What is the deal with modern horror movies? I don't want to sound like an old man, but I just don't get the point any more. I once read that the difference between terror and horror in films and literature is like the difference between erotica and pornography. The concepts of terror and erotica in culture attempt to titillate the mind by suggestion and a certain level of craft, while horror and porn are blunt, brutal, and just try to supply the consumer with an animalistic fix.
The level of gore and violence in films is in general not something I disapprove of, or more properly care about: I am not some Tipper Gore trying to mandate what people should and should not see. I do not think it corrupts our culture, but more accurately the reverse: it sells because our culture demands it.
But I ask myself, and this is where I get really baffled: how can large numbers of (allegedly) adult citizens watch a film whose plot is basically that a bunch of people get cruelly tortured and killed? And this is the third installment in an incredibly popular series!!! To me, this doesn't seem like playing on our sense of fear as much as raising bloodlust in the brutal and increasing depression in the thinking. Either way, it seems to be somewhat mindnumbing. My passions even get more aroused when I think that the audiences for whom such films are made are alleged members of the Western civilization that finds the Holocaust and terrorism to be acts of evil. Apparently real political violence is bad, but fake (although extremely graphic) violence for entertainment is enjoyable. It seems that we are a step closer to the Roman ampitheatres, and we know where the Romans wound up.
I would much more highly recommend The Ring, either in its original incarnation or the American remake. That is a truly terrifying film.
1 Nov 2006
Le Halloween
I noticed this BBC article regarding the collapse of the Halloween fad in France. I find it very interesting, although I do somewhat doubt that Halloween's unpopularity is owing to anti-Americanism in France. The surprising lack of celebration of the Fourth of July might be more directly related, but as The Economist often points out, the French are heavy consumers of American films and fast food.
There probably are good reasons for its unpopularity, and I'm sure some of them come from the artificiality of Halloween. Halloween and St. Valentine's Day both fall into this category: they are often denounced as fake holidays made up by capitalists in order to make money. However, if the holiday products were not popular, then companies would not sell them - exactly as they are doing in France!
The ultimate problem stems from the quandry of holidays. Holidays are ultimately events based on tradition or collective experiences, and so it is rather difficult to up and introduce them into new cultures, unless related to some sort of immigration or fad. Ireland is the only country that celebrates Halloween as an actual national holiday, because the Irish have maintained their connections to the holiday's Celtic roots. The English and the Americans steadily lost this connection over time, and especially in the constant churning of American society Halloween got replaced with something easy, non-religious and "safe - fun". The trick has been banned, and the treat sweetened and sold in stores. Ultimately, it is a meaningless holiday because any meaning was intentionally stripped away. In this sense, the French are right, because the only remaining value is to a specific, targeted demographic market, much like Valentine's Day, and even Christmas. Let us not forget that the old English Yule festivals never made it to America, because of the Puritans banning such pagan celebrations, and that Christmas only came to the shores of the New World because of German immigration (bringing St. Nicholas and fir trees) and a Victorian obsession with the Gothic, the archaic, and (once again) "safe-fun" for the family.
My wife remarked to me that Americans are terrible at celebrating holidays, and I must agree with her. The American idea of celebrating a holiday mostly consists of buying peripherals and decorations, and then once the holiday arrives by sitting in front of a television at home and eating. Even the parade is an increasingly rare tradition (when was the last time you went to a parade?). And as for street festivals and carnivals? Forget it: those are for immigrants or for drunken college coeds in New Orleans. In my experience, other countries seem to celebrate with more heart: I have eaten a traditional Christmas dinner at a vicarage in England, complete with hasty pudding. I have celebrated Nauryz in Kazakhstan by going to street festivals, watching live singing and dancing and horseracing, and by eating ethnic food. And the latter country is not even a rich one! I question why Americans have so much, yet celebrate so pathetically. Perhaps O. Henry was near the mark, when in one of his short stories he noted that Americans are always attempting to create new "traditions" to make up for their lack of any.
Or these days they just try to buy them. The BBC also noted that Americans are spending five times as much on Halloween as on the 2006 political campaigns. Billions and billions for cheap costumes, beer for the adults and snickers bars for the kids.
So be frightened! Eat some candy! Vivre le Halloween!
There probably are good reasons for its unpopularity, and I'm sure some of them come from the artificiality of Halloween. Halloween and St. Valentine's Day both fall into this category: they are often denounced as fake holidays made up by capitalists in order to make money. However, if the holiday products were not popular, then companies would not sell them - exactly as they are doing in France!
The ultimate problem stems from the quandry of holidays. Holidays are ultimately events based on tradition or collective experiences, and so it is rather difficult to up and introduce them into new cultures, unless related to some sort of immigration or fad. Ireland is the only country that celebrates Halloween as an actual national holiday, because the Irish have maintained their connections to the holiday's Celtic roots. The English and the Americans steadily lost this connection over time, and especially in the constant churning of American society Halloween got replaced with something easy, non-religious and "safe - fun". The trick has been banned, and the treat sweetened and sold in stores. Ultimately, it is a meaningless holiday because any meaning was intentionally stripped away. In this sense, the French are right, because the only remaining value is to a specific, targeted demographic market, much like Valentine's Day, and even Christmas. Let us not forget that the old English Yule festivals never made it to America, because of the Puritans banning such pagan celebrations, and that Christmas only came to the shores of the New World because of German immigration (bringing St. Nicholas and fir trees) and a Victorian obsession with the Gothic, the archaic, and (once again) "safe-fun" for the family.
My wife remarked to me that Americans are terrible at celebrating holidays, and I must agree with her. The American idea of celebrating a holiday mostly consists of buying peripherals and decorations, and then once the holiday arrives by sitting in front of a television at home and eating. Even the parade is an increasingly rare tradition (when was the last time you went to a parade?). And as for street festivals and carnivals? Forget it: those are for immigrants or for drunken college coeds in New Orleans. In my experience, other countries seem to celebrate with more heart: I have eaten a traditional Christmas dinner at a vicarage in England, complete with hasty pudding. I have celebrated Nauryz in Kazakhstan by going to street festivals, watching live singing and dancing and horseracing, and by eating ethnic food. And the latter country is not even a rich one! I question why Americans have so much, yet celebrate so pathetically. Perhaps O. Henry was near the mark, when in one of his short stories he noted that Americans are always attempting to create new "traditions" to make up for their lack of any.
Or these days they just try to buy them. The BBC also noted that Americans are spending five times as much on Halloween as on the 2006 political campaigns. Billions and billions for cheap costumes, beer for the adults and snickers bars for the kids.
So be frightened! Eat some candy! Vivre le Halloween!
27 Oct 2006
Another Good Documentary
Frontline has another good documentary on North Korea, a subject that I think is better left to the Cyberpanopticon's thorough forum. I will, however, say that after watching this 2005 documentary it appears to me that the current American Presidential administration has very little solid idea on how to address the North Korean nuclear problem. The administration has decided that the North Korean regime is evil, and that therefore they cannot deal with it on essentially any level. However, on the other hand they claim that the North Korean situation is not a "crisis", and that military force is not a real option. I guess this means that the President ultimately does not really care, even with the nuclear tests and that North Korea has conducted and the resultant UN sanctions since this documentary was filmed.
We will see how that policy plays out, especially considering that nuclear weapons and a possibility of regime change are only a few possible headaches on the Korean peninsula, besides conventional war, social collapse in North Korea, and the evitable concerns of a Chinese rising power.
The North Korean footage reminded me a lot of life in Central Asia. There are definite Soviet traditions shared, but at least (somewhat) greater political freedom and greater economic freedom have positively impacted Central Asia. Still, that peaceful change was fifteen years ago, and it still far from complete, nor has it brought stability to the region. American policy-makers should not expect any better, but should fear much worse, from North Korea's future.
We will see how that policy plays out, especially considering that nuclear weapons and a possibility of regime change are only a few possible headaches on the Korean peninsula, besides conventional war, social collapse in North Korea, and the evitable concerns of a Chinese rising power.
The North Korean footage reminded me a lot of life in Central Asia. There are definite Soviet traditions shared, but at least (somewhat) greater political freedom and greater economic freedom have positively impacted Central Asia. Still, that peaceful change was fifteen years ago, and it still far from complete, nor has it brought stability to the region. American policy-makers should not expect any better, but should fear much worse, from North Korea's future.
Good Documentary Link
I have to say that one of the PBS productions that I enjoy watching is Frontline. They have very concise, informative and detailed documentaries on just about any possible subject of public interest, from Herbal Medicines to the Kennedy Assassination.
You can freely download and watch them. I just watched "The Lost Year in Iraq" (aired Oct. 17), and I have to say that it sums up a lot of my feelings and impressions on Iraq and the US policy (or lack thereof) regarding Iraq.
I would like to point out that they mention just what kind of people they put in charge of the CPA in 2003. The documentary addresses that, but one sterling quote is: "I never in my life thought I would encounter 'frat brothers' and 'strategic planning' in the same sentence."
All in all, I would say that 2003 for everyone (myself included) was a wasted year. I thoroughly enjoyed relocating to a more independent and stable developing country the following year.
You can freely download and watch them. I just watched "The Lost Year in Iraq" (aired Oct. 17), and I have to say that it sums up a lot of my feelings and impressions on Iraq and the US policy (or lack thereof) regarding Iraq.
I would like to point out that they mention just what kind of people they put in charge of the CPA in 2003. The documentary addresses that, but one sterling quote is: "I never in my life thought I would encounter 'frat brothers' and 'strategic planning' in the same sentence."
All in all, I would say that 2003 for everyone (myself included) was a wasted year. I thoroughly enjoyed relocating to a more independent and stable developing country the following year.
22 Oct 2006
More War or Less?
Well, after reading through some of the day's latest headlines regarding the growing war in Somalia (one that seems to be much overlooked, much like most of Africa's conflicts), I have decided that it is time for me to share the links that I have been perusing off and on for the last year. I have been attempting to collect data on conflicts across the world, as I was hoping to assemble a 2005 version of the book New State of War and Peace. That plan is on hold.
2006 has been, in my un-scientific impression, a pretty rough year as far as peace goes. I would go so far as to argue that there has been a real uptick in both civil and international conflict this year: Lebanon and Somalia fought new wars, wars continued unstopped in Iraq and Darfur, a potential end to war still looks some ways off in Uganda, an insurgency is growing in Nigeria and a war under cease-fire in Sri Lanka has recommenced.
It is, of course, too soon for 2006 to be evaluated entirely by political scientists, and so it remains to be seen what the effects will be on their theories. I wish to point out three major sources of studies that I have perused: George Mason University's Center for Systemic Peace, the University of Maryland's Peace and Conflict studies, and the University of British Columbia's Human Security Report (this latter has garnered the most press coverage, in the BBC, the Economist and the Atlantic, among others). All three of these academic studies attempt to define what a conflict is, and by their definitions to chart the course of conflict since 1945. All three have arrived at similar conclusions (judging by their charts, perhaps even suspiciously the same conclusions): there was a marked increase in conflict and crisis in the 1980's up to 1992, and then an inexorable decline since then, all headlines to the contrary.
The authors of these reports also reach similar conclusions: the decrease in violence has largely been the result of the international system (meaning the Great Powers and such international organizations as the United Nations) working in concert to end conflicts. Arguably this was true in the 1990's, although it would appear that such a will is diminishing now (look at the North Korea and Iran crises to see potential fissures between powers, to say nothing of Iraq!). Another theory posited for this trend (although not as strongly by the above-mentioned reports' authors) is the democratic peace theory, which depending on its flavor states that war between democracies is either less likely or will not happen at all. I will not go into the details of these theories here, except to state that I am strongly skeptical of such a theory (as is the historian Donald Kagan, who states in his On the Origins of War that war is the more common human condition, rather than peace). A lot of the democratic peace theory would appear to hinge on what is a "democracy" and what is a "war", as Matthew White relates in his humourous and insightful article on his website.
I believe that the democratic peace theory is a major example of what is wrong with political science in academia today. It takes historical events, creates a tautological argument out of them and then attempts to apply it universally as a law, as if it were a physical science. Most people consider true democracy a 20th century invention, and most democracies are considered to be stable societies and economies located in the West (which happen to be allied to each other), therefore, stating that these countries do not go to war with each other seems to be the obvious, and taking this further by stating that no two democracies will ever go to war borders on the irresponsible. It also ignores inconvenient details, such as elected leaders in Cyprus and Turkey being at war with each other in 1974 (there was a military coup attempt in Cyprus, making it "unstable"), Northern Ireland hosting a low-level insurgency, and other small examples. Further, considering that war is by its nature an unstable act that leads to corruptions or curtailments of democracy (Britain was arguably more totalitarian, if also more benevolent and more democratic than Nazi Germany in 1940-1945), it seems to me that proponents of democratic peace theory have defined any case of war out of their study sample!
Historians will remain sceptical of a "science" that has the control group act as the variable group, as they will remain skeptical of a panacea espoused by President Bush as a reason for war, ie the US should invade Iraq and democratize it because no democracies go to war with each other.
The "hard " theory is espoused by R.J. Rummel, who has a blog addressing the theory here (note the nazi atrocity artwork, perhaps he is not being fully objective). The increasingly more accepted "soft" theory recognizes that unstable societies are the most likely to go to war, followed by authoritarian states with anyone else and finally by democracies with each other (meaning that democracies can war with each other, its just the least likey variant). Once again, if stability is the issue, one wonders why we should bother with democracy. Robert Kaplan himself pointed out in a prescient article that democracy is a particular phase in a society's development, hard to attain but able to be passed-by. It seems irresponsible to create policy based on a premise that peace can be achieved by forcing disparate societies to act as if they have experienced the 18th century Englightenment. Some can, others will not.
Finally, I promised to link to the Defence Academy of the UK's reports site. It has a good deal of useful studies on conflicts in the world today. Better to study these and keep an open mind on the future.
2006 has been, in my un-scientific impression, a pretty rough year as far as peace goes. I would go so far as to argue that there has been a real uptick in both civil and international conflict this year: Lebanon and Somalia fought new wars, wars continued unstopped in Iraq and Darfur, a potential end to war still looks some ways off in Uganda, an insurgency is growing in Nigeria and a war under cease-fire in Sri Lanka has recommenced.
It is, of course, too soon for 2006 to be evaluated entirely by political scientists, and so it remains to be seen what the effects will be on their theories. I wish to point out three major sources of studies that I have perused: George Mason University's Center for Systemic Peace, the University of Maryland's Peace and Conflict studies, and the University of British Columbia's Human Security Report (this latter has garnered the most press coverage, in the BBC, the Economist and the Atlantic, among others). All three of these academic studies attempt to define what a conflict is, and by their definitions to chart the course of conflict since 1945. All three have arrived at similar conclusions (judging by their charts, perhaps even suspiciously the same conclusions): there was a marked increase in conflict and crisis in the 1980's up to 1992, and then an inexorable decline since then, all headlines to the contrary.
The authors of these reports also reach similar conclusions: the decrease in violence has largely been the result of the international system (meaning the Great Powers and such international organizations as the United Nations) working in concert to end conflicts. Arguably this was true in the 1990's, although it would appear that such a will is diminishing now (look at the North Korea and Iran crises to see potential fissures between powers, to say nothing of Iraq!). Another theory posited for this trend (although not as strongly by the above-mentioned reports' authors) is the democratic peace theory, which depending on its flavor states that war between democracies is either less likely or will not happen at all. I will not go into the details of these theories here, except to state that I am strongly skeptical of such a theory (as is the historian Donald Kagan, who states in his On the Origins of War that war is the more common human condition, rather than peace). A lot of the democratic peace theory would appear to hinge on what is a "democracy" and what is a "war", as Matthew White relates in his humourous and insightful article on his website.
I believe that the democratic peace theory is a major example of what is wrong with political science in academia today. It takes historical events, creates a tautological argument out of them and then attempts to apply it universally as a law, as if it were a physical science. Most people consider true democracy a 20th century invention, and most democracies are considered to be stable societies and economies located in the West (which happen to be allied to each other), therefore, stating that these countries do not go to war with each other seems to be the obvious, and taking this further by stating that no two democracies will ever go to war borders on the irresponsible. It also ignores inconvenient details, such as elected leaders in Cyprus and Turkey being at war with each other in 1974 (there was a military coup attempt in Cyprus, making it "unstable"), Northern Ireland hosting a low-level insurgency, and other small examples. Further, considering that war is by its nature an unstable act that leads to corruptions or curtailments of democracy (Britain was arguably more totalitarian, if also more benevolent and more democratic than Nazi Germany in 1940-1945), it seems to me that proponents of democratic peace theory have defined any case of war out of their study sample!
Historians will remain sceptical of a "science" that has the control group act as the variable group, as they will remain skeptical of a panacea espoused by President Bush as a reason for war, ie the US should invade Iraq and democratize it because no democracies go to war with each other.
The "hard " theory is espoused by R.J. Rummel, who has a blog addressing the theory here (note the nazi atrocity artwork, perhaps he is not being fully objective). The increasingly more accepted "soft" theory recognizes that unstable societies are the most likely to go to war, followed by authoritarian states with anyone else and finally by democracies with each other (meaning that democracies can war with each other, its just the least likey variant). Once again, if stability is the issue, one wonders why we should bother with democracy. Robert Kaplan himself pointed out in a prescient article that democracy is a particular phase in a society's development, hard to attain but able to be passed-by. It seems irresponsible to create policy based on a premise that peace can be achieved by forcing disparate societies to act as if they have experienced the 18th century Englightenment. Some can, others will not.
Finally, I promised to link to the Defence Academy of the UK's reports site. It has a good deal of useful studies on conflicts in the world today. Better to study these and keep an open mind on the future.
19 Oct 2006
Collectively Shooting Oneself in the Foot
Absolute power does seem to corrupt absolutely!
I was perusing a BBC reporter's blog of American political undergoings today, and I must say I was rather shocked at her analysis. Apparently conservatives in this country, seeing the political implosion that their party is currently undergoing, have decided to do the exact diametric opposite of what makes sense.
Social conservatives fear, actually fear, the prospects of nominating John McCain for the 2008 Presidential Election. And why do they fear this? Essentially, because McCain would win. They fear that he will not be true to "conservative values" and will say anything to get elected (I am not sure how this sets him apart from any politician, including the social conservatives' darling George W. Bush...remember that Constitutional Amendment on marriage kicked around in 2004?).
Basically, what these political types fear is that a man would be elected President who would essentially represent the political Center, rather that a more extremist and activist viewpoint. And of course, one cannot have that! They would apparently prefer Massachusetts' own Mitt Romney, who has recently been burnishing his social conservative credentials (despite governing Massachusetts) by denouncing gay marriage and the "terrorist" ex-president of Iran Mohamed Khatami (hmmm, who is a relative political liberal...). Well, let me say that even if social conservatives pull off a religous coup by averting evangelical warfare (traditional Christians frown upon Mormons) a Romney 2008 campaign would fall flat on its face. It would be like Bush 2000 with hindsight, without a President dad and even without the attempt to be a "compassionate conservative."
I would rather a McCain candidacy were run, and not just for the Republican Party, whose fortunes I could care less about. As I see things, the most likely 2008 race would be Hilary Clinton versus John McCain. I think Clinton would lose, and that is not due to any personal grudge, but in large part because I just do not think Americans would stomach Bill back in the White House in every way but name (by the way, the Democratic establishment also feels Hilary could not win, but probably will support her anyway, as seen in this article). But at least a McCain vs. Clinton race would be between two centrist candidates who actually have some ideas of substance to propose, discuss and debate. And that would certainly be better than a race of the least-worst candidates. Unfortunately, the latter seems more common than the former.
I was perusing a BBC reporter's blog of American political undergoings today, and I must say I was rather shocked at her analysis. Apparently conservatives in this country, seeing the political implosion that their party is currently undergoing, have decided to do the exact diametric opposite of what makes sense.
Social conservatives fear, actually fear, the prospects of nominating John McCain for the 2008 Presidential Election. And why do they fear this? Essentially, because McCain would win. They fear that he will not be true to "conservative values" and will say anything to get elected (I am not sure how this sets him apart from any politician, including the social conservatives' darling George W. Bush...remember that Constitutional Amendment on marriage kicked around in 2004?).
Basically, what these political types fear is that a man would be elected President who would essentially represent the political Center, rather that a more extremist and activist viewpoint. And of course, one cannot have that! They would apparently prefer Massachusetts' own Mitt Romney, who has recently been burnishing his social conservative credentials (despite governing Massachusetts) by denouncing gay marriage and the "terrorist" ex-president of Iran Mohamed Khatami (hmmm, who is a relative political liberal...). Well, let me say that even if social conservatives pull off a religous coup by averting evangelical warfare (traditional Christians frown upon Mormons) a Romney 2008 campaign would fall flat on its face. It would be like Bush 2000 with hindsight, without a President dad and even without the attempt to be a "compassionate conservative."
I would rather a McCain candidacy were run, and not just for the Republican Party, whose fortunes I could care less about. As I see things, the most likely 2008 race would be Hilary Clinton versus John McCain. I think Clinton would lose, and that is not due to any personal grudge, but in large part because I just do not think Americans would stomach Bill back in the White House in every way but name (by the way, the Democratic establishment also feels Hilary could not win, but probably will support her anyway, as seen in this article). But at least a McCain vs. Clinton race would be between two centrist candidates who actually have some ideas of substance to propose, discuss and debate. And that would certainly be better than a race of the least-worst candidates. Unfortunately, the latter seems more common than the former.
18 Oct 2006
America Reaches 300,000,000
Today is the day that the population of the United States is estimated to reach 300,000,000. This is noted in an Economist article, and is viewed rather positively by the article's author. However, for a rare occasion, I must say that I do not agree with the esteemed British newspaper.
I find this article too optimistic, especially in how it states that the expanding US population will solve more problems than it creates. The US is unique among developed countries in that its population is rapidly expanding, growing at about 1% annually (by contrast, the Russian population is decreasing by .4 percent annually). The Economist argues that such a population expansion arises from America's religiosity and optimism (although I've seen different causes in different sources, including greater patriotism!). Population growth will allow the US to avoid problems paying public pensions, as the graying European states and Japan are facing. The American population is even expected to reach 400,000,000 or more by 2043, a doubling in less than 80 years! The article closes with a look at Houston, a city with no zoning laws, gated communities with relatively affordable housing, and a growing population, one that is increasing mixed and Hispanic. The America of the future will look like Houston, the article proclaims. Let us rejoice!
Well, nonsense I say. Let us at other elements in the picture. First of all, there are environmental concerns, issues that are poo-pooed by The Economist. Americans already consume vast quantities of resources and energy in a very inefficient manner: should we be thrilled that such a population will rampantly increase?
Furthermore, the article notes that America has wide-open spaces, perfect for child rearing and much more desirable than Japan and Singapore. True...but once again, what does this mean, really? Half of overcrowded China is unpopulated because it is mountain and desert, seventy percent of Japan is unpopulated because it is mountainous, and likewise most of the American West is arid and rugged terrain. The coastal areas are overcrowded because quite simply those are the places most suitable for habitation. How many Las Vegases and Phoenixes can America realistically support?
Further, there are economic considerations that are overlooked. I will admit that by economic calculations are a little hazy, but I know this much: as Paul Kennedy pointed out, growth in GDP only has real meaning in relation to its per capita increase. While the American economy continues to grow, so does its population. The American economy grew quickly in the 1990's, but how many times can the Internet be invented? The average annual GDP growth in the US since 1945 has been about 1-2%. If that trend continues, it looks to me like economic growth could be nullified by population gain (although admittedly I'm not sure how to compare the two...any assistance would be appreciated).
Other economic concerns are such: it seems to me that the statement that a young population will help pay for pensions is a cop out. America and other industrialized economies need to reform their public pensions so that it is less like a "pyramid scheme", as a friend of mine pointed out. Currently younger workers pay the pensions of retirees in the hopes that when they retire there will be enough workers to pay their pensions, etc. etc. Saying America is strong because its population is rapidly increasing and will not face this problem in the near future is a fudging of the fact that someday it will have to deal with pension reform (or massive overpopulation!).
Then there are social concerns. America may have, in the optimistic macro-picture, a young and relatively well-educated workforce, but what sections of the population are growing the fastest? Mostly immigrants and poorer classes and regions. It's not the lawyers in New York or the accountants in California that are having five children (although it's not unheard-of). Considering that America is less socially mobile than European countries, and that social stratification is hardening, will this increasing population actually have access to the social infrastructure and education that they will need to be really competitive? I question whether they will.
Finally, there is the aesthetic argument. Riding the subway in New York already reminded me of New Delhi...do we really need to make America that overcrowded? And yes, America can look like Houston, but do we want the model of the future to be such a reviled and soulless city? What about a more enjoyable, higher-quality life? Can megacities with gated communities, hourlong commutes and Mcmansions give us that?
I think these are all questions that need to be asked. And therefore I think we need to be sceptical in our assessment of how wonderful unchecked population expansion in America will be.
I find this article too optimistic, especially in how it states that the expanding US population will solve more problems than it creates. The US is unique among developed countries in that its population is rapidly expanding, growing at about 1% annually (by contrast, the Russian population is decreasing by .4 percent annually). The Economist argues that such a population expansion arises from America's religiosity and optimism (although I've seen different causes in different sources, including greater patriotism!). Population growth will allow the US to avoid problems paying public pensions, as the graying European states and Japan are facing. The American population is even expected to reach 400,000,000 or more by 2043, a doubling in less than 80 years! The article closes with a look at Houston, a city with no zoning laws, gated communities with relatively affordable housing, and a growing population, one that is increasing mixed and Hispanic. The America of the future will look like Houston, the article proclaims. Let us rejoice!
Well, nonsense I say. Let us at other elements in the picture. First of all, there are environmental concerns, issues that are poo-pooed by The Economist. Americans already consume vast quantities of resources and energy in a very inefficient manner: should we be thrilled that such a population will rampantly increase?
Furthermore, the article notes that America has wide-open spaces, perfect for child rearing and much more desirable than Japan and Singapore. True...but once again, what does this mean, really? Half of overcrowded China is unpopulated because it is mountain and desert, seventy percent of Japan is unpopulated because it is mountainous, and likewise most of the American West is arid and rugged terrain. The coastal areas are overcrowded because quite simply those are the places most suitable for habitation. How many Las Vegases and Phoenixes can America realistically support?
Further, there are economic considerations that are overlooked. I will admit that by economic calculations are a little hazy, but I know this much: as Paul Kennedy pointed out, growth in GDP only has real meaning in relation to its per capita increase. While the American economy continues to grow, so does its population. The American economy grew quickly in the 1990's, but how many times can the Internet be invented? The average annual GDP growth in the US since 1945 has been about 1-2%. If that trend continues, it looks to me like economic growth could be nullified by population gain (although admittedly I'm not sure how to compare the two...any assistance would be appreciated).
Other economic concerns are such: it seems to me that the statement that a young population will help pay for pensions is a cop out. America and other industrialized economies need to reform their public pensions so that it is less like a "pyramid scheme", as a friend of mine pointed out. Currently younger workers pay the pensions of retirees in the hopes that when they retire there will be enough workers to pay their pensions, etc. etc. Saying America is strong because its population is rapidly increasing and will not face this problem in the near future is a fudging of the fact that someday it will have to deal with pension reform (or massive overpopulation!).
Then there are social concerns. America may have, in the optimistic macro-picture, a young and relatively well-educated workforce, but what sections of the population are growing the fastest? Mostly immigrants and poorer classes and regions. It's not the lawyers in New York or the accountants in California that are having five children (although it's not unheard-of). Considering that America is less socially mobile than European countries, and that social stratification is hardening, will this increasing population actually have access to the social infrastructure and education that they will need to be really competitive? I question whether they will.
Finally, there is the aesthetic argument. Riding the subway in New York already reminded me of New Delhi...do we really need to make America that overcrowded? And yes, America can look like Houston, but do we want the model of the future to be such a reviled and soulless city? What about a more enjoyable, higher-quality life? Can megacities with gated communities, hourlong commutes and Mcmansions give us that?
I think these are all questions that need to be asked. And therefore I think we need to be sceptical in our assessment of how wonderful unchecked population expansion in America will be.
17 Oct 2006
High Entertainment
This is another diversionary post. I found out about this French guy who climbs the world's tallest structures without any equipment. It's pretty impressive, and he has quite a track record. Naturally his climbing in the States leads him to be arrested from time to time, but obviously our judicial system cannot tolerate such acts, and needs to prosecute them at the expense of, I don't know, acts of violence and the like.
As a mild acrophobic, I have to say that I am incredibly impressed by such people. Enjoy!
As a mild acrophobic, I have to say that I am incredibly impressed by such people. Enjoy!
A Pointless Piece of Trivia Solved
I am about to share with you, dear readers, a small piece of personal trivia that will have no bearings on your lives, despite its interest to me. But then that is the internet and blogs in general, so here we go.
It has occasionally been a matter of some debate among my family and Bostonian friends just as to where I grew up. Now, of course, for the non-Bostonians the answer is very simple: Boston. But of course as any locals know, nothing is more important in Boston (and Massachusetts if not much of New England) than knowing exactly where you come from. "Boston" isn't good enough among this society: one has to state their neighborhood of origin.
The debate has been thus: did I grow up in West Roxbury, or in Roslindale? Objectively, the debate is rather academic, as not only are the two neighborhoods part of Boston, but they have always been part of the same town, whether Roxbury (from 1630 to 1851) or West Roxbury (1851 to 1874). But this is Boston, the city that gave birth to the phrase "all politics is local", and so the hair must be split. West Roxbury will conjure up images of genteel parkways and golf courses, as well as a lovely colonial village center mostly destroyed (much like the rest of Boston) to satisfy the needs of cars in the 1950s. Roslindale, of course, conjures up more of a down-to-earth, working class feel, or perhaps something of a gritty urban "keeping it real" heritage. Neither of these stereotypes are exactly true, although from looking at the US Census figures West Roxbury is whiter and richer than Boston as a whole, and Roslindale relatively poorer (but average compared to Boston's overall income) and more racially and ethnically diverse (although once again close to Boston's overall figures). However, at the end of the day, I've told different people different answers as to where I'm from, depending as to which I think will produce a better reaction (ironically when speaking with people from "near abroad" New England, who have only a vague understanding of Boston's geography, West Roxbury can be misinterpreted as west Roxbury, which of course has completely different connotations).
But ultimately I wanted to get a firm answer to this question. I consulted the 2000 US Census, as posted by the Boston Mayor's Office, and a ZIP code map. What is the answer as to where I grew up?
It depends. According to the Post Office, my childhood address is in Roslindale. The US Census' information on my street was compiled with Roslindale's (it has a Roslindale census tract number). However, the City of Boston says that the address is in West Roxbury, and even the US Census tabulations ultimately include my area in West Roxbury. So I guess while I have my question answered, I still can say I'm from either Roslindale or West Roxbury, depending on the audience, of course!
It has occasionally been a matter of some debate among my family and Bostonian friends just as to where I grew up. Now, of course, for the non-Bostonians the answer is very simple: Boston. But of course as any locals know, nothing is more important in Boston (and Massachusetts if not much of New England) than knowing exactly where you come from. "Boston" isn't good enough among this society: one has to state their neighborhood of origin.
The debate has been thus: did I grow up in West Roxbury, or in Roslindale? Objectively, the debate is rather academic, as not only are the two neighborhoods part of Boston, but they have always been part of the same town, whether Roxbury (from 1630 to 1851) or West Roxbury (1851 to 1874). But this is Boston, the city that gave birth to the phrase "all politics is local", and so the hair must be split. West Roxbury will conjure up images of genteel parkways and golf courses, as well as a lovely colonial village center mostly destroyed (much like the rest of Boston) to satisfy the needs of cars in the 1950s. Roslindale, of course, conjures up more of a down-to-earth, working class feel, or perhaps something of a gritty urban "keeping it real" heritage. Neither of these stereotypes are exactly true, although from looking at the US Census figures West Roxbury is whiter and richer than Boston as a whole, and Roslindale relatively poorer (but average compared to Boston's overall income) and more racially and ethnically diverse (although once again close to Boston's overall figures). However, at the end of the day, I've told different people different answers as to where I'm from, depending as to which I think will produce a better reaction (ironically when speaking with people from "near abroad" New England, who have only a vague understanding of Boston's geography, West Roxbury can be misinterpreted as west Roxbury, which of course has completely different connotations).
But ultimately I wanted to get a firm answer to this question. I consulted the 2000 US Census, as posted by the Boston Mayor's Office, and a ZIP code map. What is the answer as to where I grew up?
It depends. According to the Post Office, my childhood address is in Roslindale. The US Census' information on my street was compiled with Roslindale's (it has a Roslindale census tract number). However, the City of Boston says that the address is in West Roxbury, and even the US Census tabulations ultimately include my area in West Roxbury. So I guess while I have my question answered, I still can say I'm from either Roslindale or West Roxbury, depending on the audience, of course!
16 Oct 2006
The Decline and Fall of the English Language?
I have finished reading a Doing Our Own Thing, a recently published work by noted linguist John McWhorter. I have had some previous exposure to his written works, and listened to him plugging this book on the radio some years ago, so I decided to have a look.
The main thrust of his book is so: in all languages there develops a difference between casual languages and ceremonial languages. Certain occasions demand a more formal type of speech, often using more complex grammar and vocabulary. Nonetheless, purely oral languages, while often being extremely complex grammatically, have a limited vocabulary range: any given person can only remember a few thousand words in their head at any time.
Written languages (such as French, German, Russian or English), on the other hand, can reach higher levels of complexity in vocabulary, as well as more complex sentence constructions. This is so because in writing, one has the luxury of consulting multiple sources for words beyond the memory, and can edit, lengthen and refashion expressions that in speaking would be broken up into simpler packets of information. Written languages can have a more “polished” feel, and often it is this use and mastery of reading and writing that allows for more complex constructions, more conventions and rules for language use, and more detached and studied forms of expression. Speaking is something more than just talking, rhetoric is more than just getting up and shooting off your mouth. Poetry, classical and classically-structured music in the Western sense are likewise forms of expression requiring attention to conventions and great skill in both reading and writing.
McWhorter then presents us with a dilemma: while most other literate languages have maintained a complex and polished written language quite distinct from casual spoken language, American English has largely lost this attribute. George Washington probably cussed and jawed more casually than he wrote, but for his society (as well as English-speaking society down to forty years ago), the written language and such forms of expression that rely on the writing were meant to adhere to rules of form and to a more complex vocabulary even by those users who possessed a relatively low level of education. Good language was a skill that was appreciated by many, even if they did not practice it on a daily basis. However, since sense of love and respect for the formal English language seems to have disappeared: where is the modern equivalent to illiterate
And here is the rub of McWhorter’s argument. He states that it is the Countercultural Movement beginning in the late 60’s that fundamentally changed Americans’ use of and attitudes to the English language. No native speaker is praised for “speaking beautiful English” these days, as conventions and forms are seen as imposed restrictions to be shed in favour of “keeping it real” and “saying like it is”, ie casting aside written conventions and vocabulary in favour of casual speech. George W. Bush is just one of a society that values such “Let’s roll” talk over something Roosevelt, Churchill or Kennedy would have written. Americans are taught to distrust “false” sounding words and sentences, as well as the English language as something negative (in an extended aside he mentions how English-speakers are unique in demanding that opera not be translated into something that they can understand). Individuality is prized over form and structure, and casual talk is considered more genuine than reserved talk. However, a major negative of this development is that Americans lose not just love for their language, but a more complex language in general, one that is capable to deliver complex arguments that can persuade rather than just preach to the converted. We lose room for objective debate and appreciation.
Overall, I think that this is a powerful argument. I would strongly agree that Americans have lost a love for the more complex elements of their language, and that by extension they have lost something even while making gains in terms of free expression. Popular culture and expression, while meaningful, is simply not on the level of classical writing, speaking, poetry and music: it’s easier to do, and while this may democratize it to a certain extent, it also cheapens the culture. To take an art analogy, Picasso learned to paint like a Dutch master before becoming bored and attempting to press the limits through cubism. By contrast what artist today even needs to meet such classical skills when they can throw elephant dung on a painting, create a public controversy (anyone remember this one?) and become famous? All art, including poetry, literature and rhetoric, is expressive, but historically most of it hasn’t been in-your-face. McWhorter rightly points out that while we don’t have to tolerate generalized, sanitized, saccharin popular tunes like Americans did in the 1920’s, we still have lost a level of craft in putting words to melody that no rock star really has been able to reach.
Unfortunately, McWhorter leaves us hanging. He sees this decline as inevitable and unstoppable. But then, if it really is, then why should we care? He doesn’t make a very convincing argument to me about why, if the culture has been changed once in the 1960’s, it cannot change again. Likewise, his insight on the topic seems to be spoiled by (ironically) an overly casual and anecdotal tone: his writing sometimes seems to be more Dave Barry than that of a serious linguist. While I appreciated his diversity on sources of language use, I got bored with his personal asides into his love of musical theatre and the kinds of clubs he goes to in
5 Oct 2006
Cuban Centenarians, et al.
I liked this article on the BBC about Cubans over 100 years old, and their theories on how to live a long life. While the scientific truth probably has more to do with their genetic backgrounds (since a high number of them had centenarian parents), I think that at the same time the philosophy that they have lived by is worth following: work hard (in a real, productive job), eat well, and give yourself your indulgences, as long as its not something as addictive and destructive as alcohol (some might disagree with smoking cigars as well, but then again there are much worse forms of smoking). Also, apparently getting some is good for you too.
All this seems to fly in the face of the American lifestyle. What's worse (from the American viewpoint) is that this study would seem to demonstrate that communism can be good for one's health (cue the Monty Python mallets and American cries of "No, no, WRONG!"). I'm not condoning Castroism, mind you, but just noting that apparently people can live full lives even under a dictatorship.
Also, I realise that this is not terribly important, nor is related to Cuba or Condi Rice, Mark Foley, developments in the Middle East, the state of the economy, or scientific advances, but here I go. A number of you enjoy the British science fiction series Doctor Who, and so I thought I'd share that I've been spending too much of my time reading an online ratings guide evaluating every episode, season, movie and book. Wow. That's a lot of postings from Britain, but in my opinion rather entertaining. Possibly too much so.
All this seems to fly in the face of the American lifestyle. What's worse (from the American viewpoint) is that this study would seem to demonstrate that communism can be good for one's health (cue the Monty Python mallets and American cries of "No, no, WRONG!"). I'm not condoning Castroism, mind you, but just noting that apparently people can live full lives even under a dictatorship.
Also, I realise that this is not terribly important, nor is related to Cuba or Condi Rice, Mark Foley, developments in the Middle East, the state of the economy, or scientific advances, but here I go. A number of you enjoy the British science fiction series Doctor Who, and so I thought I'd share that I've been spending too much of my time reading an online ratings guide evaluating every episode, season, movie and book. Wow. That's a lot of postings from Britain, but in my opinion rather entertaining. Possibly too much so.
2 Oct 2006
Smooth Operators at the MBTA
I saw this article as well as a couple others in this week's Boston Globe City Weekly. Apparently the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, the operators of Boston's metro system known locally as the "T", is trying to encourage greater courtesy to commuters by other commuters through the distribution of gift certificates to Dunkin' Donuts. There is also a rather vague campaign to encourage T employees to be more courteous to commuters as well.
Long and short, I find this whole effort to be a misguided mess and waste of money, which in a sense makes it a perfect microcosm of the MBTA as a whole. It is very typical of the powers that be in Massachusetts to blame the shortcomings of a public service such as the T on the people that use it, rather than on those that are suposed to operate it efficiently. The article even mentions the dark rumour that it is actually the rowdy college students who are to blame for the T's problems, as good a lesson in the tactics of divide and conquer as I have ever seen!
What are the problems with the T as I see them (I ride the T at least 2 times a day)? They are as follows: the system is dirty: it is not cleaned or kept clean as much as it could be, especially when compared to a system like the DC Metro. The physical conditions of the stations vary dramatically. The "Charlie Ticket" system, a card system like New York or Washington, DC meant to replace the old token system, is in my opinion a complete disaster. The cards only state initial values, rather than the actual monetary value remaining on the cards. The machines dispensing cards are few in number, and seem to be difficult to use as there are always long lines in front of them (except for the machines that only take credit cards, which no one seems to use). The gates take the card and only open once the commuter receives the card back from the machine...a nice feature unless you are only using the card for one ride, in which case the machine has just given you a worthless card (in Washington, DC the machines "capture" farecards with no value). Also, ironically given the "Charlie of the MTA" song, the cards' value is deducted on entrance, rather than exit, which means that often there is a large pile of used fare cards either left on the gates or on the ground near them. Also, the system has been introduced haphazardly, so some stations still take tokens and do not take cards! Bus lines often shut down early in the evening. On top of all this, large portions of the orange line are closed for "signal maintenance" on the weekends, often with little advance notice. This and other infrastructure issues seem certainly try my patience, especially as every commuter must pay $1.25 a pop!
I also find it odd that the blame is shifted to commuters. I have witnessed MBTA employees throwing their trash on the tracks, and off-duty employees opening the doors on the orange line to chit-chat with on-duty train drivers. I've also listened to T employees complain that if someone jumps in front of the train they're operating, then the driver has to take a drug test! Poor babies!!! Honestly, I think the problem is that the MBTA, much like other agencies in this fine state, is an example of a governmental monopoly that has been captured by the employee union it negotiates with. The fare hikes certainly aren't being translated into better service (the PA system is also annoying and terrible. They also, for some reason, always give "No Smoking" announcements only in Spanish, I guess as Spanish-speakers are the only ones who want to smoke on the T. This seems to violate the Massachusetts law making English the official language, meaning that a state organ can make announcements in another language, but must provide all information at least in English).
But of course, the MBTA isnt designed to encourage mass transit. Despite my favoring mass transit, I now dream of driving my car, even in this traffic-clogged city. Oh, for a European-style mass transit system, such as I have experienced in Amsterdam or Munich, or even Kazakhstan, where the system is designed for use by all citizens, is cheap and quick, and runs regularly for most hours of the day and night. But then such a system would be truly revolutionary, and require more effort than Dunkin' Donuts certificates.
Here is an anti-T blog, submitted for your perusal.
Long and short, I find this whole effort to be a misguided mess and waste of money, which in a sense makes it a perfect microcosm of the MBTA as a whole. It is very typical of the powers that be in Massachusetts to blame the shortcomings of a public service such as the T on the people that use it, rather than on those that are suposed to operate it efficiently. The article even mentions the dark rumour that it is actually the rowdy college students who are to blame for the T's problems, as good a lesson in the tactics of divide and conquer as I have ever seen!
What are the problems with the T as I see them (I ride the T at least 2 times a day)? They are as follows: the system is dirty: it is not cleaned or kept clean as much as it could be, especially when compared to a system like the DC Metro. The physical conditions of the stations vary dramatically. The "Charlie Ticket" system, a card system like New York or Washington, DC meant to replace the old token system, is in my opinion a complete disaster. The cards only state initial values, rather than the actual monetary value remaining on the cards. The machines dispensing cards are few in number, and seem to be difficult to use as there are always long lines in front of them (except for the machines that only take credit cards, which no one seems to use). The gates take the card and only open once the commuter receives the card back from the machine...a nice feature unless you are only using the card for one ride, in which case the machine has just given you a worthless card (in Washington, DC the machines "capture" farecards with no value). Also, ironically given the "Charlie of the MTA" song, the cards' value is deducted on entrance, rather than exit, which means that often there is a large pile of used fare cards either left on the gates or on the ground near them. Also, the system has been introduced haphazardly, so some stations still take tokens and do not take cards! Bus lines often shut down early in the evening. On top of all this, large portions of the orange line are closed for "signal maintenance" on the weekends, often with little advance notice. This and other infrastructure issues seem certainly try my patience, especially as every commuter must pay $1.25 a pop!
I also find it odd that the blame is shifted to commuters. I have witnessed MBTA employees throwing their trash on the tracks, and off-duty employees opening the doors on the orange line to chit-chat with on-duty train drivers. I've also listened to T employees complain that if someone jumps in front of the train they're operating, then the driver has to take a drug test! Poor babies!!! Honestly, I think the problem is that the MBTA, much like other agencies in this fine state, is an example of a governmental monopoly that has been captured by the employee union it negotiates with. The fare hikes certainly aren't being translated into better service (the PA system is also annoying and terrible. They also, for some reason, always give "No Smoking" announcements only in Spanish, I guess as Spanish-speakers are the only ones who want to smoke on the T. This seems to violate the Massachusetts law making English the official language, meaning that a state organ can make announcements in another language, but must provide all information at least in English).
But of course, the MBTA isnt designed to encourage mass transit. Despite my favoring mass transit, I now dream of driving my car, even in this traffic-clogged city. Oh, for a European-style mass transit system, such as I have experienced in Amsterdam or Munich, or even Kazakhstan, where the system is designed for use by all citizens, is cheap and quick, and runs regularly for most hours of the day and night. But then such a system would be truly revolutionary, and require more effort than Dunkin' Donuts certificates.
Here is an anti-T blog, submitted for your perusal.
30 Sept 2006
Atheist Offensive!
"Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, but at least its an ethos." - The Big Lebowsky (regarding nihilism)
"What? There's no silicon heaven? Well, then where do all the calculators go??" - Red Dwarf
No, this is not a call for crusade or jihad, but I've just been noticing that quite a few published works have been put out recently in the cause of atheism: here's the review for one and for another. This comes in addition to a recent article by a noted psychologists (psychologists, neurologists and evolutionary bioligists seem to be especially strident atheists) regarding religion as a cognitive by-product.
This prompted me to do a little research on theism, atheism, agnoticism, ignoticism, ad nauseam. About.com has a slightly over-exhaustive defence of atheism, although one wishes that they'd find a more photogenic spokesman.
Thoughts about the existence/non-existence of god, an afterlife, and the supernatural in general are definitely heavy thoughts of mine, when I can tolerate the burden. And while I feel that atheism does have its uses, and probably should not be weighed with the burden of proof against them, it is just interesting to me that these days they focus so heavily on the evils of monotheism. Monotheism has historically caused quite a large amount of problems for humanity in general, from self-mutilation to forced belief in the earth as the center of the universe, to the belief in the sin of eating food. Still, one feels that these atheists argue as they do because they have some particular axes to grind. I have yet to see how these atheists would treat atheistic religions, such as Zen or Daoism: Are these Western authors anti-theist, or anti-religion? They seem to blur their argument. Also, I must admit that although I've read their arguments on evolutionary psychology, practical necessity, etc., I'm still not sure how the metaphysics of ethics is addressed; I mean, if love, truth, good and evil are mere relative human constructs, whats to stop them from being altered? If I could develop an evil Land of Mordor with slaves and whatnot, and it was able to maintain itself and compete favorably against other societies, who could then complain? What if the Nazis won? Can one stop short of nihilism in this line of reasoning? I realize the metaphysics of morals isn't exactly the same thing as the non/existence of god, but if atheism is blurring the line by attacking both theism and religion, then it the subjectivity or universality of ethics is also a concern that should be addressed, rather than just glibly explained away by evolution or "practicality".
The general theist/atheist debate also seems to avoid other pathways, such as the viability of pantheism or pandeism. Perhaps atheists would sniff that such beliefs are worthless semantic fudges, but then again if such beliefs relabel the world around us in a way that make people happy, why not? If atheists are supposed to address things from a scientific perspective, then they shouldn't then turn around and argue which is a "better" way to view the reality of which we are a part, as long as it accords science its due. Maybe it makes some people feel better to think that the universe operates under cold, scientific laws and randomness, but if others choose to see us as all part of a divine whole, I'm not sure what is so wrong with that. As for what monotheists think on these issues, I think we'll just skip over that.
I like a point raised by "ignosticism": as with many other philosophical debates, ultimately nobody really knows what the hell they're talking about, because they haven't really provided any strict definitions and are more or less attacking extremes and cariactures (this can be turned against atheists: despite their best efforts to pretend otherwise, atrocities have been committed by convinced atheists as much as by convinced theists).
Anyways, as for myself, I used to think I was a "free thinker" until I realized that it's an actual group. I think that Hindu concepts on the Brahman are probably a good step in my own direction, but ultimately I agree with Herman Hesse's Siddartha, who tells the Buddha that he absolutely agrees with him, and therefore cannot follow him out of fear that he'd be doing it for the wrong reasons and not reaching his own conclusions for himself. We each need to follow our own path, and can learn from others, but shouldn't listen to them too much.
As an extra, here's an interesting scholarly article on the development of a belief in the afterlife in the Bible. Those ancient Hebrews were harsh, damn!
"What? There's no silicon heaven? Well, then where do all the calculators go??" - Red Dwarf
No, this is not a call for crusade or jihad, but I've just been noticing that quite a few published works have been put out recently in the cause of atheism: here's the review for one and for another. This comes in addition to a recent article by a noted psychologists (psychologists, neurologists and evolutionary bioligists seem to be especially strident atheists) regarding religion as a cognitive by-product.
This prompted me to do a little research on theism, atheism, agnoticism, ignoticism, ad nauseam. About.com has a slightly over-exhaustive defence of atheism, although one wishes that they'd find a more photogenic spokesman.
Thoughts about the existence/non-existence of god, an afterlife, and the supernatural in general are definitely heavy thoughts of mine, when I can tolerate the burden. And while I feel that atheism does have its uses, and probably should not be weighed with the burden of proof against them, it is just interesting to me that these days they focus so heavily on the evils of monotheism. Monotheism has historically caused quite a large amount of problems for humanity in general, from self-mutilation to forced belief in the earth as the center of the universe, to the belief in the sin of eating food. Still, one feels that these atheists argue as they do because they have some particular axes to grind. I have yet to see how these atheists would treat atheistic religions, such as Zen or Daoism: Are these Western authors anti-theist, or anti-religion? They seem to blur their argument. Also, I must admit that although I've read their arguments on evolutionary psychology, practical necessity, etc., I'm still not sure how the metaphysics of ethics is addressed; I mean, if love, truth, good and evil are mere relative human constructs, whats to stop them from being altered? If I could develop an evil Land of Mordor with slaves and whatnot, and it was able to maintain itself and compete favorably against other societies, who could then complain? What if the Nazis won? Can one stop short of nihilism in this line of reasoning? I realize the metaphysics of morals isn't exactly the same thing as the non/existence of god, but if atheism is blurring the line by attacking both theism and religion, then it the subjectivity or universality of ethics is also a concern that should be addressed, rather than just glibly explained away by evolution or "practicality".
The general theist/atheist debate also seems to avoid other pathways, such as the viability of pantheism or pandeism. Perhaps atheists would sniff that such beliefs are worthless semantic fudges, but then again if such beliefs relabel the world around us in a way that make people happy, why not? If atheists are supposed to address things from a scientific perspective, then they shouldn't then turn around and argue which is a "better" way to view the reality of which we are a part, as long as it accords science its due. Maybe it makes some people feel better to think that the universe operates under cold, scientific laws and randomness, but if others choose to see us as all part of a divine whole, I'm not sure what is so wrong with that. As for what monotheists think on these issues, I think we'll just skip over that.
I like a point raised by "ignosticism": as with many other philosophical debates, ultimately nobody really knows what the hell they're talking about, because they haven't really provided any strict definitions and are more or less attacking extremes and cariactures (this can be turned against atheists: despite their best efforts to pretend otherwise, atrocities have been committed by convinced atheists as much as by convinced theists).
Anyways, as for myself, I used to think I was a "free thinker" until I realized that it's an actual group. I think that Hindu concepts on the Brahman are probably a good step in my own direction, but ultimately I agree with Herman Hesse's Siddartha, who tells the Buddha that he absolutely agrees with him, and therefore cannot follow him out of fear that he'd be doing it for the wrong reasons and not reaching his own conclusions for himself. We each need to follow our own path, and can learn from others, but shouldn't listen to them too much.
As an extra, here's an interesting scholarly article on the development of a belief in the afterlife in the Bible. Those ancient Hebrews were harsh, damn!
29 Sept 2006
Fusion Steps Forward? Mesopotamia Steps Back?
I saw this news story today about Chinese scientists conducting successful tests on a fusion reactor. Now, of course no one says what these tests actually were, or whether the reactor reached breakeven, but still, this is even the first time I've heard that the Chinese were developing a fusion reactor. So much for that decades-slow progress on the international reactors.
I know China is a developing country, and that even many of its accomplishments are perhaps overrated, but at the same time it seems to me that it is acting as a catalyst here: perhaps other countries will be spurred into researching fusion more thoroughly (admittedly it has been an ongoing project for 30 years without much payoff).
Also, through my internet trollings, I found some of the latest on Iraq. The fact that this war is hardly even reported in the news any more shows just what a disaster it has been: even worse, it appears that since the Coalition military limits its actual presence in Iraq (to avoid casualties?) , it has a minimal impact on the slow-motion trainwreck that is unfolding. Apparently the world doesn't care as long as its only Iraqis that are doing the fighting and dying.
I sometimes wonder just why this conflict got started. Weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorism obviously have been discredited: I honestly never believed those claims, but more on that later. Removing Saddam Hussein from power was honestly a plus, but since then his shambolic trial seems to have done little to bring a verdict and justice on this dictator. There is the "cause celebre" of terrorism issue, the whole issue with European powers (whether one cares for them or not), and the fact that it seems precious few in either the US or UK administrations can admit that something has gone wrong.
Why do I mention this? It is because, as I said, the Iraq project has failed, more than because it is unpopular: most of the people initially opposing the Iraq war oppose any American-led war (anyone remember the anti-war bunch before the 2001 Afghanistan invasion? And they were often the same people distributing flyers and emails about the plight of Afghani women and how something needed to be done ... so much for consistency). This certainly isn't a war for oil: that's another popular slogan that has no basis in reality.
The sad fact is that this war was a war to "prove" certain pet theories that members of the administration had, namely (among others) the democratic peace theory (that as soon as Iraq had elections it wouldn't threaten its neighbors), and that the Rumsfeld doctrine of light, supermodern warfare was feasible. The American people, in their post-9/11 shock, were easily duped into thinking that Iraq and 9/11 were connected, and the rest is history. It's interesting how even this month, five years on, 9/11 can be so easily invoked in the public forum to further parochial political agendas.
I know China is a developing country, and that even many of its accomplishments are perhaps overrated, but at the same time it seems to me that it is acting as a catalyst here: perhaps other countries will be spurred into researching fusion more thoroughly (admittedly it has been an ongoing project for 30 years without much payoff).
Also, through my internet trollings, I found some of the latest on Iraq. The fact that this war is hardly even reported in the news any more shows just what a disaster it has been: even worse, it appears that since the Coalition military limits its actual presence in Iraq (to avoid casualties?) , it has a minimal impact on the slow-motion trainwreck that is unfolding. Apparently the world doesn't care as long as its only Iraqis that are doing the fighting and dying.
I sometimes wonder just why this conflict got started. Weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorism obviously have been discredited: I honestly never believed those claims, but more on that later. Removing Saddam Hussein from power was honestly a plus, but since then his shambolic trial seems to have done little to bring a verdict and justice on this dictator. There is the "cause celebre" of terrorism issue, the whole issue with European powers (whether one cares for them or not), and the fact that it seems precious few in either the US or UK administrations can admit that something has gone wrong.
Why do I mention this? It is because, as I said, the Iraq project has failed, more than because it is unpopular: most of the people initially opposing the Iraq war oppose any American-led war (anyone remember the anti-war bunch before the 2001 Afghanistan invasion? And they were often the same people distributing flyers and emails about the plight of Afghani women and how something needed to be done ... so much for consistency). This certainly isn't a war for oil: that's another popular slogan that has no basis in reality.
The sad fact is that this war was a war to "prove" certain pet theories that members of the administration had, namely (among others) the democratic peace theory (that as soon as Iraq had elections it wouldn't threaten its neighbors), and that the Rumsfeld doctrine of light, supermodern warfare was feasible. The American people, in their post-9/11 shock, were easily duped into thinking that Iraq and 9/11 were connected, and the rest is history. It's interesting how even this month, five years on, 9/11 can be so easily invoked in the public forum to further parochial political agendas.
28 Sept 2006
J. Lo, Melungeons and the Future of America
The other night I was watching a feature film starring Ms. Jennifer Lopez. Now, I won't get into any description of the film, other than to say that Jane Fonda is in it (so please keep it away from any Vietnam Era veterans) and it's so bad I felt like I'd been repeatedly hit in the head. However, some interesting sociological observations came to me as I attempted to dull the pain of watching this contemporary romantic comedy.
For starters, how easily Ms. Lopez' character was portrayed interacting with other characters from different ethnic groups and backgrounds. So what? You may ask. Well, such portrayals in American media are rare: usually films and television shows opt for standard cliches of one type or another, like same-race couples, "token" ethnic characters, etc. And this is not a left-leaning screed: when was the last time you've seen an interracial couple in a movie that was explicitly not about race relations? Yet an actress such as Ms. Lopez is not as easily cliched: she can fit into different settings without controversy.
The reason came to me when my wife (a newcomer to American society) looked confused, turned to me and asked: "Is Jennifer Lopez black?" Of course, the answer is: she's Puerto Rican, and Puerto Ricans are a little of everything (and have an especially strong yet overlooked matrilineal connexion to Tainos). Since such people have such a cosmopolitan background, they seem to be able to act as "interfaces" in American society. What other public figure could have Sean "Puffy" Combs as boyfriend, a Cuban [first] husband, and ueber white-boy Ben Affleck as a fiance?
I only mention this because when you look at US culture, racial categorizing from the 19th century has not died, if anything, with modern identity politics it has become more entrenched. The "one-drop" rule makes someone either white or black and the "pure blood quanta" rule makes someone an American Indian: this was true 100 years ago, and shockingly it's still true today. The idea of people being a racial mix where all parts are weighed equally by society has been historically disparaged in much of the US as being a "melungeon" (known in anthropological parlance as a "triracial isolate"). As stated in a certain history book, that touches on the subject, Lies My Teacher Told Me, this is sad because it represents a complete potential historical path of development in America that was shut out in favor of the disasterous policies that still divide Americans from one another. Perhaps greater acceptance of mixing would have made American society more like a Latin American one such as in Puerto Rico (although such societies do still suffer effects of racism, and a centrist review of said book shows that the author is perhaps selling his political agenda a little too strongly). It seems only now do we have such figures as Jennifer Lopez or Tiger Woods who defy the traditional classification and offer hope for a mixed, common "American" identity.
The former Soviet Union certainly does not have an American-style obsession with race or ethnicity: while there is much ethnic pride, and nationalism, and sadly in Russia even increasing racism, it still does not seem to be as much a day-to-day level of thinking as it is in America. This is especially true in Kazakhstan. A mixed Kazakh-Russian is not considered either "white" or"not white" and wouldn't be criticized as "acting white" for speaking Russian and living or working in Moscow. Conversely a Russian with Kazakh or Tatar roots wouldn't be seen by Kazakhs as being a "poseur" or "stealing our culture" for speaking Kazakh or practicing Islam (although such people are admittedly a rarity). If anything, countries attempting to introduce American-style identity politics threaten to tear apart whatever social cohesion that they have.
But then maybe I just seem to be reading too much into a J Lo movie. I blame the stresses of my job search.
For starters, how easily Ms. Lopez' character was portrayed interacting with other characters from different ethnic groups and backgrounds. So what? You may ask. Well, such portrayals in American media are rare: usually films and television shows opt for standard cliches of one type or another, like same-race couples, "token" ethnic characters, etc. And this is not a left-leaning screed: when was the last time you've seen an interracial couple in a movie that was explicitly not about race relations? Yet an actress such as Ms. Lopez is not as easily cliched: she can fit into different settings without controversy.
The reason came to me when my wife (a newcomer to American society) looked confused, turned to me and asked: "Is Jennifer Lopez black?" Of course, the answer is: she's Puerto Rican, and Puerto Ricans are a little of everything (and have an especially strong yet overlooked matrilineal connexion to Tainos). Since such people have such a cosmopolitan background, they seem to be able to act as "interfaces" in American society. What other public figure could have Sean "Puffy" Combs as boyfriend, a Cuban [first] husband, and ueber white-boy Ben Affleck as a fiance?
I only mention this because when you look at US culture, racial categorizing from the 19th century has not died, if anything, with modern identity politics it has become more entrenched. The "one-drop" rule makes someone either white or black and the "pure blood quanta" rule makes someone an American Indian: this was true 100 years ago, and shockingly it's still true today. The idea of people being a racial mix where all parts are weighed equally by society has been historically disparaged in much of the US as being a "melungeon" (known in anthropological parlance as a "triracial isolate"). As stated in a certain history book, that touches on the subject, Lies My Teacher Told Me, this is sad because it represents a complete potential historical path of development in America that was shut out in favor of the disasterous policies that still divide Americans from one another. Perhaps greater acceptance of mixing would have made American society more like a Latin American one such as in Puerto Rico (although such societies do still suffer effects of racism, and a centrist review of said book shows that the author is perhaps selling his political agenda a little too strongly). It seems only now do we have such figures as Jennifer Lopez or Tiger Woods who defy the traditional classification and offer hope for a mixed, common "American" identity.
The former Soviet Union certainly does not have an American-style obsession with race or ethnicity: while there is much ethnic pride, and nationalism, and sadly in Russia even increasing racism, it still does not seem to be as much a day-to-day level of thinking as it is in America. This is especially true in Kazakhstan. A mixed Kazakh-Russian is not considered either "white" or"not white" and wouldn't be criticized as "acting white" for speaking Russian and living or working in Moscow. Conversely a Russian with Kazakh or Tatar roots wouldn't be seen by Kazakhs as being a "poseur" or "stealing our culture" for speaking Kazakh or practicing Islam (although such people are admittedly a rarity). If anything, countries attempting to introduce American-style identity politics threaten to tear apart whatever social cohesion that they have.
But then maybe I just seem to be reading too much into a J Lo movie. I blame the stresses of my job search.
27 Sept 2006
Self-Advertisement
I've been playing around recently with Wikipedia, and made a small contribution to that source of collective knowledge. As you have all obviously noticed, there is a dearth of information on Kazakhstan, so I decided to add some info on my "home town". It's tough to find reliable, free, unclassified information on Kazakhstan in general, let alone Aktobe, so I gave it my best. I also added some information on a few Kazakh historical figures, namely the confusingly named Abul-Khayr Khan, Abulkhair Khan and Ablai Khan. Kazakhs can keep them all straight, but something needs to be done to spread a little more knowledge of history on the step. No one even ever notices Central Asian history post-Chingis Khan ... but the Moghuls came from somewhere.
Setting Up
Well, I now have my laptop and wireless access, so I thought I would bow to the peer pressure and create a blog. We'll see how this one turns out. Just what the subject material will be is anyone's guess, but I'll definitely try to give some observations on life, people, society and issues of import as I see them from Boston. Perhaps it will be something of an "outsider's" perspective, given my time away from the States. Who knows?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
