Saturday, December 11, 2010


Can man's war against nature be carried too far? (02:17 PM)

Future Pundit makes me want to get down and dirty. I often worry that I am too clean. I mean, I bathe daily, I brush my teeth and I floss, I do my laundry every week, and it sometimes gets to be a real drag, and I wonder what's it all for? Am I going to die clean, and die an early death?

A theory holds that auto-immune diseases and some other disorders related to the immune system are caused by a lack of exposure to microorganisms that our immune systems are designed to handle (this idea is known as the Hygiene Hypothesis). The absence of real enemies makes the immune system incorrectly attack friendlies and to otherwise malfunction. Are imbalanced immune systems due to clean environments making people depressed?
(Via Glenn Reynolds.)

There's more at the link, but the bottom line is that cleanliness is unnatural:
there is mounting evidence that disruptions in ancient relationships with microorganisms in soil, food and the gut may contribute to the increasing rates of depression.

According to the authors, the modern world has become so clean, we are deprived of the bacteria our immune systems came to rely on over long ages to keep inflammation at bay.

There are some some intriguing comments which posit that depression largely results from purposelessness:
...the useless you depresses you.

A further study would be how purposelessness causes depression.

And what a purposeless study that would be! I am all for believing in the ultimate pointlessness of life (or at least in the possibility of pointlessness), but still, I think that it is important to be as active as possible doing something. Those who think life is pointless would do well to find a point -- preferably a cause greater than themselves.

Let's take Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson as two examples. They were so busy discovering, inventing, tinkering, and coming up with new ideas, that they probably didn't have time to contemplate the purposelessness of life. Now, some might call that foolish and say that they missed out on an important ultimate realization, but I think they were better off being purposeful than purposeless. And not only were they better off, we are all better off.

The strange thing is, neither one of them was known for adhering fastidiously for what we take for granted today as basic standards of personal hygiene.

At his inauguration, Jefferson was described as "decidedly unkempt in hair and toilet." However, he does seem to have bathed regularly (which in those days may have meant weekly or monthly). Unlike Benjamin Franklin, who was said to have "hated water baths."

Then there was Thomas Paine who " was apparently so unkempt in his appearance that one contemporary called him "the most abominably dirty being upon the face of the earth."

Franklin and Jefferson lived to be 84 and 83 respectively, and although Paine only made it to 72, it apparently took more than being dirty to kill him ("Paine's last years were marked by poverty, poor health and alcoholism.")

Considering that the average life expectancy in colonial America was 25 years of age, all three of them did pretty well.

Nature used to have its way with people, and bad organisms ran amok. Since those days, modern medicine has waged a steady war against nature, and has learned how to thwart many of the bad organisms which used to routinely kill people.

Whether we are thwarting too many of them (and thwarting them too much) is a good question. While I can't see dirty as being healthy, it is very possible that an excess of cleanliness is unhealthy.

I'd hate to be pouring my natural life down the drain.

:: Comments left behind ::

Benjamin Franklin, who was said to have "hated water baths."

Not much of a chemist was he? (nerd humor - disregard)

:: M. Simon December 11, 2010 05:02 PM

He was a good chemist - that Dihydrogen Monoxide can be dangerous stuff, you know!

Me, I think I'll go cultivate my garden. Involves a good deal of digging around in the dirt, so should be good for me. Delicious fruits and veggies in later seasons have nothing to do with it, of course.

:: Kathy Kinsley December 11, 2010 06:46 PM


Will someone please eat my Christmas homework? (12:35 PM)

Regular readers know I have an occasional penchant for verifying the accuracy and sources of popular quotes attributed to famous and respected people.

There is a widely circulated quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln that I just haven't been able to verify:

The Bible is not my Book and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma.
My question, obviously, is did Lincoln say that? I can't place my trust in sites which are biased against religion, and so I kept looking for a named source.

The only one I could find that is readily quoted was a book titled Salvation for Sale (a biased-sounding title, although that does not mean the scholarship of the author is unsound). The quote has been thrown like a dagger at bloggers who claim the country was founded on the Christian religion, but I have not seen it refuted anywhere.

Of course, how do you refute a quote? The duty, it would seem, would be for whoever offers the quote to provide a linked source proving it.

Which comes down to Salvation for Sale, the full title of which is Salvation for Sale: An Insider's View of Pat Robertson by Gerard Thomas Straub (described as "a former producer of the 700 Club"). What his bias might be, I do not know. He has written other books (which have won awards) and he is a religious man, but I'd like to have a close look at the Lincoln quote to see what if any source he provides.

Except this is the Christmas season and I just plain don't have time. I cannot check out every last damned quote that I see thrown around on the Internet. There is simply too much. True, I might have been able to do it for Isaac Asimov, but this is Abraham Lincoln. Priorities, you know....

Perhaps one of our readers who are concerned more deeply than I am can step up to the plate. As someone who believes in building coalitions, I like to think that I have readers on both, um "sides" of this issue. (Meaning that some readers would like the quote to be true, while others would like it to be false.)

Please feel free to dig in, and dig!

As to my own bias, I really don't have much of an emotional stake in Lincoln's views of the unknown. They are of interest to me, but I don't look up to the man as an ultimate authority figure whose views are binding on me.

Besides, I worry that debating views of the unknown is ultimately a purposeless activity. Yet its purposelessness does not prevent its politicization, which sets up a festering contradiction.

Should we politicize purposeless debates over the unknown?

Don't ask me. I'm too busy with Xmas.

:: Comments left behind ::

It's worth the hunt, you know. Some years ago, I wanted to post A Soldier's Christmas on my site. I'd gotten it sent to me in a pass around, credited to some well-known who-knows-who (NOT the actual author). After a good deal of hunting, I found the right guy. (And got permission to post and link back.)

Also got links to a number of other things he'd written, just as good. :-)

:: Kathy Kinsley December 11, 2010 07:00 PM


But What Has It Got To Do With Politics? (03:04 AM)

S.M. (what a great set of initials) McCain is blogging about a blogger busted for incest. Since it is a political hit piece you know how it runs. The miscreant is a left wing blogger who was a big Obama supporter.

It is just a matter of time (human nature being what it is) until some prominent R gets found with a 15 year old and the Ds will claim moral superiority because "at least an 18 year old can consent." Yeah. The cad waited until his daughter was of age.

Of course the incest loving blogger could go all biblical on us and say that he liked her a Lot.

I don't think these kinds of stories say anything one way or another that is useful about politics. I'm reminded of one of Reagan's best friends and big money boys dying in the arms of his mistress while RR was President. Bloomberg I think - something like that.... (some one remind me if you know)

Gossip is no doubt interesting (Larry Craig?) but what does it have to do with politics? Well it does draw eyeballs. And since it is Christmas time I'm going to get in the spirit and sell something.

Song (comedy bit?) #11 (Green Chri$Tma$) on this compilation is particularly relevant.

Dr. Demento Presents: Greatest Christmas Novelty CD

H/T Instapundit who seems to have quite in interest in sex which allows me to indulge while claiming a smidgen of moral superiority. Which of course if found out will automatically make me morally inferior. But by outing myself on the subject.... Well it never ends. But it isn't, except in the crudest precincts, politics. A certain A.S. - take note.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

:: Comments left behind ::

"the incest loving blogger could go all biblical on us and say that he liked her a Lot"

Or he could do like Lot and offer her to the mob that's threatening to kick in his door.

:: Eric Scheie December 11, 2010 10:24 AM

I read through huffpo on that blogger/prof guy - half of them wanted to lynch him on the spot, some wanted to lynch her too. Some thought it shouldn't be illegal. About 5 (in the 10 pages I waded through) pointed out that he'd only been accused, not convicted. I'll have to stay with that - I'll wait till conviction to condemn. *And yes, I would - IF it's true. (And, yes, Sarah, it's the one thing I DON'T appreciate Heinlein for taking on - he had it dead wrong.)

For getting in the spirit, you might want to add Tom Lehrer's Christmas Carol to your list of Christmas music. (A more succinct version of your link, in subject matter.)

:: Kathy Kinsley December 11, 2010 07:20 PM

I don't think incest should be encouraged.

:: Joseph Hertzlinger December 12, 2010 12:49 AM

Friday, December 10, 2010


You Know, Pythagoras Was Persecuted And Eventually Starved To Death (08:08 PM)

Over at HotAir, Ed Morissey asks if Obama's triangulation has flopped.

We've been hearing a lot about 1994 lately, but people tend to forget that Ross Perot made a real showing in 1992 and was a major factor in 1996 -- for Clinton, moving toward the middle meant squeezing the space his 1996 challenger could occupy in between Clinton and the Perotistas, while for Obama this movement may open a space for the Naderites.

And Clinton was able to triangulate pretty deftly by supporting two issues -- free trade and welfare reform -- that had significant support among certain segments of his coalition. As many have noted these past couple days, the hated "Bush tax cuts" have been the left's bete noire for some time -- you'd be hard pressed to find a leftish faction with much good to say about the portion going to those making over $250K. And politics in general was more top-down 16 years ago, with the Internet a novel phenomenon and the term "blogger" still some years off, while far left Democrats were not still psychologically scarred from six years of being relatively powerless.

It remains to be seen whether the Obamaphile press can drag their man across the finish line, but things certainly aren't looking good right now.

:: Comments left behind ::

The Left can and will flip-flop in an instant to once again support Obama should that be needed. Being that the Left acts in unison there will not be a noticeable public ripple when they reverse their reversal. "We've always/never been at war with Oceana."

I suspect that as soon as some conservative threatens to be relevant and active the Left will return to their Obama worship.

:: Scott M December 10, 2010 09:50 PM

For Barack Obama, triangulation is a whole new experience, and he may need help.

Hey, perhaps he could get Bill Clinton to pinch hit for him! Now there's an idea whose time has come....

:: Eric Scheie December 11, 2010 10:19 AM


Copyright tyranny (01:58 PM)

The copyright slimebags have gone after Matt Drudge for using an allegedly copyrighted photo in the Drudge Report.

What I find especially remarkable about the lawsuit is their damage demand:

As the Wild West of online copyright enforcement very, very slowly sorts itself out, a group that seems to be trying to enforce -- or, depending on your point of view, abuse -- the rights of the Denver Post to a photo has filed suit against the Drudge Report.

Their remakable demands: "[D]amages of $150,000 as well as forfeiture to Righthaven of the drudgereport.com and drudgereportarchives.com website domain names."

Drudge is a mighty big fish, and I hope he defends this aggressively, because the First Amendment is being systematically destroyed in the guise of upholding copyright law.

In the name of copyright enforcement, not only are blogs being sued, but web sites are being shut down by the government without any regard for due process.

So, I hope Drudge retaliates and sues Righthaven (for engaging in a conspiracy to violate his civil rights, along with RICO violations, and whatever), and that he ends up owning Righthaven.

The problem is, his insurance carrier will most likely take charge of the case and urge him to settle (which would only help enable the bastards).

:: Comments left behind ::

Righthaven is already on the ropes in another case, not just beaten, but beaten and maybe about to pay the defense's costs. This would be an auspicious time to pile on.

Hate to root for Drudge, though.

:: Don December 10, 2010 03:47 PM

It ate my link to http://www.boingboing.net/2010/12/09/eff-wants-righthaven.html

:: Don December 10, 2010 03:50 PM

And I thought my opinion of the Denver Post couldn't be reduced any more. Guess I was wrong.

Humans will never be free as long as mass media exists.

:: Gregg the Obscure December 10, 2010 04:22 PM

Another approach is the pointlessness of copyright and intellectual property in the first place.

Empirically, it's only a source of monopoly rents without any increase in creativity.

A nice argument by Michele Boldrin in a podcast linking off this page in econtalk.org

So repeal would be another avenue.

:: rhhardin December 11, 2010 08:28 PM


Barbie needs a good lawyer (11:05 AM)

An FBI alert over a Barbie doll with a video camera has generated a lot of interesting discussion by people who are worried that the dolls might somehow be used by pedophiles to make kiddie porn:

...that the new "Video Girl Barbie" comes with a hidden camera, which could be used to record child pornography.

"The alert's intent was to ensure law enforcement agencies were aware that the doll, like any other video-capable equipment, could contain evidence and to not disregard such an item during a search," the FBI explained in a statement.

Naturally, everyone assumes that the "evidence" and the "search" would relate to an adult pervert -- you know, the guy in a long overcoat who waves the doll and says, "Hey little girl, wanna play with Barbie?" That scenario is certainly a possibility, but I'm surprised that so many people are missing the most likely criminal conduct these dolls could facilitate.

Children filming themselves! According to the laws we live under, children who photograph themselves nude are violating the child pornography laws.

The female students at Greensburg Salem High School in Greensburg, Pa., all 14- or 15-years-old, face charges of manufacturing, disseminating or possessing child pornography while the boys, who are 16 and 17, face charges of possession, according to WPXI-TV in Pittsburgh, which published the story on its Web site on Tuesday.

Police told the station that the photos were discovered in October, after school officials seized a cell phone from a male student who was using it in violation of school rules and found a nude photo of a classmate on it. Police were called in and their investigation led them to other phones containing more photos, it said.

A Barbie doll is not a phone, but "her" camera "can shoot 30 minutes of video footage and be uploaded to a computer via USB."

Saying "Barbie did it" would probably not be a defense. That's because if we are to be strictly logical, the adults among us must recognize that Barbie is not a human being. Which means that "she" cannot be an actual child pornographer, even though the manufacturers have created a situation where it is easy for her to become a virtual one. Where are the outraged feminists? I mean, why put poor Barbie in the position of being a proxy porn producer, when we all know that the evil men are most often the real cultural villains? Why isn't Ken being made a proxy porn maker? Where's the virtual equality?

I don't know, but if I were the manufacturer, I would cover my ass by putting some sort of label on the toy.

WARNING: THIS VIDEO DEVICE IS NOT SOLD OR MARKETED OR INTENDED FOR USE BY MINORS! ALLOWING CHILDREN TO PLAY WITH THIS ADULT TOY WHILE THEY ARE OTHER THAN FULLY CLOTHED AND BEHAVING IN A RESPONSIBLE MANNER MAY SUBJECT THEM AND/OR THEIR PARENTS TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT CONCERNED PARENTS NOT ALLOW ANY UNSUPERVISED ACCESS TO THIS TOY AND THAT THEY OBTAIN APPROPRIATE LEGAL ADVICE.

:: Comments left behind ::

LOL - I love your warning.

But, yanno - you've got to wonder about the manufacturers. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot were they thinking?

:: Kathy Kinsley December 11, 2010 06:41 PM

This is such a non-story it's pathetic. Any pre-teen, tween, or adolescent girl with a webcam can do the same thing, and transfer the result via webcam-sharing services like stickam, if I recall the name properly.

Exchanging these kind of videos has become a minor cottage industry. From what I've heard (and read about), a very large proportion of these videos are teens who send "naughty" videos to their boyfriends.

Others seem to enjoy some sort of video exchange while person A watches person B via live webcam, and vice versa. Apparently they text with each other at the same time. It seems to be a hi-tech form of "I'll show you mine, if you show me yours."

Bottom line: if you give your daughters uncontrolled access to the web with a webcam and their own computer, there's not much you can do to stop them becoming the next hard-core Britney or Miley.

Webcam-Barbie is the least of their worries.

:: Casey December 11, 2010 11:43 PM

Thursday, December 9, 2010


Instapundit Says: Buy This Book (02:49 PM)

The man's sex obsession is on view for all to see. My kinda guy. The book:

Lube Jobs: A Woman's Guide to Great Maintenance Sex

If you buy the book from the above link it is almost $2 cheaper than the Instapundit link. I wonder why? And if I use this link the price is up $1.

Lube Jobs: A Woman's Guide to Great Maintenance Sex

Interesting. Further: I just checked again and the first link is now the same price as the Instapundit link and the second link is now $1 less than either price. A real time market to be sure. Well. Maybe. Oh yeah. If you buy from one of my links I get a cut at no cost to you.

From the review section:

Some 20 suggested scenarios include creative manual, oral, toy-enhanced, and coital approaches, including body shots (a porn staple), front-seat fellatio, backseat bonking with porn on the laptop, bathtub blow jobs, and closet canoodling. While the constant servicing-a-car wordplay may annoy some readers, the advice is sound and fun. Lighthearted illustrations would have been a nice touch, but the book does quite well as is. Most people spend the largest part of their adulthood slogging through committed relationships, and they need books like this. Recommended for public libraries."--Library Journal --
The library was never that exciting when I was growing up. Except for the National Geographic. Other wise known as "Half-Naked Savages". Of course with my Dad's box of Playboys in the basement (I kid you not) I didn't visit the library near as often as I might otherwise have needed to.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

:: Comments left behind ::


People, who hate people, are the luckiest people in the world? (12:55 PM)

Not only did I love Sarah's latest post ("Don't Hate Me 'Cause I'm Human"), I also loved her comment:

...if I hear ONE MORE twit-line (or read it) in move or book saying something like "We are a plague on the Earth" I'm going to... become even more angry than I am.
Those who say "We are a plague on the Earth" are by definition self hating. As well as haters of humanity.

And hating people is bad. Hate sucks, right?

So I have a question.

Why aren't groups that hate humanity (and who openly admit that they want to bring about an end to civilization) being included by the vaunted SPLC among the innumerable "hate groups"?

What's the rule? Is it that some hate groups are perfectly OK?

It seems that hating people in the name of loving the planet is not considered hate but love.

While I've always had the same sort of naturally antisocial tendencies that many of us have, there is something ominous about this.

I would hate to see hatred of humanity become schmaltzy.

I mean, think about it. They're taking simple misanthropy (long a perfectly normal and wholesome thing) and contaminating it with love!

Excuse me while I throw up, but hating in the name of love makes me sick.

:: Comments left behind ::

Hatred of humanity is already schmaltzy. It's expected. To be correct you have to declare your entire species to be wrong.

If I think about it too much I'll pull out all my hair and I don't think I'd look good bald

:: Sarah December 9, 2010 02:17 PM

It seems there is some small measure of goodness there. They do intensely hate the people who hate them. i.e. a recursive situation. Now if only their stacks would overflow. Quickly.

The problem as I see it is that they let their hatred diffuse to the general population. They don't hate themselves enough.

:: M. Simon December 9, 2010 03:31 PM

I don't hate humanity, I just hate people.

:: Veeshir December 10, 2010 10:09 AM

Wasn't the classic quote something like:
"I love humanity; it's people I can't stand."
(perhaps G. Marx?)

:: Fred the Fourth December 11, 2010 02:55 AM

I love rich people; it's wealth I can't stand.

I love drug users; it's drug use I can't stand.

I love Communists; it's Communism I can't stand.

I love Nazis; it's Nazism I can't stand.

I love environmentalists; it's environmentalism I can't stand.

I love Muslims; it's Islam I can't stand.

I love reporters; it's journalism I can't stand.

I love Jews; it's Judaism I can't stand.

I love Christians; it's Christianity I can't stand.

I love atheists; it's atheism I can't stand.

I love abortionists; it's abortion I can't stand.

I love Democrats; it's the Democratic Party I can't stand.

I love Republicans; it's the Republican Party I can't stand.

I love our opponents; it's opposition I can't stand.

Did I leave anybody out?

:: Eric Scheie December 11, 2010 11:16 AM

Thousands.

But you got the pattern right.

:: Kathy Kinsley December 11, 2010 07:26 PM


The lying truth, the leaky truth, and the truth-truth! (10:50 AM)

I haven't written much about WikiLeaks, but I think there are two separate issues: one is the First Amendment, and the other goes to the damaging nature of the leaks (often called "national security").

It's pretty basic that the right to say or publish something does not make saying or publishing it right. The principle is grounded in common sense, and it applies to ordinary speech like profane, or foul and abusive language in a similar manner. I support the right of people to use extreme words and terms I would never use, and as I support the right of people to publish material even though when a good argument can be made that it clearly damages national security.
(Interestingly, the leakers themselves don't seem all that committed to the principle of free speech; quelling and silencing the opposition is fine for me, but evil for thee!)

Of course, not everyone thinks the WikiLeaks damage national security. Some -- and Ron Paul is a good example -- think that the truth should always be welcome, no matter how damaging it may be.

"In a free society we're supposed to know the truth," Paul said. "In a society where truth becomes treason, then we're in big trouble. And now, people who are revealing the truth are getting into trouble for it."

"This whole notion that Assange, who's an Australian, that we want to prosecute him for treason. I mean, aren't they jumping to a wild conclusion?" he added. "This is media, isn't it? I mean, why don't we prosecute The New York Times or anybody that releases this?"

Paul followed up with a post to his Twitter account Friday morning: "Re: WikiLeaks -- In a free society, we are supposed to know the truth. In a society where truth becomes treason, we are in big trouble."

I think Assange clearly intended to damage national security, and whether in the long run he will have been successful remains to be seen. Ordinary people (including people in other countries) know that bad shit happens in war. Bad shit happened in World War II, and American and British troops sometimes did things which were shocking. It's the nature of war, and I think that more people are capable of seeing the big picture than is commonly realized.

But certainly in the present context, the leaks have to be seen as harming the United States, regardless of what the various and ultimate "truths" turn out to be. That there is plenty of material containing plenty of truths to debate for the next few decades is undeniable. The debate centers on whether the leaks are helpful or harmful, and again, that depends on perspective.

What is truth, anyway?

Consider the way WikiLeak lover Glenn Greenwald excoriates the American majority for disagreeing with him:

Just for a sense of how pervasive these lies about WikiLeaks have become, consider this Pew poll from today, which purports to find that 60% of Americans believe the latest WikiLeaks disclosure harms the public interest, while only 31% believe it helps it (apparently, a majority of Americans demand: keep us ignorant about what our Government is doing in the world!!). But the whole poll is grounded in an absolute falsehood: the Pew release refers to "the WikiLeaks website's release of a huge trove of classified document"; describes "the release of thousands of secret State Department communications"; and praises the public for "make[ing] a distinction between WikiLeaks itself and the press' handling of the document release"
I have to say, it certainly came as a surprise to me that the leaks do not constitute a huge trove of classified documents, and do not involve the release of thousands of secret State Department communications.

I guess that means the WikiLeaks Wiki page is lying. Along with millions, I have been led to believe that the leaking of official documents was the whole idea:

In October, the group released a package of almost 400,000 documents called the Iraq War Logs in coordination with major commercial media organisations. In November 2010, WikiLeaks began releasing U.S. State department diplomatic cables.
The entry carries on at length about the breadth and scope of the documents, their classified nature, etc. etc. ad nauseam.

Now that I know I've been duped, I can sleep easier.

MORE: In light of my earlier post in which I discuss my reluctance to get involved in a Tea Party war that some non-Tea Partyers want to start, I find myself wondering whether -- and to what extent -- WikiLeaks ought to be considered "a Tea Party issue."

I don't think it is. But that does not mean that individual Tea Partyers might not have a multiplicity of strong opinions on the subject. In my area, many of them would agree with Ron Paul, and some of them might very well label those on the other side to be warmongering neocons. What that means is that it just isn't likely to be a Tea Party issue.

Nor is it a major issue for the overall public, as this chart indicates:

WikiLeaksPewPoll.png

People are slightly interested, and only slightly less interested than they are in "Don't Ask Don't Tell." Single digits.

Hey, maybe the double digit issues are where the consensus truly lies....

MORE: Via Glenn Reynolds, Perry de Havilland explains why he dislikes Assange but nonetheless supports WikiLeaks:

If you think the state is too powerful, yet you do not want to see the state damaged by systemic attacks like Assange's Wikileaks, then presumably you think the state's power can be trimmed back significantly within the system. Indeed this was long my hope as I am a minarchist and thus see some role for the state in keeping barbarian hordes at bay, preventing plagues and putting out fires (the 'nightwatchman state')... but I think now that the idea this roll back of modern pervasive regulatory statism could ever be achieved via democratic politics is not just naive but verges on delusional.
It's an ongoing worry -- beyond the WikiLeaks issue.

:: Comments left behind ::

You have to disentangle the various actors and their intentions to make either legal or moral judgments on this whole affair.

I'd be very sympathetic to Assange as a journalist. After all, he's merely receiving classified information from a source and publishing that information. There's no difference between him and the New York Times, except of degree and discretion. (And I'm not sure about the "discretion" part...)

However, Assange is not acting as a journalist. His manifesto makes it clear that the principal purpose of Wikileaks is to throw sand in the gears of organizations that rely on secrecy, in order to degrade their ability to function. In short, he thinks he's acting as a saboteur.

Furthermore, if he were truly committed to information transparency, he wouldn't be threatening the use of this poison pill of held-back secrets, to be be released if he's arrested. He's using that information--which he's holding secret--as a tool to acquire or maintain power, just as any other organization uses secrecy to increase its leverage. I find this more than a little ironic.

Finally, we come to PFC Manning, the alleged leaker. Irrespective of his motivation, the letter of the law makes him a traitor, if he did what is alleged. Under some circumstances, what he did might be justified and would mitigate his punishment, e.g., if he leaked some sort of truly reprehensible conduct that was being covered up. But that doesn't appear to be the case. He too appears to be motivated more by the urge to sabotage than by any desire for openness. That obviates the need for any considerations of mercy.

:: TheRadicalModerate December 9, 2010 12:22 PM

In an open society the first man with a secret wins.

:: M. Simon December 9, 2010 03:59 PM


Don't Hate Me 'Cause I'm Human (01:34 AM)

There's this disturbing trend I've observed recently - okay, the last thirty years.

It's part of what I was talking about yesterday, in a way. For a book to be considered serious, or introspective or relevant, it has to attack the past or western culture or civilization or tech or... humanity.

Not that there is anything wrong with attacking these, mind, to an extent. And they used to be shockers and a very good way to attract attention immediately. And I'm not saying the mindlessly chauvinistic "our people, right or wrong" was much better. For instance, the cowboy-and-Indian trope became really tired after a while and when my brother gave me a book called - I think - (in Portuguese translation) The Mace of War, detailing all the injustices against Native Americans it was a mind-altering experience. Literally. And very worth it.

I'm just saying that these days, by default what you hear is against-whatever-the-dominant-culture is.

I first realized this when I was studying for my final exam in American culture in college. The book changed opinions and contradicted itself but it was ALWAYS against the winners and against whatever ended up being the status quo. So, the book was against the North of the US, because the North... won. Even though it had before been against slavery. It was very much against modern US and raged against... embalming practices for three or four pages. (Because they divorce us from the Earth. Just SILLY stuff.)

And then I started noting this trend in everything, including fiction. Think about it. Who is to blame in any drama: the US; the successful; the British; the Europeans; the... humans.

Years ago when Discovery Channel put out its "future evolution" series, my kids and I were glued to the screen. We're the family for whom the Denver Museum of Nature And Science is home away from home, the place we will visit if we have an afternoon free, the place where we have watched lectures and movies. I refer to it as "molesting dinos" and it's usually my way to celebrate finishing a book.

So we were glued to the TV. Except that after the beginning, I realized the way it was going, and I started predicting it. Instead of taking a "what might humans become" the people who wrote this went down a path where first humans and then everything VAGUELY related to humans became successively extinct, till the only warm-blooded survivor was a bird, and then that too became extinct. In the end, tree-dwelling SQUIDS inherited the Earth.

Yes, you DID read that right. Tree. Dwelling. SQUIDS.

The contortions were capricious and often absurd, but you could predict where it was going.

It's been a while since we had cable, but I understand there was a very popular series called "Life After US" about what would happen to the works of humans if we were suddenly extinct. And people watched it, fascinated and - from the tones of posts about it - a little wistful.

This is when you must step back and go "What is wrong with us?" "Is this a sickness of the soul?"

The answer? Yes and no.

Part of it, of course, is wanting to shock, wanting to revolutionize, wanting to be innovative... in safe ways - in (dare we say it?) politically correct ways. It's easy and approved of to attack: males, America, western civ, humans.

People who select works at publishers and studios and all that are often liberal arts graduates and they come from this curious world where they still think the establishment is circa 1950s and that they're telling something new and wonderful.

Part of it is, of course, that we do see problems in our own culture, in our own society, in our own species. Of course we do. We are an introspective culture. We examine our consciences, we find ourselves lacking, we try to improve. This is, in general a good thing - though perhaps a little perspective is also in order.

Part of it is politeness/sensitivity to other cultures, mingled with the consciousness our ancestors were often wrong. We've been taught the crimes of colonizers in various lands and most of those colonizers (and colonized, at least for most of us) were our ancestors. We're conscious we're big and others are smaller. It's a peculiar form of noblesse oblige. We don't want to trample others by pointing out faults in other cultures or other species. I understand this, because I learned to drive in my thirties and lived in a mountain town with lots of foot traffic downtown. I was excruciatingly careful driving through there, because I could crush a pedestrian and not notice. This is why we tend to turn our flagellation upon ourselves.

And part of it is sicker/darker. I notice this tendency every time we discuss a great figure of the past, from George Washington to Heinlein - as different as they are. I call it "counting coup." George Washington? Well, he was slave owner. And he had wooden teeth. And Lincoln? Well, he was very ill, and besides, he was probably gay and in the closet. Heinlein? Despite all his efforts at including - for his time - minorities and giving women starring roles, he must have been closet racist and sexist, donchaknow? Because he doesn't fit OUR superior notions of inclusiveness.

What is going on here - besides tearing at our own past, and thereby continuing the self-flagellation - is being able to prove we are "superior" to these high achievers. We might do nothing and achieve nothing, but we are superior beings because we're more moral than they are.
Individually, none of these trends is really bad - or at least not for those of us who grew up with the opposite tradition.

Oh, the constant and predictable chest-beating becomes boring. At least it does for me. Maybe it doesn't for other people?

But think of (grin) the children. They have no perspective. All they hear is how their country, their culture, their SPECIES is evil. How things would be so much better without us... How things would - ultimately - be much better if... THEY hadn't been born.

It's not healthy. It's vaguely disgusting. And the best it can do is engender the MOTHER of all backlashes and bring about a cultural chauvinism the likes of which you've never seen. The worse... well, one of the other cultures we don't criticize because they're small and we're big becomes the norm.

And before you cheer them on, let me put this in perspective: Western civ has committed crimes. ALL human cultures throughout history have committed crimes. Slavery? Since the dawn of time. Exploitation? Since the dawn of time. Murder? War? Genocide? Yep, and yep, and yep. And many of those cultures STILL do all of those things and don't feel in the slightest bit guilty, mostly because we handily and frequently blame OURSELVES for their behavior and they get our books, our TV series and our movies.

Such as it is, the West has brought the greatest freedom, prosperity and security to the greatest population.

Yes, there were crimes committed, but a lot of them were the result of a clash of world views - tribalism met the state. Look, it's not that Native Americans or Africans lived in a state of innocence and harmony with nature. If you believe that, you need to study history and put down Jean Jacques Rosseau. And get out of your mom's basement. And take the Star Trek posters off the wall. And the Avatar poster, too, while you're at it.

To the extent the native were innocent and helpless, it was because of their mental furniture. What gave colonizers the edge was not their weapons or civilization (Oh, come on, back then, there wasn't that much of a distance.) It was their mental furniture. To wit, they had overcome tribalism and organized on a large scale. Most of the colonized (excepting some small empires) hadn't. So they would attack in ways that worked in tribal warfare: exterminate a village or an outpost. And the reaction of the colonizers (who by the way also didn't understand the difference in mental furniture and therefore thought this made the native peoples' "bestial" or "evil) was to exterminate all of a tribe or a federation of tribes. And it worked because westerners were united as a MUCH larger group. Which made them stronger. Western civilization started overcoming tribalism with the Romans. That was the real innovation.

If you think that we're rich because of those acts, you must study economics. It doesn't work that way. If anything those acts made all of us worse off. We're way past any wealth we could plunder off others. We've created wealth. The whole world lives better than it did five hundred years ago.

And if you're going to tell me the fact that all humans are flawed proves that we're a bad species, you'll have to tell me: As opposed to what? Dolphins are serial rapists. Chimps commit murder. Rats... Every species we examine has our sins, but none of our redeeming qualities.

Heinlein said it was important to be FOR humanity because we're human. Beavers might be admirable, but we're not beavers. He was right. But beyond all that, we're the only species that tries self-perfecting. We exist - as Pratchett said - at the place where rising ape meets falling angel, but as far as I know, we're the only species reaching upward. (Of course, we wouldn't know if there are others and again, we have to assume we are it. The others have flaws too.)

We are part of the world and in it. To love the other animals of the Earth - or the hypothetical alien - and hate us is strange. Are we not animals? Are we not of the Earth? And who the heck can compete with sentients who exist only in the story teller's imagination.

By all means, let's protect the weaker. Let's shelter the little. But let's not beat ourselves because we're bigger and stronger. Let's USE our powers for good instead.

Am I saying that you shouldn't tell these stories then?

No, I'm not. I would never repress anyone's right to create, or anyone's opinion. But I'm asking you to think. I'm asking you to pause and go "The west is bad... as opposed to? Humans are bad... as opposed to?" And tell your kids that, ask them those questions.

And then, perhaps, every now and then, try to imagine a story from the contrary view point. Just to wake things up. And to keep others thinking.

Crossposted @ According To Hoyt (after six thirty a.m)

:: Comments left behind ::

Humans are human. As individuals they are generally, kind, lovable, reasonable and fair-minded; with a small, healthy, hint of paranoia and just enough self centeredness to insure survival.
The groups they form (and they always form groups) can easily become something very different and very dangerous.

:: Will December 9, 2010 06:18 AM

The human default is not necessarily kind and thoughtful or whatever. It is whatever it needs to be to survive. We are not always conscious of the air we breathe, so with cultural viewpoints extrapolated to human nature.

I read somewhere that the international and unrelenting vilification of Germany after WWI led quite directly to the necessity of a Hitler, one who would unite, give purpose and pride to the German volk. This is my fear with the constant haranguing of the West, and the U.S. in particular.

The more they vilify the U.S., the likelier the arrival of a leader who will "help us rediscover our true heritage." It's a siren call that's not altogether bad of itself, but so vulnerable where it seeks to inspire. The passive nature of our liberty, the self-interested nature of it-- leaves it wide open to another's more dominant and less transparent will.

:: Joan of Argghh! December 9, 2010 07:40 AM

Funny - halfway through the essay I was thinking "that's why I read Sci-fi". Apparently you do too.

:: Bram December 9, 2010 07:58 AM

Green writing is particularly outrageous in this regard. It begins with the premise that everything that exists on earth is natural and good--except for humanity.

Which poses the question: how do they know that? If the evolution of herds of gazelle is natural--you know, "good,"--then so are suburbs.

:: Brett December 9, 2010 08:29 AM

Bram -- I not only read it. I write it

:: Sarah December 9, 2010 09:12 AM

Brett

Exactly.

:: Sarah December 9, 2010 09:25 AM

Joan,

EXACTLY. That is my fear too. This is why I call this a malignant trend. There are things that annoy me as much, but they're just... stupid.
THIS otoh makes me wake up screaming. And if I hear ONE MORE twit-line (or read it) in move or book saying something like "We are a plague on the Earth" I'm going to... become even more angry than I am.

:: Sarah December 9, 2010 09:31 AM

Will,

Not all groups are bad. And then you have to ask "bad as opposed to what?" By what standard are we judging.

One thing we can say for sure is that the more concentrated the power, the worse human treatment of the environment and even other cultures. Yeah, there are exceptions, but how many people are NATURALLY good? How many rulers?

Distributed decision making is more likely to be easier on the area you live in because SOMEONE will give a hang. It won't be perfect, but it will be easier.

:: Sarah December 9, 2010 09:40 AM

I agree the defaults are pure hard wired survival instinct. Group think, polarization, rejection, acceptance and many other group interactions develop them beyond survival and coexistence.

:: Will December 9, 2010 10:02 AM

One advantage of being a conservative writer is that your most banal ideas might come as a shocking innovation.

Now, you do have to move beyond the mental furniture that we've all been given as story material (the threadworn, bare, springs busted sofas and sagging tables that have been used ten thousand times).

Practchett's close to correct. He's an atheist, tis true, but he's a humane guy. I say: Created in perfection, but fallen, twisted, so even our best deeds are tainted, and even our worst deeds carry some of our original greatness. And yet, we are to love one another.

Hard to love one another when you're rooting for the extinction of the human race.

:: Tennwriter December 9, 2010 11:59 AM

There's this disturbing trend I've observed recently - okay, the last thirty years.

Revenge of the OFs. ;-)

:: M. Simon December 9, 2010 04:02 PM

I thought of the future evolution show as depicting what happens after all the humans got off this mudball and went to the stars ... and that the squids were on the way to becoming Humanity 2.0.

:: Joseph Hertzlinger December 10, 2010 11:30 AM

Western civilization started overcoming tribalism with the Romans.

The Egyptians actually. If you follow how the attributes of their gods followed the absorption of the various tribes you will find a most interesting subject.

:: M. Simon December 10, 2010 12:19 PM

Wednesday, December 8, 2010


Faith In Force (05:37 PM)

Punishing sinners. A thankless pass time. A LOT of money in it though.

According to Judeo/Christian philosophy punishing sinners is reserved for the Maker. Punishing disturbers of the peace is allowed.

Where our "religious" friends go off the rails is in conflating the two. Vice may be unseemly. It is not crime. Vice is to be regulated. Crime punished.

You can't stop people from doing damage to their immortal souls - called in some cases "a learning experience". You can create quite a bit of crime by trying to suppress vice though.

Who are the disturbers of the peace?

Well fashions in vice abatement change over time. For a long time in America alcohol was the favored target. Now we have new ones. And even those are on the verge of passing in the next 10 to 20 years. I wonder what/who we will be hating in 2030? Since every society needs something/someone to hate I propose the Andromeda Galaxy. It is sufficiently far away so that it is probably safe for a while.

Of course part of the problem here is the fragmented nature of the hate market. Some hate bankers, some politicians, Jew hatred is coming back to more normal levels, and some people are even so picky as to hate only Democrats or on the other side only Republicans. Such a very interesting dichotomy in America. The Democrats want to force you to do one thing. The Republicans another. They are united in their belief in force. Which is rather far from a belief in the Maker.

Me? Like any human I have my petty hatreds. I refuse to elevate them to the level of principle.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

:: Comments left behind ::

A fine post.

:: dr kill December 8, 2010 06:11 PM

What do you mean "fine post"? Didn't you know M. Simon is a "hater"? And a Communist?

:: Eric Scheie December 10, 2010 02:01 PM

I recall that -back in the day- playing cards was considered sinful.

Oddly enough, during that same period buying opium-based products over the counter was quite legal... :)

Come to think of it, if memory serves, during the Civil War era at least some states had not yet outlawed abortion, either.

Eric, I have to disagree with you. Simon is neither of those things. He is, in fact, a free-thinker and a Christ-killer, which are far worse. Clearly a fatwa is in order.

:: Casey December 11, 2010 11:54 PM


An irritating feature that can't be turned off. But that's life. (12:13 PM)

This morning I was irritated to find a stupid piece of spam posted in my name on my Facebook Wall.

Eventually I figured out what happened (no, they had not hacked my actual FB account), and I tried to post a helpful warning to whoever might be reading my Wall. But I can't do that, as I am only allowed 420 characters:

Your status update is too long. The maximum status length is 420 characters, but it is 826 characters long.
OK, so here's what I tried to write but was not allowed to write on my Wall.

Facebook Mobile sucks. It appeared that someone had hacked my FB account, because this morning I saw a ridiculous entry purporting to be from me on my Wall -- along with a photo I never uploaded. What had happened is that a spammer had managed to randomly guess my Facebook "personal upload email" address. These are randomly generated and naturally, the spammers crank out millions of randomly generated spam emails until they get a hit. (As they did earlier.) There is no way to stop the feature. Nor is there any way to turn off Facebook Mobile (a feature I do not want and do not use.) The only thing you can do is change the blasted "personal upload email" address and hope the spammers don't randomly generate the new one. When they do, it will again appear that "you" have posted to your Wall, even though you did not.

Sigh.

An email address I don't want but have to have, and anything that is sent to it by anyone becomes a Wall post from "me." Talk about putting words in people's mouths!

Sometimes I get a little tired of irritating features that can't be turned off.

But if I look at the big picture, isn't that the nature of life?

MORE: If I feel like sharing, will this button help feed the downtrodden masses?


:: Comments left behind ::

OK. I get the 26 (currently) shares. But you have left off the selling price.

:: M. Simon December 8, 2010 05:45 PM

This is really weird. It shows up as 26 shares on the front page and 2 shares on the "comments" page.

:: M. Simon December 8, 2010 05:56 PM

Perhaps it is treating the main page vs. individual posting as two separate pages/sites/locations, and thus have two separate share counts?

:: December 9, 2010 03:56 PM

Powered by MovableType