talking to you at a dinner party? Maybe, maybe not. Again, it’s not you, it’s me.
Another example: I love Facebook. You wouldn’t think so, given that I’m introverted and therefore supposedly antisocial. But no, Facebook is great, because I can keep track of the 150+ people that I am acquainted with at a glance. It’s as though everyone kept a log of the most important bit of small talk they wanted to share with everyone that day and then helpfully posted it to a bulletin board that I can scan through — at my convenience! I get to keep up with what my friends are doing (and vice versa) but I can do it when I feel like it, and I don’t even have to read it all. I can skip the boring stuff and go right to what interests me at the moment, maybe comment on it, and best yet, nobody has to get offended.
(Hey, let’s face it: Not everything everyone says is interesting all the time. We all have off days. If you’re boring me today, it’s not a moral judgment on you as a person. It’s really not.)
I haven’t gotten addicted to Twitter yet, but I hear it’s essentially the same thing, only better because there’s less clutter. It’s just the small talk, without any of the games or quizzes. Then again, don’t spread this around, but I actually enjoy seeing what games my friends are playing and what quizzes they’re taking. (I mean, who doesn’t want to know which Muppet that girl I only barely knew in high school is most like? Camilla the Chicken? I knew it!) It lets me into their world a little without me having to be, you know, in their world. Or them in mine, getting in the way. (No offense!)
Long story short: The social internet allows extroverts to connect with their friends constantly, but at the same time it allows intros like me to connect with others on my own terms.
Sounds like a win-win to me.
|
 
|
|
A Man Thinking or Working
My friend Jacob alerted me to an article by Jonathan Rauch in The Atlantic, “Caring for Your Introvert.” A key graph:
Extroverts are energized by people, and wilt or fade when alone. They often seem bored by themselves, in both senses of the expression. Leave an extrovert alone for two minutes and he will reach for his cell phone. In contrast, after an hour or two of being socially “on,” we introverts need to turn off and recharge. My own formula is roughly two hours alone for every hour of socializing. This isn’t antisocial. It isn’t a sign of depression. It does not call for medication. For introverts, to be alone with our thoughts is as restorative as sleeping, as nourishing as eating. Our motto: “I’m okay, you’re okay—in small doses.”
Exactly.
It’s probably no surprise, but I’m a one, too.
Being around people exhausts me. It drains my energy — the more there are at a time, the lower my MPG. Because of this, I figure I accept about a third of the social engagements I’m invited to. So, if I decline your invitation, it’s usually because my social batteries are depleted. I’ll be home reading a book, watching TV, writing music, or any number of the other things I do that don’t exhaust me, all of which must be done alone.
I don’t feel guilty about that, but sometimes I get the feeling that most people think I ought to. Staying home to read a book instead of going to a BBQ with friends is wrong — right? Well, no. As Rauch goes on to say, it’s not a choice, it’s an orientation. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that!)
I have one bone to pick with Rauch’s article: He makes too much of the fact that political life is self-selected for extroversion, which means that the people in charge are more likely to feel comfortable kissing hands and shaking babies than we intros are. Well yes, of course.
On the other hand, intros control the things we find important: art, literature, music, design. One reason we intros aren’t as much into “just hanging out” as our extro friends is that we’re too busy building the kind of world we want to live in. I don’t mind if someone else steers so long as I get to build the boat!
Really. Someone has to sit quietly and chase all those details around, or else you don’t get a ”Carnation, Lily, Lily, Rose“ or a Beethoven’s 7th Symphony to admire. Or an iPod to listen to it on. You have to get away from the hurly-burly if you’re going to get any of that kind of work done. That’s not antisocial, it’s just true. What’s unsettling, perhaps, is that we intros are perfectly comfortable with that arrangement. What you think of as play, we think of as work. And vice versa.
I think I’ll let someone smarter than me say it better:
I have never found a companion that was so companionable as solitude. We are for the most part more lonely when we go abroad among men than when we stay in our chambers. A man thinking or working is always alone, let him be where he will.... Society is commonly too cheap. We meet at very short intervals, not having had time to acquire any new value for each other.... We have had to agree on a certain set of rules, called etiquette and politeness, to make this frequent meeting tolerable and that we need not come to open war. We meet at the post-office, and at the sociable, and about the fireside every night; we live thick and are in each other’s way, and stumble over one another, and I think that we thus lose some respect for one another. — Henry David Thoreau, Walden
So, if I haven’t talked to you in a while, it’s probably just that I’m taking time to acquire new value for you. Yeah, that sounds a lot better than, “I just felt like doing something else that required me to be alone.”
|
|
|
New Trek
Here’s the review of Star Trek I just posted to Fandango.com:
Incredible! Cast: Pitch-perfect. Pacing: Never drags, too swift in spots. Effects: Plot-driven, stunning. Plot: Holey, but forgivable. Design: Simultaneously like everything that came before and unlike anything you’ve ever seen. Faithfulness: Yes, but. It all seems REAL in an un-Trek way. I mean: Since TNG, Trek has been so sterile. Homogenized, both in design and outlook. Technology. Social structures. Ethos. Pathos. It’s always there. What’s been missing is humanity — ironic since “what it means to be human” is a perennial theme. Until now, Trek has been telling us “what it means to be human — in theory.” So! Didactic! New Trek is the polar opposite, recapturing the verve and (yes) raw humanity of the 60’s TV show. This franchise gets just what it needed: an IV full of New Blood. Here’s a vision of a future I can suspend disbelief in, peopled by complex characters I would love to meet. REAL (ish) people who RELISH their work. And why not? They have the best job in the galaxy.
4.5 widgets out of five, but I’m a very tough grader. I deduct the half star for two things: 1) The plot has some coincidences that are just too pat, and some “No, really?” moments. For example, the villain’s method of attack is very creative,1 but basically requires that planetary defense systems are non-existent. 2) There are a few scenes that are just there for summer blockbuster appeal. Though well done, I would have been happier without the creature-chases-creature-chasing-Kirk sequence.
But never mind all that. I really liked this movie, and what I liked about it can pretty much be summed up by the irony implied by this video from the Onion.com:
I’ve been a Trekazoid since I was a wee lad (Trekling?). I’ve seen all the movies, and most of the TV shows. I even tried to watch Enterprise. I never put on plastic ears, but I did spend a summer learning Klingon. (In some ways, that experience put me on the career path I’m on.)
I blame my mom. Yes, oddly enough, in my family it’s Mom who is the Trekster and Dad who could take it or leave it. She enjoys a good fantasy pic now and again, but he only likes realism, the grittier the better. He fell asleep during all three Star Wars prequels. In the theater. Yeah.
He clapped at the end of this film.
Abrams and company really went out of their way to make the world of this film a believable one. Well, as believable as a Trek movie possibly could be, given the conceits they had to work with. Once you get past the conceptual hurdles, the picture exists in a very comfortable, “realistic” space.
With, you know, real people in it.
That’s always been my biggest beef with the Star Trek franchise, which I hinted at in my Fandango review. Trek presents us a vision of a future that, frankly, I wouldn’t want to live in. It seems like the most ponderous, politically correct, and (quick! think of another word that begins with “p” ... yes!) and perfect place. Too perfect.
It’s as if we finally found that socialist utopia everyone keeps talking about. (Everyone works, people seem to own things, but there’s no money?!)
It’s as if the UN were running the world — no, the galaxy — and (get this) they’re doing a bang-up job. Suspension of disbelief, indeed.
James Tiberius Kirk always rubbed against the grain of that society. Why? Because he refused to evolve beyond his petty human ego. He realized that human nature has no history. People are people, no matter where (or when) you go. Kirk is an un-reconstituted man in a world that is entirely reconstituted, right down to the replicated coffee and doughnuts. (Wait, no. Starfleet personnel definitely do not eat doughnuts. Unless they were square and made of a substance resembling balsa wood.)
Much of the dramatic tension in the 60’s TV show came from the conflict between the adventurer Kirk and his bureaucratic surroundings. Starfleet command is chirping on the subspace frequency? Don’t answer it, Lt Uhura. We have aliens to fry.
Now, I like “Star Trek: The Next Generation,” and I have a lot of respect for Patrick Stewart as an actor.2 But then and there, the Trek producers pretty much de-fanged the franchise. Picard is a man settled into his society. Yes, he pops out of gear now and then, but for the most part, he’s a cog in the Starfleet machine. It’s all kinder and gentler. More politically correct.
More dull.
The new Star Trek film recreates the brashness of the original TV show, while at the same time completely transcending it. The characters are people, and they haven’t evolved beyond their essential humanity at all. They’ve embraced it. And they’re enjoying the hell out of it.
One of my favorite scenes involves Chekov: Hearing over the conn that the transporter team is having trouble with a very delicate maneuver, he lights up and says, “I can do that!” Then he leaps from his station and runs through the hallways yelling in his thick “Russian” accent: “Get out of the way!” That’s a guy who won’t quote “policy” at you if you have a problem. That’s a guy who knows when to abandon his post and fill in where he’s needed. That’s a guy who genuinely loves his work and is enthusiastic about doing it. That’s a guy with creativity, courage, and dare I say it, spirit.
That’s a guy I would want on my team.
That’s true of all the bridge crew. They’re professionals, but they’re not boring. They’re all brilliant, enthusiastic people. The sort of people you wished you worked with. (I do, by the way.)
In short: People I wouldn’t mind meeting, in a world I wouldn’t mind living to see. Which is what “optimistic” sci-fi is all about. What the film lacks in logical coherence it more than makes up for in raw enthusiasm. And that’s what Star Trek is all about, again.
Bravo, all.
1 As my sister and I were were leaving the theater, she asked me what “red matter” was. I said I didn’t know for sure, but that it was probably made from pure baloney-um.
2 Patrick Stewart’s turn on the HBO-series “Extras” is some of the funniest stuff I’ve seen in years: “You’re not married and you don’t have a girlfriend and you’ve never watched Star Trek? ... Good lord.”
|
|
|
Postmodern Bop
If you’re wondering whether or not we’re living in different times, we are. Now, I’m one of those who firmly believes that human nature has no history; that is, that no matter how far back you go, people are people. The human condition is what it is, no matter when it is.
And one of the most humany of human qualities is the need to express, through whatever modes are available. Say, music. First there was that fellow jamming on the wall at Lascaux, then Mozart, Beethoven, the Beatles, blah blah blah, then the carrot ocarina guy, and now this. Thru-you is musician Kutiman’s take on bop for our post-post-post-everything times. He takes snips and snaps from YouTube videos, and tosses them into an incredibly yummy salad.
It really must be seen as well as heard. Kutiman slyly uses the grainy, webby videos to full effect, showing what clips he’s used to create the music you’re hearing, sometimes using them to anticipate what’s coming next (ooh! here comes a theremin!). Track 4, ”Babylon Band,” starts with a long clip of a doofy teenager (sorry, kid, but you know it’s true) just messing around on a set of drums. Kutiman waves his magical cut-n-paste wand and transforms him into a prodigious part of the percussion pantheon. Track 1, ”The Mother of All Funk Chords,” is cut to make it look like a live session — when it ain’t.
As an album, I don’t know if this would work. As a piece of meta-performance art, though, it’s incredible.
Like I said, human nature has no history. What changes, though, are the technologies we use to express ourselves. The internet, it seems to me, is a vast wasteland, filled with all sorts of detritus, some good, some not so. And the intrepid beachcombers like Kutiman are wandering through the internet landfill thinking, “Hm. I bet I can make something out of this.” They are the ultimate bricoleurs, the übermenschers of postmodernism. Kutiman’s YouTube mashup album is like an item of found-art: Bits and pieces of this and that, artfully arranged.
It’s a lovely piece of un-design.
|
 
|
|
I sure hope this is a hoax
A controversial fertility doctor claims to have cloned human embryos and implanted them into four women’s wombs. And while none of 11 embryos he claims to have cloned resulted in a viable pregnancy, Dr. Panayiotis Zavos said he’ll continue trying to clone a human embryo. — ABC News
This ain’t some Raelian crackpot, folks. This is a real fertility doctor, and apparently he made this claim in a documentary which aired last night (April 22, 2009) on the Euro-Discovery Channel.
First of all, while our Discovery Channel was airing re-runs of old Mythbusters episodes (not that I oppose that!), theirs was making news. No fair. Secondly, what the what?!
|
|
|
Make it Pretty
We want those things we find pleasing to succeed. We’re more tolerant of problems with things that we find attractive.
So says Stephen P. Anderson in “In Defense of Eye Candy” at A List Apart. Do read the whole article.
I’d say that’s plenty true. It’s true of software interfaces, automobiles, and (if you’re so inclined, as I am) women.
Things we find attractive — that is, things which elicit a positive emotional affect — work better for us. They don’t just seem to work better, they actually do work better, not because of enhanced functionality on their part, but because our emotional response to their attractiveness makes us work better. Interaction, as it turns out, is a two-way street. A thing can work better because it is better on its own, or it can work better because it brings out the best in its users. Or — happy day! — both.
Do you want to make your users better at running your software? Make it in such a way that they are attracted to it, so they’ll want it to succeed, so they’ll excuse all its faults, so they’ll go out of their way to help it out, so they’ll put their best foot forward when dealing with it, so they’ll put in extra effort to learn what makes it tick and what makes it happy, so they’ll shell out money just to be with it, and gladly — you know, the same way a man acts around a pretty woman. Yeah, weird, I know. But there it is.
I’m not saying you can put lipstick on a pig, or that pretty is all that matters. Some people, I suppose, are attracted to empty-headed bimbos. But if your pretty software lies around all day sunning itself by the pool not holding up its end of the relationship — well, sooner or later the bloom will be off the rose. Nevertheless, if you have the choice between capable-but-dowdy and capable-and-smokin’ ... well, you go for the total package, right?
Of course you do. And so would your users.
|
 
|
|
Can Design Save the Newspaper?
Jacek Utko asks, Can design save the newspaper?. Watch it. Now. I’ll still be here when you get back.
It’s a perfect presentation, well-delivered, short and to the point. And the point? That if you want to get readers for a newspaper in a world where such things are becoming increasingly quaint, you need to pay extraordinary attention to the experience of reading, which means design, design, design. He did it, it worked, and he has the evidence to back it up.
His inspiration? Cirque du Soleil. As he says, “These guys took some creepy, run-down entertainment [the circus] and took it to the highest level of performance art.” He decided to do the same thing to the dumpy, disorganized newspapers he designed. Rather, the newspapers he transformed — into works of art.
One wonders if design really can save the newspaper in the long term. Eventually, they’ll go the way of horse-drawn carriages, or else they’ll become something more like magazines and less like newspapers. Which is — well, I won’t spoil it for you.
|
|
|
Gumbo, Eli-Style
Chicken StockCan be done ahead. Friends don’t let friends eat store-bought chicken stock.
1. Roast 2 dozen chicken legs at 500 deg for 1-2 hours or until the meat is falling off the bone. Take off the meat and put aside.
2. Take the skin, bones, gristle, etc and any pan drippings and put them in a large stock pot with one large onion, cut in quarters, five ribs of celery cut roughly, three carrots cut roughly, 10 sprigs of fresh thyme stems and all, 2 cups fresh parsley stems and all, three cloves, salt and pepper to taste. Cover with water, boil for 2 hours.
3. Let it cool, strain it out, pour it in a pitcher, let it cool, fridge it. In the morning, it should be all gooey and gelatinous. Now that’s good eats.
Mahogany RouxThe most important part. Can also be done ahead and fridged.
1. Take one cup of butter, melt it over medium heat in a cast iron skillet or dutch oven. Add one cup of flour, and whisk it until it’s smooth and there are no lumps.
2. Stir, stir, stir. Use a wooden paddle or something that will let you keep the roux moving so it doesn’t stick to the bottom of the pan. If you see little black flakes, you burned it. Start over.
3. It will start to get cream colored and bubbly. Keep going. It will start to get the color of peanut butter. Keep going. It will start to get darker and darker. When it’s darker than peanut butter but lighter than chocolate, you’re done.
Gumbo!- 2 onions, diced
- 2 green bell pepers, diced
- 2 ribs of celery, diced
- 1 clove of garlic, minced
- 1 cup of mahogany roux
- 4 cups chicken stock
- 1/2 lb andouille sausage, sliced on the bias
- 1/2 lb chicken meat, bite-size, picked from the bone
- 2 crayfish or shrimp, whole, shells and legs and googly eyes and everything
- 1 tsp cayenne pepper — 2 if you like it hot
- 2 tsp fresh thyme leaves
- 1/4 cup chopped parsley
- Salt and pepper to taste
- 1-2 tsp filé powder (sassafras)
1. In a big pot goes the onions, bell peppers, celery, and garlic with a little oil. Sauté until they’re good and see-through.
2. Add roux and stock. Stir it up a bit until there’s no lumps. Bring to a boil then turn down to a simmer.
3. Throw in everything else except shellfish, parsley and filé powder. You want to do those at the end.
4. Simmer for oh, I don’t know, a half an hour or so until it gets real smooth and tastes all melded together. Add salt and pepper in small bits as you go along so you don’t over season it too much in the beginning.
5. Throw in the shellfish. Cook for 10 minutes or until they’re good and red.
6. Add parsley and filé powder. Add that slowly, too. It’s a thickener, and you don’t want it to be too goopy.
7. Serve hot over rice.
Whoo-ee!
|
|
|
Superobamafragilisticexpialodocious
Or, “What you can learn about a person by checking out the words that they’ve added to their custom dictionary.”
Here are just the ones that I’ve added on account of this blog (and Stranger Pilgrim) so far:
ain’t, animes, bacony, biblioblog, bloviate, cheesey, ew, glumdiggle, godling, heh, hogswallop, inerrancy, jabberwocky, Japanimation, manga, mazeltov, mecha, metanarrative, nyah, obamaganda, obamaporn, pietistic, Raelians, regrow,softcore, stumblings, subhumans, superobamafragilisticexpialodocious, tribalistic, unsourced, yay
Take that, Google!
(Heh. Just added one more: What kind of spellchecker doesn’t know the word spellchecker?)
I can’t resist: Those are all perfectly cromulent words.
|
|
|
My Favorite Animes
I’m not a huge fan of anime. Or manga. Or comic books. Or “pulp” in general. Most of it is ... well, pulp. So, when I enjoy a “Japanimation” feature, it’s in spite of the genre, not because of it. The following are just good movies, period.
1) Princess Mononoke by Hayao Miyazaki. If you can get past the “prehistoric Japanese meet pagan forest deities” premise, you’ll find a complex, character-driven plot and some of the most beautiful (and weirdest) film sequences I’ve ever seen. Every moment is a new surprise. I’d call it PG-13: Lots of action violence (and blood), but otherwise family friendly.
2) Nausicaa of the Valley of the Winds, also Miyazaki. The last scraps of humanity are fighting to survive in the midst of a desert that is flanked by a “toxic forest” filled with giant insects. Princess Nausicaa is a true heroine, impossible not to root for. The plot is satisfying, but what puts this in the top three is the design. Some potentially scary war images, but otherwise, family friendly.
Nausicaa 3) Satoshi Kon’s Paprika — a moderately disturbing psychological thriller with a premise similar to The Cell. Worth it for the parade sequences alone. 14+. Psychological tension throughout, and some (very creepy) nudity toward the end.
4) Spirited Away, Miyazaki again. That’s what you call a “hat trick.” When you watch a Miyazaki film, you never know what you’re going to get. And that’s the appeal! In this one, a young girl is separated from her family and crosses over into the spirit world, where she becomes a ghost herself and is enslaved to a witch. Much weirdness ensues. Family friendly: mild peril throughout.
5) Voices of a Distant Star by Makoto Shinkai. The filmmaker made the entire movie on his home computer, and he turned that weakness into a strength: The storytelling is terse, relying mostly on dialog spoken over poetic (and mostly static) images. The trailer makes it look like yet another cheesey mecha-orgy, but it’s not. It’s an intimate little story about two people who are kept apart and kept together by technology. I found it to be a little baffling at first, but ultimately moving.
|
|
|
Obamaganda II : Prometheus, Bringer of Fire
Part I : Introduction
Barack Obama was sometimes depicted using the same visual vocabulary as Prometheus, the Greek Titan who stole fire from Zeus and gave it to mankind. Prometheus’ theft angered the gods, but brought humankind out of an age of darkness.
In the modern Promethean parallel, Obama brings the Light of Hope to dispel the dark forces of ignorance, greed, hatred, and deceit. This angers the “establishment” powers, the “Washington power brokers”, the “corporate fat-cats”, but it will bring mankind out of the dark wilds of Republican rule into the light of Hope and Change.
|
|
|
Obamaganda I : Introduction
 Candidate Obama (and his followers) used art as the means to further his political aims more often and more effectively than any American political candidate I have ever seen. The symbolism used is both mythic and archetypal, fraught with symbolism and pregnant with meanings both overt and hidden, striking deeply at the “mystic chords of memory,” to borrow a phrase from Abraham Lincoln. As propaganda, Obama-themed art is strident, grasping, blatant, brilliant.
Propaganda? The word may seem unfair. I only mean this: The use of artistic modes of expression not only to communicate an aesthetic message or intent, but also to forward the aims of a political movement or agenda. By this definition, Picasso’s Guernica is propaganda, and so is every political poster. The films of Michael Moore are propaganda, as was Ben Stein’s Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. To the extent that a political movement uses artistic means to accomplish its ends, it is employing propaganda. There is nothing inherently wrong with that; it is just another way to communicate in a mass media setting.
Broadly speaking, there are three groups that have used propagandistic imagery on Obama’s behalf: An unofficial grassroots movement of urban “street artists” who printed innumerable posters around US cities; various elements of the mainstream media who, either intentionally or subconsciously, shot and chose some blatantly propagandistic — reverent, even! — images to illustrate the 2008 presidential campaign; and finally, the campaign (and now the government) itself.
In this series, I’ll examine just one of the motifs running through the imagery: Obama as light-bearer.
Before continuing on, I should disclaim: Politically, I am a conservative with a libertarian bent (not a Republican), and no fan of Barack Obama’s policies. However, I don’t wish any specific ill toward the man. He was legitimately elected; he’s my president, too.
Nor do I think the Obama art phenomenon is a carefully orchestrated propaganda campaign. I am not pointing to a conspiracy here, but a movement. A movement that uses art and symbolism to further its agenda. A movement that centers around an iconic figure.
 And he is an iconic figure, isn’t he? Tall. Dark. Handsome. Sun glinting off his chiseled pectorals. A calm, soothing demeanor. A comely face, with just enough character to be recognizable, but not too much so as to be off-putting. A visage that lends itself to depictions of thoughtful gazes and million-mile stares, as if he can see into the future. He may be a young man, but he seems to have a very old soul.
He seems to be animated by a spectral, ethereal light. He seems to be a luminous being, one of us, but not quite one of us, a godling among men.
Or is it all just hype?
|
|
|
Science Uber Alles
More from Obama’s remarks on the 9th:
Now, this order [expanding federal funding for embryonic stem cell research] is an important step in advancing the cause of science in America. But let’s be clear: Promoting science isn’t just about providing resources — it’s also about protecting free and open inquiry. It’s about letting scientists like those who are here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient — especially when it’s inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda — and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.
Science uber alles. Hm ... that just doesn’t sound right. Maybe we should look at a few test cases. (I mean, “thought experiments”! — yes, that’s more science-y.)
Experiment #1: Jobs Humans Won’t Do, but Subhumans Will. Let’s say that instead of curing disease, the “scientists” who now get to make all the biomedical decisions for the rest of us decided to engineer a half-man, half-chimp that could be bred to do all of our physical labor. There might be ethical concerns there, but hey! You can’t argue against ideas on ethical grounds any more. And by the way, they’re also designing a soldier who can spit acid from his eyes. How cool is that? Go, science! Yes, it’s possible. Is it a good idea? Must we let the scientists decide? Must we “let [them] do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion”?
Experiment #2: Eliminate the Negative Producers. Let’s say that population scientists and economists get together decide that the most efficient way out of our current financial miasma is to reduce the American population by 1/3. And the 1/3 they elect to eliminate are the violent, the insane, and the non-productive. Remove the people who are only draining the system, and the system benefits. The debate-coach-in-chief would like you to prepare a 2 minute rebuttal, but you cannot appeal to any non-scientific basis anywhere in your argument. Sure, it could be done — lost productivity in the remaining 2/3 because of, I don’t know, sadness over lost loved ones and fear of a similar fate; cite some statistics from North Korea; wait for applause — but why go to the hassle? Why not be allowed to say: Killing people to prop up a failing economic system is evil? No, then you’d be “distorting” scientific debate to “serve a political agenda”.
Experiment #3: If the Shoe Doesn’t Fit. Let’s say that starting tomorrow, the community does an about-face on “global climate change” and says, “Oops! Our bad. Turns out it’s all the sun’s fault. The warming we experienced over the last 75 or so years is part of a natural cycle, and there’s no evidence that human beings are causing it. Or could even if they wanted to.” (Extra credit: An increasing number of scientists actually are saying that.) Would the enormous global-warming-I-mean-global-climate-change government apparatus that is designed to mandate huge swaths of human activity be dismantled? Will we “listen to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient”?
Experiment #4: Barnyard Follies. Science tells us that most higher-order mammals have enough self-awareness and communicative ability to let us know what actions they do or do not consent to. So ... legalize bestiality! No fair saying, “Ew! That’s gross!” If you want to argue against this, you must use hard, cold facts, ma’am, and nothing but. Remember, nowadays we “make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.”
Experiment #5: Soylent Green is Peeeeeeeple!. Why are we letting all those yummy human corpses go to waste? We could easily reclaim those valuable nutrients, and if we are squeamish about eating them ourselves (even if science tells us it’s just tissue — chemically no different than pork, really) maybe we could feed them to, say, hogs or chickens. (And while we’re at it, why don’t we eat stray cats? They’re good eats.) Instead, we bury our ex-live humans in the ground like superstitious fools! Sad, really. If we reclaimed all that extra human protein, we could convert more of our food crops into alternative fuels. I call that a win-win. Who’s with me? Not convinced? I published my idea in Nature. I even have a pie-chart, so you have to let me win.
In the words of Dr Peter Venkman: “Back off, man. I’m a scientist!”
Silly? Yes. Those are off the top of my head. I’m sure you could think of better examples. Heck, I’ll bet a lot of scientists have thought up better (read: more disturbing) examples. Seriously: Isn’t eugenics a science?
The good news is that Obama doesn’t really believe what he’s saying. It just sounds pretty. In this paragraph, he tells us that only scientists can make science decisions, but not five minutes earlier, he said that human cloning for reproduction was “profoundly wrong and has no place in our society, any society”. What he really means is: If I can find scientists to agree with my ideology, the debate is over. Nyah, nyah.
(As if scientists always agreed on what the data is, and what conclusions to draw from it! If you really think that’s the way science works, you haven’t been paying attention.)
Yuval Levin has this all figured out:
In a prior iteration of [the stem cell] debate, while he was serving in the Senate, Obama told reporters that “the promise that stem cells hold does not come from any particular ideology; it is the judgment of science, and we deserve a president who will put that judgment first.” This is a concise articulation of the technocratic temptation in science policy, reaffirmed by the president’s remarks yesterday. It argues not for an ethical judgment regarding the moral worth of human embryos but, rather, that no ethical judgment is called for: that it is all a matter of science.... Science is a glorious thing, but it is no substitute for wisdom, prudence or democracy. — Washington Post article
I recommend to you Mr. Levin’s recent book Imagining the Future: Science and American Democracy. There is a sample chapter, ”Science and the Left“, online. I own the book, and if you’re within walking distance of me at any point, I’ll let you borrow it.
I like science. I like the idea that public policy should be informed by good data (and not ahem projections). But let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that science is the ultimate authority. Rather, scientists are people just like you and me, and just like you and me, sometimes they’re wrong. Dead wrong. Dead flat wrong.
Sometimes, the data is on the wrong side of an ethical/moral question. If you always let the data decide, sometimes you will be, too.
|
|
|
Bass Ackwards
The human cloning debate has historically broken cloning into two broad categories: Reproductive cloning, and therapeutic cloning. In both the process is the same: A new human being would be created from existing DNA. I say “would be” because as far as we know, this hasn’t happened yet. What differs is the purpose to which the cloned person is put.
Reproductive cloning takes a newly created embryonic person and implants it into a womb to gestate and become a child. If you know any identical twins, you already know some “reproductive clones”; it’s just that Mother Nature (I would say “Providence”) did the work inside the womb instead of a scientist doing it in the lab.
We are told that this artificial twinning is a moral horror, and must not be pursued at any cost:
[W]e will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society. — President Barack Obama, March 9, 2009 (emphasis mine)
Raelians and other kooks notwithstanding, this sort of cloning is unlikely to be pursued, and so the president’s moral outrage is a Potemkin village. Why would anyone want to clone a person for human reproduction — unless like Sir Hilary, we do it simply “because it was there”? Personal vanity among the super rich, perhaps? The world, we are told, is already overpopulated. Why make more humans using complicated and astronomically costly methods when making them the old fashioned way is simple and cheap? (Not to mention fun.)
Therapeutic cloning, on the other hand, takes our embryonic human and tears it apart for the purpose of harvesting its valuable innards, namely embryonic stem cells, which would be used for research and eventually treatment of various horrible illnesses such as Parkinson’s disease or Alzheimer’s.
We are told that this vivisection of a living human being is a moral imperative, and must be pursued whatever the cost:
Today, with the executive order I am about to sign, we will bring the change that so many scientists and researchers, doctors and innovators, patients and loved ones have hoped for, and fought for, these past eight years: We will lift the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research. We will also vigorously support scientists who pursue this research. — ibid
Now, “human cloning” and “stem cell research” are in no way the same thing, so to the extent that the President condemns human cloning, he attacks a straw man. There are many (thousands? millions?) of human embryos left over from fertility treatments, and new ones can be made at any time using the time-honored tradition of combining sperm and egg. Cloning is difficult and costly work.
Nevertheless, this sort of cloning is much more likely to occur. For one thing, scientists always like to remove variables from research, and because cloned embryonic lines share the same DNA, they do just that. Furthermore, once therapies are developed, it may be desirable for the donor stem cells to match the patient’s DNA. We don’t know that yet, but assuming you need stem cells to grow new liver tissue, you probably want the new tissue to have the same DNA as the old.
Now we are treading very close to the nightmare scenario of movies like The Island: What if you could donate a few cells and a clone could be grown that could grow you some bone marrow or an extra kidney, should the need arise? If you had an artificial twin, say, twenty or thirty years younger than you, he could be butchered to give you his much younger heart, liver, or corneas when yours wear out. Far-fetched, perhaps, but not that much different than what embryonic stem-cell research proposes: Take undifferentiated stem-cells from embryonic humans and use them to regrow adult tissue. The only difference between the nightmare scenario and what is going on right now is how old the cloned persons are allowed to grow before they are butchered.
The outrage here is exactly backwards. “The use of cloning for human reproduction” is neither “dangerous” nor “profoundly wrong;” it poses no more ethical dilemma than in vitro fertilization techniques already do, and should cause no more moral outrage than identical twins would: Each is a distinct person, with their own personality, volition, and consciousness — their own soul, if you’re inclined to think that way, as I am — but with the same DNA.
(I am assuming for the sake of argument that the technique has been perfected, which for the record, I hope it never is. One good argument for not attempting human reproductive cloning is that the first clones might be deformed or unhealthy due to the inevitable imperfections in technique to create them. Simply put, we would not tolerate “working out the kinks.” I am also assuming that these cloned people would be treated with basic human dignity and not tortured, mutilated, or killed in the name of science! But that is a separate question.)
The use of cloning for research or treatment, however, is “profoundly wrong”, no less so than Josef Mengele’s genetic experimentation during World War II. Creating embryonic human beings in order to murder them and steal their as-yet-unformed organs is barbaric. Certainly, spinal cord injuries such as that suffered by Christopher Reeve, are terrible. As is Parkinson’s Disease, which plagues Michael J. Fox. Or any other disease you can find a beloved celebrity to represent! Yet no matter how terrible the disease, murdering another human being in order to save your own life is evil. Period. In a word, it is vampirism, and ought to be condemned in the strongest possible terms. That the official policy of the United States is now to “vigorously support scientists who pursue this research” is appalling.
Artificial twinning is condemned. Murder-as-medicine is lauded. This, friends, is bass ackwards.
|
|
|
What a Trillion Dollars Looks Like
This is sobering.
|
|
|
I Looked, and Behold!
I’ve added another piece to my “album” Carnivaux, a rhythmic/minimalist string orchestra piece that is in part inspired by the alien contours of several visions recounted in the Bible: Genesis 28:10-22; Exodus 24:9-11; Daniel 7:1ff; Ezekiel 1:1ff, 10:1ff; Zechariah 6:1ff; Revelation 4:1ff. The first sketches of the melody and chord pattern (there are only two) was banged out when I was studying Revelation 4:1ff in order to do a sermon on it.
After this I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven! And the first voice, which I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet, said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.” At once I was in the Spirit, and behold, a throne stood in heaven, with one seated on the throne. And he who sat there had the appearance of jasper and carnelian, and around the throne was a rainbow that had the appearance of an emerald. Around the throne were twenty-four thrones, and seated on the thrones were twenty-four elders, clothed in white garments, with golden crowns on their heads. From the throne came flashes of lightning, and rumblings and peals of thunder, and before the throne were burning seven torches of fire, which are the seven spirits of God, and before the throne there was as it were a sea of glass, like crystal. (Rev 4:1-6, ESV)
How is that not one of the coolest things you’ve ever read? Clearly words don’t do a vision like that any kind of justice, and neither would a painting, nor a silly little string piece. Nevertheless, do check it out, if you are interested in such things.
If I were going to choose a picture to illustrate this piece, it would be something like this:
Ain’t creation grand? How much more so its creator!
Update: I made a video for this piece, using the text of Revelation 4 and some pictures from the Hubble telescope, now at YouTube. A higher-resolution version, here.
|
|
|
Eli, no!
A children’s book by Katie Kirk of Eight Hour Day, a “multi-disciplinary, multi-talented design boutique”. I couldn’t find it for sale on Amazon, or else I might have bought a copy. I just like the fact that someone named their dog Eli.
HT: Khoi Vinh, Subtraction.com
|
|
|
Rich Bacony Goodness
The US Congress just passed the largest appropriations bill ever, one-thousand pages plus, which you can read in two parts: here, and here, complete with handwritten conference committee notes. I think you should read it,1 because a) you’re paying for it, and b) most of the people who voted for it didn’t.
Absurd, no?
There is so much pork in this stinker it ought to come with a side of applesauce. But that’s just par for the course. What’s particularly onerous about this bill — which I’m hereby dubbing the “American Taxpayer Rectal Intrusion Act of 2009” — is its enormous size.
The final cost of this wonder is around $790 billion. That’s nearly a trillion, which is a number so large it hardly has any meaning. Let’s see if we can put that into perspective:
- 1 trillion dollar bills would weigh about three times as much as the Empire State Building, give or take.3
- 1 trillion pennies stacked in a cube is pretty big.
- If the average person weighs around 140-ish pounds, then all 7 billion of us on this planet weigh about 1 trillion pounds.4
So, what are we spending the current weight of humanity in dollars on these days? Really important stuff. Critical stuff. Stuff we couldn’t possibly under any circumstances live without. Stuff that if we don’t pass this bill immediately, the entire economy will burst into flames!
Like, for example:
For an amount for “Digital-to-Analog Converter Box Program”, $650,000,000 for additional coupons and related activities under the program implemented under section 3005 of the Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005: Provided, That of the amounts provided under this heading $90,000,000 may be for education and outreach, including grants to organizations for programs to educate vulnerable populations, including senior citizens, minority communities, people with disabilities, low-income individuals, and people living in rural areas, about the transition and to provide one-on-one assistance to vulnerable populations, including help with converter box installation — United States Taxpayer Rectal Intrusion Act of 2009, pages 37-38
So. Um. Right. We’re going to spend $650 million dollars to make sure that grandma gets a free converter box to watch her soaps on her ancient TV? And $90 million to make sure that she knows that it’s coming? (Maybe they’ll make commercials like this one.)
If congress and the President can be taken at their word, then Rome is burning. And whereas Nero merely fiddled his way through that crisis, our leaders are stealing $650,000,000 from the next generation to make sure that everyone in this one gets to watch American Idol without interruption. I call this the “Leave No Couch Potato Behind” provision.
A low-end digital TV costs about $200. A converter box costs about $40-70. God forbid you have to pay that cost out of your own pocket! As comedian Louis CK said recently on the Conan O’Brien show, “We live in an amazing, amazing world, and it’s wasted on the crappiest generation of spoiled idiots.” Well said, sir!
Of course, this whole digital TV caucus race was started by the government forcing the change in the first place. Or was it the cable lobby? I forget. Doesn’t really matter: Whoever started it, and whoever benefits from it, you’re going to pay for it.
Anyway, that’s just one of the many outrages in this bill. When it boils down to it, this isn’t a “stimulus” bill so much as a spending bill. We’re going to get two budgets this year: The real budget, and this mess. So go ahead and read it. You (and your children, and your children’s children) paid for it.
Well, no. You’re borrowing to pay for it, so we’ll be paying interest on it for years to come. Imagine that you can’t afford to eat or pay the rent, but you have a credit card with a $100K limit. What the government is doing here is the equivalent of you buying a new BMW on that credit card because you hope it’ll help you get a better job down the road. No, that’s not quite it. It’s more like they’re taking your credit card and charging a BMW for your neighbor — the lazy one who drinks too much and won’t mow his lawn.
Mazeltov!
—
1 No, I haven’t read it all yet. I got to about page 100 and had to stop because of my blood pressure.
2 60 sec x 60 minutes x 24 hours x 365.25 days = 31,557,600 seconds per year and 1,000,000,000,000 seconds / 31,557,600 seconds per year = 31,688.0878 years
3 1 dollar weighs about a gram, and there are about 454 grams in a pound. So, 1,000,000,000,000 dollars / 453.59237 dollars per pound = 2,204,622,621.849 pounds ... 2,204,622,621.849 pounds / 2,000 pounds per ton = 1,102,311.311 tons ... 1,102,311.311 tons / 365,000 tons per Empire State Building = 3.02 Empire State Buildings
4 1,000,000,000,000 pounds / 7,000,000,000 humans = 142.8571 pounds
|
|
Archives
|
|
Sign in
|
