ChatGPT and Congress

 Yesterday there was a report, which I may be garbling, that Google had given ChatGPT the same test questions they give to engineering job applicants, and the AI qualified as a level 3, apparently an entry level.  The starting salary for level 3 was given as about $180K, more than the starting salary for a new member of Congress, not to mention a member of considerable seniority. 

Not sure what that says about AI, Google, Congress, or the US. 

Unbelievable--So Much for White Superiority

The other day the Times had an article discussing the composition of the cabinet selected by PM Truss, which notably had no white males in the top four positions. Rather buried in the depths of the article was this fact: 

In part, the gains in government by people of color reflect social change and advances through education. On average, ethnic minority pupils have outperformed white Britons at school in recent years. In every year from 2007 to 2021, white pupils had the lowest entry rate into higher education.

I'm used to looking at the various breakdowns of statistics about our society and seeing what I might call the "usual suspects"--that is, Euro-Americans or Asian-Americans at the top, if the statistic relates to something good (wealth, income, etc.) and Afro-Americans and Hispanic-Americans at the bottom. The positions reversed if the statistic relates to crime, helath, life expectancy, etc.

We see that so often we, at least I,  start thinking it's the expected order, which is just a step away from being "natural". 

But this statistic from the UK upsets those expectations. And it raises the key question: what the hell is going on; why the difference in societies? 

Shirts in the Revolution Were Costly

 Reading Alan Taylor's "American Revolutions".  As usual he's quite readable, though there's not much new for me so far.  One trivia bit jumped out to me though:

In 1780 women in several of the states organized in support of the troops, soliciting donations*, and raised some $340,000, which they sent to Martha Washington to give to her husband to be distributed to the troops.  As Washington George figured, probably likely, the cash would be wasted on drink and frivolity he asked for shirts instead.  So they bought fabric with the money and made shirts, 2,200 of them.

So each shirt cost $154, and that's just for the fabric.

Note the date--1780.  By then Continental paper money wasn't worth a continental.

Douglass on USA Mission

Frederick Douglass had a speech on the US, partially focused on Chinese immigration during a time when that was a big thing.  

Our geographical position, our relation to the outside world, our fundamental principles of government, world-embracing in their scope and character, our vast resources, requiring all manner of labor to develop them, and our already existing composite population, all conspire to one grand end, and that is, to make us the perfect national illustration of the unity and dignity of the human family that the world has ever seen.

That's a vision of America I can endorse.  It's backed by this Bloomberg interview about immigration. 

Hutchinson on Declaration

Boston 1775 has a post on Hutchinson's view of the Declaration. Denies that the thirteen colonies constitute a "people" and points to the conflict between "life, liberty, pursuit.." and slavery.  

So the founders hypocrisy was apparent early (and to themselves, given the rapid progress of gradual emancipation in the northern colonies by 1790). 

It's interesting though that he thinks there are 100,000 slaves. (The 1790 census showed about 700,000.)  

Proud To Be an American

 In response to a tweet by Will Hurd:

I understand and appreciate why 72% of the country thinks we're on the wrong track, but despite this pessimism what is one reason why you are thankful to be an American?

— Will Hurd (@WillHurd) July 4, 2022

Lots of people from all over want to come here, and most find it good enough to stay and live.

— Bill Harshaw (@BillHarshaw) July 4, 2022

Is the popularity of the country sufficient reason to be proud?  YES.  

It's an objective measure of the value of the country. It's one which both conservatives and liberals, the far right and far left ought to be able to embrace. 

Mainline Christianity--Membership Versus Affiliation

 

My curiosity was triggered by this tweet:

In fact, the only denomination among whites that has increased recently is "mainline Protestant," which is decidedly liberal on abortion. The decline of "evangelical Protestant" - especially compared to other sects - since 2006 is very noticeable. pic.twitter.com/XUxdJa4VV0

— Aaron Astor (@AstorAaron) July 3, 2022

So I did a little looking at Wikipedia.   It seems Pew did surveys in 2014 and 2020 of individuals, asking their affiliations.  And the survey does show an increase between those years, with 16.4 percent being members of mainline Protestant churches (Episcopal, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Church of Christ, Lutheran, Disciples of Christ).  But in 2010 a survey of denominations for their membership showed 7.3 percent.

That's quite a gap. 

Why I Don't Believe in Great (White) Replacement Theory

 It's true that the current white majority of Americans will diminish as we accept more immigrants from areas other than Europe, and as new immigrants tend to have a higher birth rate than non-immigrants.

I expect "whites" to continue to be a plurality of the country for the foreseeable future because:

• immigration will ease somewhat as the non-European world becomes richer
• immigrant birth rates will converge to the rates of non-immigrants
• the definition of "whites" will change and expand as it has in the past.  Acculturation (loss of accents, etc.) and intermarriage will see to that.  

I expect the culture to continue to be "white", although with changes as the world changes. I think you can still see the imprint of the early white settlers, especially in New England but also in the South, for good and bad on the culture and beliefs of America.  I think that will continue. 

I might have a different opinion if the "replacements' represented one culture, but they don't.  Wherever you look there's variety among the immigrants: Asians from many different countries; Latinos from many different countries; Africans and Afro-Caribbeans from different countries. As they arrive, we lump them together, and they in part accept the lumping. But the differences continue for decades.  It's taken more than my lifetime for the differences betwee the WASPs and Eastern/Southern European immigrants after the Civil War to lose their power. 

It's not like Eire and Northern Ireland or Israel, where you have two groups, one majority that's shrinking, the other a minority that's growing.  That's a much dicier situation, harder to keep calm and more likely, I think, to see a "replacement" occur (though I suspect the cultural differences between Catholics and Protestants, Jews and Arabs are less than those among our immigrants.

See this Post article

Taxes Done

It's not procreastination, really, or so I tell myself.  But we finished our Federal and VA taxes today and filed them.  Our tax rate isn't as high as the Bidens or Harris/Emhoff but we're close.   What we pay for civilization.  

Expropriation/Appropriation of Culture/Ideas

 Reading Johnson's book "The Broken Heart of America"--early on (page 26) he refers to the expropriation of Indian knowledge by the Lewis/Clark expedition.   Somehow it struck me wrong.  Checking the definitions of "expropriation" and "appropriation" it seems their meaning has been concerning property or assets.  

Johnson applies it to intellectual knowledge and intangible assets. To an economist I think the distinction rests on what is "excludable", which intellectual property isn't as a rule. IP is shareable.  It's appropriate to refer to the expropriation of land or the appropriation of personal property, but to my mind not appropriate to expropriation of IP or appropriation of culture. 

That leaves a question of what label to use instead of cultural appropriation--imitation or emulation or copying, perhaps adding an adjective like "superficial". 

A note from a biography of Josiah Wedgwood I'm reading--there's a quotation from an eminent writer in the 1760's pontificating that the classical past (which was being revealed by excavating Pompeii and the tours of Europe by young English men) should be considered the common patrimony of all, so emulation and imitation was fine.

The First Inaugural Address

 I ran across a reference to Washington's first inaugural address which roused my curiosity--specifically a reference to the prominent position he gave to what we call today the "Bill of Rights".

So I looked it up.  It's interesting. I don't find there what I thought was indicated by the reference.  There's a lot more attention given to God, his past guidance and hopes for future of "experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people".  But there are no specific recommendations for any of the Bill of Rights.  He does spend one paragraph in generalities--he's for "fortifying rights" while "promoting harmony", but that's as specific as he gets about any aspect of the new government.

Oh, and he won't take a salary or personal emolument.  

Woody Holton: Liberty Is Sweet

Woodie Holton is a historian who has been active in defending the 1619 Project, which led me to read his new book: Liberty Is Sweet,  If I don't write further on it (it's good), I want to note this nice quote from Ben Franklin, which the Democrats could use:

All Property indeed, except the Savage’s temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents & all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity & the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man for the Conservation of the Individual & the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who by their Laws have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire & live among Savages.— He can have no right to the Benefits of Society who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.

From Benjamin Franklin to Robert Morris, 25 December 1783 

[Updated-corrected the author's name.  See this Hogeland post on the related issue.'

Past Olympics

Someone on twitter asked about our focus in the Olympics on gymnastics.  That caused me to recall Olga Korbut. In 1972 she turned us on to gymnastics.  At 4'11'', one inch taller than my sister, she was both a daring gymnast and charismatic.  Watch her ups and downs here.

Bob Somerby recalls the "greatest track meet" , not an Olympic event but a US-USSR standoff in 1962, which reminds me of how fierce the athletic rivalry was between the two powers in the 16 years before then, peaking in the Olympics.  In the 50's it seemed American supremacy was under challenge; if we weren't the best in everything, what were we?

Freedom Versus Fairness--the Pandemic and Fischer

 Some time ago David Hackett Fischer wrote a book comparing the USA and New Zealand.

I thought of that book when I read this Post opinion piece. 

As you might understand from the title, Fischer sees the societies as different.  Although they're both "settler societies", the key to the US is "freedom", the key to New Zealand is "fairness".   I remember his argument was in part based on the histories--we fought the British to establish autonomy, freedom; New Zealand was settled later when the UK had learned better to deal with their colonies.  Also, in the years between the settling of America and the settling of New Zealand the nature of British society had changed from a hierarchical aristocratic society to one with the urban working class arising. 

While I remember Fischer dealing with the Maori influence on the overall society, I can't say he saw the same factors as in the op-ed.  But the overall effect is the same--concern about the impact of one's actions on others, particularly the fairness of the impacts.  

So, in the pandemic we have lots of resisters to the masks and lockdowns here, because people say it impairs our freedoms.  In NZ they could impose restrictions because infecting others would be unfair. 

The Importance of Local Government

 Somewhere in this blog I've mentioned the differences in local government between New York and Virginia.  In New York, outside the cities, the counties are divided into towns for purposes of local road maintenance, tax collection, etc. and into central school districts for schools.  My father was on the Chenango Forks Central School board for a number of years. (You can find a sample of what goes on in a town government in this recent supervisor's email.) 

In Virginia the county handles the schools and other local functions, In NY Broome County has 16 towns, 7 villages, and one city--Binghamton. 

I was struck in reading the Gordon-Reed/Onof book on Thomas Jefferson by a discussion of his letter on local government. In 1816 he was pushing to subdivide Virginia counties into smaller units, specifically in this instance "wards" which would handle local public schools (which Virginia didn't have).  There's a reference to using the areas which were the basis for the militia (I'm guessing companies). He observes that the New England town meetings shook the ground beneath his feet and caused his embargo to fail.

He didn't persuade Virginia to adopt wards/towns. As I've done before, I wonder the effect of this difference in organization.

Robert Putnam in "Bowling Alone" argues for the importance of nongovernmental social organizations as schools for democracy.  If he's right, surely the local government units are as important, if not more so.

Blacks as Central to American Popular Culture?

 Prof. Appiah writes a NYTimes review of Isabel Wilkerson's new book: “Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents,” I'll read the book because the concept is interesting, but I was struck in the review by this:

 The place of Black workers in the American economy is surely part of the racial story, and it’s notable that the word “capitalism” doesn’t appear in Wilkerson’s book. Low-status jobs are generally low-income jobs; both income and status matter. Nor can we turn to the caste model in explaining the centrality of Black people to American popular culture.

I'm working on a post on the differences in American society between 1950's of my youth and the 2020's of my old age, but I hadn't yet touched on that. 

It's true--I could probably count on both hands the number of blacks in the culture who seemed significant to me:

Jackie Robinson

James Baldwin

Nat King Cole

Thurgood Marshall 

By the end of the decade MLKing but not Malcolm X.

Sidney Poitier

no singers that I remember.

I expect an 18 year old me in today's world would have a much longer list of singers, actors, writers. etc.  

Part of the difference between then and now is blacks coming to the fore.  But it's also true that part of the difference is the decline of hierarchy/or the multiplication of niches. 

 

 

 

Five People to Write a Times Article? (And the Past)

NYTimes has an article on how the Trump administration turned away from the coronavirus, deciding to push responsibility to the states and localities.  In part it reads to me as a hit piece on Dr. Birx, possibly with Kushner as one of the sources (he's barely mentioned, while she gets portrayed as unduly optimistic and trying to please her bosses).

But that's not really what struck me.  It's the question: how do the logistics of five people writing one article work?  Does one person do the draft and the others add comments and paragraphs?  Is it more collaborative or individualistic? 

And how did the Times (and other papers) get here?  Back when I started reading the paper (usually the Sunday version) in the 1950's there were very few bylines on articles.  Over the years they started to appear on a greater proportion of the articles until now there's hardly an article without at least one named author.

I think that's representative of a more general evolution in society: diminishing the importance and voice of institutions and raising the importance and voice of individuals.

On Reopening After the Coronavirus

The Trump administration's task force has outlined a 3 stage process to reopen the economy.The steps make sense to me.  There's pressure from various places to go faster in reopening, particularly in southern states.

My own feeling is complicated:

• there's likely some, perhaps many, things which could be reopened with minimal additional risk to propagating the virus.  I' ve tweeted the suggestion that libraries could be reopened, at least to the extent that you can put a hold on a book or DVD online, then pick it up from the library.  That process could track closely to carryout orders from restaurants.
• the problem is the trade-off between having a strong simple rule which establishes a red line and more complicated rules which are harder to understand and enforce, particularly without a bureaucracy geared to that enforcement.  Using uniformed police isn't the answer. 

Bottom line: as usual the US will muddle through.

America Is Rich Country But Feels Like a Poor Country

I like the Kottke.org website. He recently spent some time in Vietnam and Singapore with some good pictures. (Saigon was home to lots of motorbikes when I was there 50+ years ago, but it's gotten more crowded since.) He has this observation:

" the main observation I came home with after this trip is this: America is a rich country that feels like a poor country. If you look at the investment in and the care put into infrastructure, common areas, and the experience of being in public in places like Singapore, Amsterdam, Paris, and Berlin and compare it to American cities, the difference is quite stark. Individual wealth in America is valued over collective wealth and it shows."

We Should Calm Down

John Fea at the Way of Improvement blog sponsors this post on divisions within America. Zack Beauchamp at Vox has this post on the ills of our democracy.

Personally I don't buy the crisis talk.  I remember the divisions in the country in the 1950's and the 1960's and the 1970's and....  Notably in the late 60's and early 70's we had riots and terrorist bombings, not to mention our strongest third party movement in a long time.   We survived, and I'm sure we will continue to survive.  Trump will leave office on or before Jan 20, 2025.  I hope we elect a Democrat in 2020 who will lower the tensions and revive many of the norms which he has broken.  But if we have to live through another 4+ years, we'll survive.