Okay, after a couple of weeks of too much work, not enough fun, I am getting the hell out of Dodge.
I'm off to Beaver Creek for two days, with no computer. I'll be taking my cell phone, but hope to hell not to use it. I'm looking forward to a couple of days 'off the grid'.
So, in my absence, go learn something new. Make a friend. Feed a tree. Have fun! I know I will be. And, I'll be back and in a more...sociable mood come Sunday.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Legends Of The Absurd
I'm glad that I will never be famous, because if I did become famous, some day Michael Kinsley might write an article about me, like today's take-down of the New York Times for its mismanagement of the McCain/Iseman story of last week.
What I wrote was that some people had expressed concern that the Times article might have created the appearance of charging that McCain had had an affair. My critics have charged that I was charging the Times with charging McCain with having had an affair. Such a charge would be unfair to the New York Times, since the Times article, if you read it carefully (very carefully), does not make any charge against McCain except that people in a meeting eight years ago had suggested that other people eight years ago might reach a conclusion—about which the Times expressed no view whatsoever—that McCain was having an affair. I have no evidence to suggest that the New York Times suggested with no evidence that McCain was having an affair.And, if ever such a thing were to be written about me, I should be very sad, indeed. Although, it would be pretty fucking cool if Mike Kinsley knew who I was. That might make it all worthwhile.
From The Not-Quite-So-Funny File
And, not so much funny 'ha-ha' as funny 'hmmmm', apparent astronomical evidence of the existence of large pockets of dark matter. I'm very skeptical about concepts like Dark Energy and Dark Matter: just like string theory, they upset my notion that in order to qualify as science, a theory damn well ought to be testable. To explain the problem of cosmological reacceleration (the fact that the rate of cosmological expansion, in the wake of the Big Bang, slowed for several billion years, then started to accelerate again), I prefer theories of Modified Newtonian Dynamics.
Traditional Newtonian Laws of Dynamics are just approximations, which quantum laws approach as you change the scale from the micro to the macro (the so-called Correspondence Principle). You need quantum mechanics to describe the actions of a single electron, but if you start talking about amps of current flowing through a resistor, traditional electrodynamics do the job just fine.
Similarly, MOND posits that our traditional law of gravity is also just an approximation, perfectly describing the behavior of balls falling through air, or planets flying around a sun. But when you start to talk about extremely large distances, like that between various galaxies, maybe the rules change a bit. That could explain the reacceleration in a way that avoids having to propose that we don't know where 95% of the mass-energy of the Universe is hiding, as dark matter/dark energy theories claim.
Anyhow, my point is just that if, as claimed, we've seen some real evidence for the existence of dark matter (large pockets of mass whose existence we can presume from experimental evidence, although we cannot see it directly), that is a big feather in the cap of Dark Matter/Energy theorists.
Like any good modern physics argument, this one probably won't be solved anytime soon. But it's something worth keeping an eye out, at least if you are one of the 14 or so people not actually working in the field who still cares about this stuff.
Traditional Newtonian Laws of Dynamics are just approximations, which quantum laws approach as you change the scale from the micro to the macro (the so-called Correspondence Principle). You need quantum mechanics to describe the actions of a single electron, but if you start talking about amps of current flowing through a resistor, traditional electrodynamics do the job just fine.
Similarly, MOND posits that our traditional law of gravity is also just an approximation, perfectly describing the behavior of balls falling through air, or planets flying around a sun. But when you start to talk about extremely large distances, like that between various galaxies, maybe the rules change a bit. That could explain the reacceleration in a way that avoids having to propose that we don't know where 95% of the mass-energy of the Universe is hiding, as dark matter/dark energy theories claim.
Anyhow, my point is just that if, as claimed, we've seen some real evidence for the existence of dark matter (large pockets of mass whose existence we can presume from experimental evidence, although we cannot see it directly), that is a big feather in the cap of Dark Matter/Energy theorists.
Like any good modern physics argument, this one probably won't be solved anytime soon. But it's something worth keeping an eye out, at least if you are one of the 14 or so people not actually working in the field who still cares about this stuff.
Tuesday Laughs
For a few yuks on this fairly apolitical Tuesday:
Cracked.com's list of the 5 Most Badass American Presidents. About Teddy Roosevelt:
And, from the home of funny, something vaguely political: "Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results of 2008 Election Early."
Cracked.com's list of the 5 Most Badass American Presidents. About Teddy Roosevelt:
Did we mention he had asthma growing up? He did, and after he beat asthma to death, he ate asthma's raw flesh and ran 100 straight miles off the energy it gave him.Even better, the 9 Manliest Names In The World. All I can say about this is "Staff Sgt. Max Fightmaster."
And, from the home of funny, something vaguely political: "Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results of 2008 Election Early."
The Death Of Conservatism Redux
Okay, after re-reading my rant from yesterday, I realized that I didn't quite get around to making the point that I was trying to get at, which was that conservatism, as it is currently constituted, is going to have to figure out a way of adapting to a Brave New World if it is going to survive.
Both conservatism and liberalism make a lot of coin playing off the concept of tribalism. But there is a distinct difference, in my mind, in the way that they do so. Liberalism plays off tribalism in an inherently positive sense: the explicit goal of affirmative action is not to bring down whites, but to raise up blacks, for instance. Not to say that it doesn't sometimes come with some ugly undercurrents of quotas and guilt-tripping, but they're just that - undercurrents.
Conservatism, on the other hand, uses the definitions of 'self' and 'other' in a more negative sense. Keep those (blacks, women, convicted felons) from getting the right to vote. Keep those (interracial couples, gays) from getting the chance to marry. Keep those (Germans, Irish, Mexicans) back on the other side of the border, where they belong.
And that's an inherent problem. While we're always going to have tribal identities, at least so long as we are members of the species homo sapiens, the ongoing march of technological advancement is going to break down our ability to ignore the unhappiness of others.
Which is not to say that there won't be conservatism. There always will be. For one thing, so long as there are tribes (which, again, will be the case so long as we're human beings), there will be wars, and arguments about which ones are good ones (all of them, if your last name happens to be Kristol) and which ones are not. But it is sure as shit going to have to reconstitute itself on several axes. That's what I mean about the imminent death of conservatism; conservatism, as we know it, will not exist in 50 years. About that, I am quite confident.
Both conservatism and liberalism make a lot of coin playing off the concept of tribalism. But there is a distinct difference, in my mind, in the way that they do so. Liberalism plays off tribalism in an inherently positive sense: the explicit goal of affirmative action is not to bring down whites, but to raise up blacks, for instance. Not to say that it doesn't sometimes come with some ugly undercurrents of quotas and guilt-tripping, but they're just that - undercurrents.
Conservatism, on the other hand, uses the definitions of 'self' and 'other' in a more negative sense. Keep those (blacks, women, convicted felons) from getting the right to vote. Keep those (interracial couples, gays) from getting the chance to marry. Keep those (Germans, Irish, Mexicans) back on the other side of the border, where they belong.
And that's an inherent problem. While we're always going to have tribal identities, at least so long as we are members of the species homo sapiens, the ongoing march of technological advancement is going to break down our ability to ignore the unhappiness of others.
Which is not to say that there won't be conservatism. There always will be. For one thing, so long as there are tribes (which, again, will be the case so long as we're human beings), there will be wars, and arguments about which ones are good ones (all of them, if your last name happens to be Kristol) and which ones are not. But it is sure as shit going to have to reconstitute itself on several axes. That's what I mean about the imminent death of conservatism; conservatism, as we know it, will not exist in 50 years. About that, I am quite confident.
Monday, February 25, 2008
The Death Of Conservatism
I've mentioned before, I think, about how ridiculous the current hullabaloo about the 'Defense of Marriage' is. For starters, it's a completely ridiculous argument, one which does not hold up to the slightest bit of critical scrutiny. I think of myself as fairly intelligent, and I've never been able to figure out how two dudes in San Francisco tying the knot affects my ability to get married, or the decision-making process that leads me there. For another, and more important, it's a completely wasted rearguard action, since I am 100% confident that my grandchildren will someday think it absolutely as weird that two men weren't able to get married as I think it that, in the not-so-distant past, people of two different races couldn't get married.
In large ways, the ongoing and never-ending march of technological progress has a lot to do with these events. As technology opens our minds, expands our horizons, and forces us to interact daily with people and places and events that, previously, would never have even made it onto our radar screens, we grow to learn that other people are, well, people too, and equally deserving of our respect and the protection of law as we ourselves are.
Anyhow, the point of this meandering is that the technological march of progress will not be stopped, and Reihan is absolute right: if conservatives want to avoid a future which includes universal, government-delivered health care, they had better get off their ass and figure out a way to beat it. As technology gives us, and our doctors, and the insurance companies, more and more information about what the future holds for us (such as the likelihood of developing various diseases), more and more people are going to be dealt out of the private insurance game.
As Reihan said: read the N.Y. Times article on how this trend is already beginning, then read Stephen Cecchetti to learn about how its progression is inevitable, and what the only possible outcome may well be. As Cecchetti says, as markets fail, which the health insurance market is bound to do, in the long run, the government is always the body to step in and pick up the pieces.
Personally, I think it would be just super if we could, for once in the history of this godforsakenly shortsighted country, actually see this latent emergency as it's developing, rather than in hindsight, and actually take proactive steps to grease the wheels, rather than enact more shortsighted legislation to try and take care of an ongoing emergency.
But, having lived for 30 long years in said country, I'm not quite so naive as to expect it to actually happen. But still; a guy can dream, right?
In large ways, the ongoing and never-ending march of technological progress has a lot to do with these events. As technology opens our minds, expands our horizons, and forces us to interact daily with people and places and events that, previously, would never have even made it onto our radar screens, we grow to learn that other people are, well, people too, and equally deserving of our respect and the protection of law as we ourselves are.
Anyhow, the point of this meandering is that the technological march of progress will not be stopped, and Reihan is absolute right: if conservatives want to avoid a future which includes universal, government-delivered health care, they had better get off their ass and figure out a way to beat it. As technology gives us, and our doctors, and the insurance companies, more and more information about what the future holds for us (such as the likelihood of developing various diseases), more and more people are going to be dealt out of the private insurance game.
As Reihan said: read the N.Y. Times article on how this trend is already beginning, then read Stephen Cecchetti to learn about how its progression is inevitable, and what the only possible outcome may well be. As Cecchetti says, as markets fail, which the health insurance market is bound to do, in the long run, the government is always the body to step in and pick up the pieces.
Personally, I think it would be just super if we could, for once in the history of this godforsakenly shortsighted country, actually see this latent emergency as it's developing, rather than in hindsight, and actually take proactive steps to grease the wheels, rather than enact more shortsighted legislation to try and take care of an ongoing emergency.
But, having lived for 30 long years in said country, I'm not quite so naive as to expect it to actually happen. But still; a guy can dream, right?
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Feminism Is Funny!
Via Matt (who got it via Jessica Valenti), the funniest video I've seen about feminism, well, ever.
The best line? Definitely 'Which means she kept her name, mother****ers!'
The best line? Definitely 'Which means she kept her name, mother****ers!'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)