Panics in Past and Present

 Started reading "The Year of Peril: America in 1942".  It's okay though I'm not enthusiastic--read too much on the period,  But it does remind me of how people panic when things happen, things like Pearl Harbor.  It's not a pretty story, with the mishandling of Japanese-American residents, and Italian-Americans, though not to the same extent.  Add the panics over potential or preceived Japanese attacks on the West Coast and German air attacks on the East.

I'd like to think we're more mature these days, but my memory of our reaction to the anthrax attacks which shortly followed 9/11 or to covid-19 persuades me otherwise.  And remember the scare about child-abuse in day-care centers in, I think, the 1990's. 

Sad.

Mobility in the Past

 Just finished "Kindred: Neanderthal Life, Love, Death and Art".  As I've written before, it's more technical and detailed than I needed, but interesting.  I come away from it, as I did from an earlier book on DNA results from testing homo sapiens from various archaeological sites, knowing the images I grew up with are wrong. 

Among the differences what stands out is the variety and mobility of past humans. In the case of Neanderthals they moved a lot, being hunter-gatherers and therefore following the game.  Lots of new science in the field, both DNA and other. Tracing tools back to the beds of rock where the stones originated from shows a lot of movement.  Looking at the isotopes of minerals in teeth which record diets and locations also show movement.

One of the things harder for me to grasp is the idea that 2 percent of Euro-Asian genes are Neanderthal.  I take the scientist word for it, but my mind skitters away from trying to figuring out the steps of the analysis which would reveal that.

Interesting--a footnote reminds that African genomes are richer in variety than Euro-Asian genomes, because of a bottleneck we experienced during the exodus from Africa. 

On an unrelated note, except it's mobility, Tom Ricks in a NYTimes book review notes that a Roman captain served both in the Middle East and in England.

Humor and Politics

 Ann Althouse at her blog has over the years considered Trump as being funny, humorous, tongue-in-cheek.  I could never see it.  In the wake of Rush Limbaugh's death some of the remembrances on the left have noted his comedy.  Never listened to him, didn't like what was reported about what he said (i.e., AIDs, McNabb, etc.).

I've always thought humor was one of the virtues, but I dislike Trump and Limbaugh's politics, so how do I reconcile the two?  

I'll assume for the sake of argument that both men were quite funny. Typically the humor I appreciate is directed at the establishment, from the position of an outsider. The other category is self-mocking; a liberal mocking liberals, etc.  (Wife and I enjoy "The Good Fight" TV series which does both. ) What I don't enjoy is jokes aimed at outsiders.  

That seems a fairly defensible position.  But then there's the category of blue jokes. Those can be defended as mocking the human body, so again self-mocking. 

Perhaps what I'm struggling with is a matter of power.  As a liberal I see Trump and Limbaugh as using humor from a position of power, to attack and denigrate those weaker than they are.  A conservative who perhaps firmly believes she's living in a world dominated by liberals who have all the power can find them funny because they're compatriots in the great rebellion against liberal hegemony?

Ethnic Tensions

 Watched the older Ben Affleck movie, "The Town", last night.  A few subtle reminders of the group/ethnic tensions which were once a big feature of Boston life.  

Tribalism is everywhere humans are.  

9/11 is a good day to remember that. 

Can We Sing "Amazing Grace" Anymore?

In today's environment, "Amazing Grace" points two ways:

1. On the one hand, it was written by a man who actively participated in enslaving and transporting enslaved people from Africa to the Americas.  (I knew this, but until I looked him up today I didn't know that he himself had been enslaved, although only for months, not a lifetime.) 
2. On the other hand, its message is one of forgiveness and redemption of sins.

IMHO the way to reconcile is to believe that humans are prone to error (my Calvinist forebears would say "original sin"), but change and redemption can happen, whether by God's grace or otherwise, and we must accept all humans as human.

On Removing Statues and Renaming Names

I'm of two multiple minds on the issue, as I am on most things:

• on one hand I never give a thought to statues or names--who or what they stand for.  I just accept them as part of the environment, rather like the weather or gravity.
• on the other hand I know intellectually, if not emotionally, that some people do, at least at some times.  I really doubt that a black person who drove through Alexandria every day on the way to work gave much of a thought to the statue of the Confederate soldier which used to stand at the intersection of the two main streets.  More likely their attention was on navigating the traffic.  But I accept the idea that such a statue could, on occasion, be disturbing.
• on the third hand, my two positions above are coming from my background as a white 79 year old American male.  If I make the effort, I can imagine perhaps a German street with a statue of Hitler or an idealized Wehrmacht soldier and a Jewish person's reaction to it.  If I come at the issue from that direction, as putting myself in the place of a Jew confronting a statue or name which commemorated the Third Reich, it's a lot easier to empathize with the reaction of a black American confronting a reminder of the Confederacy or of slavery.

My contrarian side is a bit activated on the third point--some resistance to the implied comparison of the German treatment of the Jews and American slavery. But the above describes my position today.

I think in the long run the specifically Confederate statues and names will be removed.  That set of symbolic victories will be enough in the long run to reduce the feeling behind the movement.  As is usual with humans we'll end with a mixed bag of things, with no clear algorithm evident. 

Innovation as an Invasive Species/Infectious Disease

There's a lot of concern over inequality, over polarization of American society, etc.

In part I think we're having trouble with the advent of the Internet and of social media. I'd observe that in the past human society has taken time to adjust to innovation.  When railroads came along people were thrown into close contact with strangers in a new situation for extended periods of time.  It took time to develop norms and habits to deal with this, not to mention the need to standardize time keeping.

I'd suggest a good metaphor for innovation is to consider it an invasive species or a new infectious disease.  Initially the species or disease makes rapid inroads because humans don't have any developed immunity or there are no natural enemies..  Over time these develop.

I think this is true for society, as well.  Humans learn, eventually.  And they adjust, eventually.

Once Again the Loudmouth Gets All the Attention

In an age-old pattern (think of the prodigal son in the Bible) the loudest mouth gets the attention.

In this case, he gets an article in the NYTimes announcing his retirement (plus I've seen tweets on the same subject).

Who is he?  Diego, a turtle.  Not just any turtle. but one of three males in an endangered species who were assigned the duty/given the opportunity to mate often with females in order to drive the numbers of the species above two digits. 

He did, he performed admirably, siring about 40 percent of the 2,000 turtles in the species.  He's described as having a big personality, charismatic.

It just so happens one of the two other males was firing blanks, leaving the third, the silent stalwart type, the one not seeking headlines, to sire the other 60 percent.

In the Eye of the Beholder

From the Lawfare Blog

One of the striking features of the public reaction to Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report on the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation is just how many people of just how divergent points of view are claiming vindication for whatever positions they held prior to the document’s release.

Fads and Social Contagion

First we have the guy in Kentucky  who shot two people, then the mad bomber of the van who sent bombs to various people on the left of Trump, and currently the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter who's more right than Trump.

I find some solace in the idea these three events are examples of social contagion, of fads.  It's similar to the spread of anti-vaccine theories, or the sudden popularity of a set of names for newborns.  Somehow we humans are monkey-see, monkey-do (with my apologies to our simian cousins) people.  I'm not sure whether we just like to follow the path beaten down by others or also we like to outdo each other. 

Where does rhetoric come into play?  I'm not sure.  Maybe it's similar to a flu or measles epidemic.  One condition, necessary but not sufficient, is the existence of an unvaccinated population, a set of people closely connected enough to support the spread of a disease.  The other condition is the introduction of a carrier of a virus/bacteria which is infectious. 

But the metaphor isn't good enough--there's just two conditions going on.  With our recent events there's more conditions: the availability of guns, the availability of bomb technology (knowledge and materials), the existence of people somewhat (or very) nutty, the knowledge that others share the feelings and conceivably can be impressed by deeds, the triggering event, etc.

Puzzles of Human Society I Don't Understand

Two things about human society I don't understand:

1. Sometimes things change fast.  I'm thinking of things like the change in the US in attitudes towards homosexuals, particularly gay marriage.  Or the changes in Ireland in social attitudes generally.  Or the changes in Chinese society over the last 40 years or so.
2. Sometimes things change slow.  I'm thinking of things like Gregory Clarks research on the long lasting effects of social position in British society.  Or things like the research on the effects of the slave trade on African countries which were or weren't affected by the trade.  Or things like the beer/wine divide in Europe.  Or the effects of Roman roads on subsequent development.

If I weren't lazy at the moment I could provide links, but as I am you'll just have to trust me.  

I suppose there's some logic to the differences, but I've not seen it addressed anywhere.

Chimps Jumping Up and Down

Lots of discussion on social media about Red Hen: pro or con civility. 

Personally I'm pro, partly because I prejudiced against conflict and partly because of a viewpoint Megan McArdle voiced in a series of tweets: the most important thing is to take back the House in 2018 and the presidency in 2020 and everything should be judged by the measure of whether it helps or hurts achieving those goals.  IMHO the current dispute is a distraction.

Drawing back a bit to gain more perspective, I'm reminded of descriptions, perhaps video, of two groups of chimpanzees facing off against each other, each jumping up and down and trying to intimidate the other.  That seems to me to be the underlying dynamic of the current conflict: some on the left like Maxine Waters want to be nasty to all Trump supporters, some on the right claim the mantle of innocence. 

Partisanship in the Past

Somewhere buried in my memory is an ancient view on partisanship, ancient meaning it dates to the Cold War or the rise of communism.  I think it was Graham Greene who said something like: "I'd rather betray my country than betray a friend."  Or maybe it was E.M.Forster who said "only connect"?

(Turns out it was Forster.)

I write this because in my twitter feed someone whose friend voiced support for President Trump denied the friend--threw him out of the house, maybe.  Quite a contrast of then and now (though I acknowledge Forster's sentiment was an outlier then, and now. )

Humans Can Be Evil

From Techmology Review piece on robotics:

But the trickiest foe these robots face while out in the world could be the most difficult to predict: teenagers. Hitch says teen shoppers have been known to kick the robots in Walmart, or even slam into them with a shopping cart.

Humans Are Resilient

I back my assertion with three points:

• my experience as a draftee in the Army
• Chris Blattman in his interview by Tyler Cowen
• Stephen Hawking.

That is all.

Be Nice to Republicans Day

From Joe Biden:

" "You may remember, you were a little kid, your dad took care of my Beau ... Your dad became friends with Beau and Beau talked about your dad's courage, not about illness, but about his courage."

No, I didn't know that and John McCain doesn't strike as a great baby sitter, if that's what he did, but it's generous.

I Called the President an Idiot

Big hearing today where a House committee grilled the Deputy Attorney General about tweets/emails between two FBI agents.  In one or more Trump was called an "idiot".  This arguably reflects adversely on the agent and might indicate a prejudice which carried over into official duties.

While I never had the position the agents had, being lower on the totem pole than they, I too used to call the president an "idiot".  In my case it was Reagan, not Trump, and technically I called him "the senior idiot" (reflecting the fact I was calling my immediate boss "the junior idiot".  But I'm not aware that my dislike and low evaluation of Reagan ever affected my performance.  As a matter of fact I got an award (cash, no less) for my work in implementing the most controversial program ASCS handled during my time with the agency.

It's impossible to tell with the agents.  But in my experience the ability of people to compartmentalize and to deny is what separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom.

The Big Sick

Saw the movie the other day and enjoyed it, although I really do need to get a hearing aid. 

The plot rests on the well-established phenomena (which I remember from my college days)--it's not knowledge of the "other" which reduces prejudice, it's cooperation and suffering together in quest of a goal.  I'm reminded of that truth when I see this report on Houston Muslims and the flooding.

The Uses of Violence?,

Josh Marshall has a post discussing violence against the alt-right.  He's against it, arguing that it's works to the benefit of the far right and undermines the rule of law.

While I'm with him on that, he doesn't pay enough attention to the seduction of violence, although he does admit he enjoys seeing a Nazi punched.  Most any football fan will say they enjoy a "good hit" on the opposing quarterback, running back, or receiver.  That's human--we like violence against our opponents (though we'll be sure to call for a flag if our quarterback, running back, or receiver is on the receiving end of a "vicious, illegal hit").

The antifa types seem to be much the same demographic as the alt-right: young males, though perhaps with a few more females and a sprinkling of people of color you wouldn't see in the alt-right.  But extremism attracts the similar people on both ends, although the left perhaps has a more intellectual gloss to their actions.  I suspect if you could do a brain scan of either group in the midst of an action, a march or a counter-demonstration, you'd see the same areas of the brain activated, areas which have little to do with rational thought.

Saint Jimmy and Bad Barack

Barack Obama is taking some heat from the left for giving a speech for $400,000.  As usual I've mixed feelings:

On the one hand I wish the Obamas had followed the example of the Carters in sending their daughters to a public DC school.  They didn't.   I also wish the Obamas would follow the example of the Carters in "rarely" giving paid speeches.  They won't.

On the other hand where do you draw the line?  Is a $10,000 fee for a speech at an alumna mater okay while $400,000 would be wrong?  Or is the issue who the speech is to?  We don't want the Obamas talking to "bad" people but it's okay to talk to "good" people?  Won't "bad" people benefit more by listening to them?

On the third hand, I disdained Reagan's speeches in Japan.

My bottom line is while I wish we were a nation of saints, and I wish the president were the highest-paid, best compensated American executive, neither is true, so we live in the world we have.