Just saw "Dr. Strange", which was only redeemed by Mr. Cumberbatch and some humor. I think it counts as maybe the only superhero movie we've seen. Got to thinking: back in the day our heroes were in Westerns. They stood out because of courage and usually moral status and being fast on the draw. Children, boys at least, could aspire to that status.
I don't know what lessons or models our modern superheroes present for children.
(My, I sound like an old fogey.)
Monday, November 21, 2016
Sunday, November 20, 2016
My Alternative for the Hamilton Cast
Much discussion about Pence's attendance at the Hamilton musical performance, some boos from the audience and a post-show statement from the cast. My position: no big deal, I wouldn't have done either, but it's within the realm of civil society. But it is a bit too self-righteous for my taste.
I'd rather have seen the statement after the show say something like: " the cast members in the spirit of supporting diversity....blah blah.. in today's world, are donating their pay for the night to [some charity]." That would have been a stronger statement IMHO.
I'd rather have seen the statement after the show say something like: " the cast members in the spirit of supporting diversity....blah blah.. in today's world, are donating their pay for the night to [some charity]." That would have been a stronger statement IMHO.
The Romantic Virtues of Dirt
The NYTimes had an article on the definition of "organic": specifically can vegetables grown through hydroponics be considered "organic"? There's different views, particularly the big hydroponic growers who can get premium prices for their hothouse produce as compared to the dirt based organics.
Back in the day there would have been no question: the organic movement had IMHO a romantic view of the virtues of dirt: there was a magic in the dirt, perhaps embodied in the bacteria and organisms present in natural soil, soil which had not been denaturalized by the repeated applications of chemical fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. (Though back in the 1950's it was mostly fertilizers, not so much herbicides and pesticides.) The organic people had a faith in nature, usually "Nature", that exceeded their faith in man. It's partly the old top-down, bottom-up dichotomy. If you believe in human reason you think people can figure out anything and then improve on what's developed from the past. If you have a less strong belief, either in the strength of reason or in current development of understanding of natural phenomena, or if you want to avoid the work of understanding, you trust in nature.
I see a similar dichotomy in the controversies over GMO's or the precautionary principle. I'd generally expect the Trump USDA to go with the hydroponics people, but maybe I'm just using the stereotype of Republicans favoring business people.
Back in the day there would have been no question: the organic movement had IMHO a romantic view of the virtues of dirt: there was a magic in the dirt, perhaps embodied in the bacteria and organisms present in natural soil, soil which had not been denaturalized by the repeated applications of chemical fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. (Though back in the 1950's it was mostly fertilizers, not so much herbicides and pesticides.) The organic people had a faith in nature, usually "Nature", that exceeded their faith in man. It's partly the old top-down, bottom-up dichotomy. If you believe in human reason you think people can figure out anything and then improve on what's developed from the past. If you have a less strong belief, either in the strength of reason or in current development of understanding of natural phenomena, or if you want to avoid the work of understanding, you trust in nature.
I see a similar dichotomy in the controversies over GMO's or the precautionary principle. I'd generally expect the Trump USDA to go with the hydroponics people, but maybe I'm just using the stereotype of Republicans favoring business people.
Saturday, November 19, 2016
Too Much Fear, Too Little Calm
My title could apply to many things, including the current agita over the Trump administration to be.
I want to note the election, specifically the lack of major problems at the polling place, as reported by this ProPublica blog post. All the fears of intimidation at the polls, etc. weren't borne out. People have the ability to work themselves into a lather (a metaphor dating back to the horse age) over things which don't come true.
The reality is that Trump and his people will make mistakes, do some bad things, do some good things, and often kick the ball down the street. They may well be as bad for the country as were Nixon and Reagan, but maybe not. We'll see.
I want to note the election, specifically the lack of major problems at the polling place, as reported by this ProPublica blog post. All the fears of intimidation at the polls, etc. weren't borne out. People have the ability to work themselves into a lather (a metaphor dating back to the horse age) over things which don't come true.
The reality is that Trump and his people will make mistakes, do some bad things, do some good things, and often kick the ball down the street. They may well be as bad for the country as were Nixon and Reagan, but maybe not. We'll see.
Harry Potter and Bureaucracy
Any bureaucrat who's a fan of Harry Potter knows he's also a bit masochistic (the bureaucrat, not Harry). Here's an old essay which makes that point, several times.
Friday, November 18, 2016
The Benefits of Immigrants
Andrew Gelman writes about attitudes to Hungarian refugees in 1958. I commented
One of the lesser contributions of immigrants to American culture is the soccer-style field goal kick. Yes, before 1959 all field goal kickers kicked straight on. It was Pete Gogolak and his brother Charlie who brought soccer-style kicking to the college level (Cornell for Pete), and then to the pros. They were Hungarian refugees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Gogolak
An example of how we all benefit from the interchange of people and ideas.
One of the lesser contributions of immigrants to American culture is the soccer-style field goal kick. Yes, before 1959 all field goal kickers kicked straight on. It was Pete Gogolak and his brother Charlie who brought soccer-style kicking to the college level (Cornell for Pete), and then to the pros. They were Hungarian refugees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Gogolak
An example of how we all benefit from the interchange of people and ideas.
Thursday, November 17, 2016
I Was Wrong, Again
Sometime recently I believe I blogged about the difficulty in undoing regulations which had been finalized after the rule-making process. The idea was, and is, that an agency needs to go back through the rule-making process in order to revoke a reg, a process which takes a while and can, in controversial cases, result in lots of comments to respond to.
That's still the case, but I'd forgotten Newt's baby, which is briefly referenced in this post.
It's the Congressional Review Act, part of Gingrich's Contract with America, which allows simple majorities in both Houses to nullify major regulations within 60 legislative days of promulgation. With divided government it hasn't been used, hence my forgetting about it. Twill be interesting to see how many of the candidates the Republican Congress actually nullifies. My bet is a minority, perhaps a small minority, unless some wiseass packages a number into one legislative act.
That's still the case, but I'd forgotten Newt's baby, which is briefly referenced in this post.
It's the Congressional Review Act, part of Gingrich's Contract with America, which allows simple majorities in both Houses to nullify major regulations within 60 legislative days of promulgation. With divided government it hasn't been used, hence my forgetting about it. Twill be interesting to see how many of the candidates the Republican Congress actually nullifies. My bet is a minority, perhaps a small minority, unless some wiseass packages a number into one legislative act.
Spikes in Homicides and Traffic Deaths
Peter Moskos picks up on the same thing I did. The only difference is he wrote about it: the increases in traffic deaths and homicides are roughly the same percentages, but the Times minimized one and not the other.
Not good, NYT, not good.
Not good, NYT, not good.
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
On Reconciliation With Enemies
Boston 1775 cites a letter by Jonathan Sewell, a Loyalist, regarding his old friend, John Adams, the Partriot.
Some Good from Trump?
Whatever else happens in the next four years, Trump's election and administration will act like a bowling ball (no, not a gutter ball), knocking the pins around and disturbing past patterns. Any change of political party does that, but he will do so more. In that sense, voters who wanted "change" will get it.
What do I mean: take the farm bill, for example. For decades it's been an omnibus that served the interests of those liberals who wanted food stamps (SNAP), the greenies who wanted conservation, and production agriculture who wanted farm programs and insurance. This alliance has been stressed at times, most recently in the House during the consideration of the last farm bill. This time around is likely to see more changes.
Another example: it looks as if the intra-party coalitions which comprise both parties are under strain. The Democrats are debating whether to change the Clinton/Obama formula to be more aggressively liberal and perhaps more class-conscious, a direction which may lessen their support from the professional upper classes. The Republican coalition of fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, libertarians is now figuring out whether it can accommodate a renewed appeal to the "Reagan Democrats". IMO the original Reagan Democrats tended to be Catholic working class who left the Democrats as a result of social issues, mostly abortion, and resentment of blacks. The new working class seems to be more populist in tone, which doesn't work well with Wall Street Republicans.
So if Trump is successful as a change agent, does that mean he'll be successful as a President. My answer--no. But are these changes "good"? I'd resist that term; rather I'd say the changes are somewhat inevitable. We shall see.
What do I mean: take the farm bill, for example. For decades it's been an omnibus that served the interests of those liberals who wanted food stamps (SNAP), the greenies who wanted conservation, and production agriculture who wanted farm programs and insurance. This alliance has been stressed at times, most recently in the House during the consideration of the last farm bill. This time around is likely to see more changes.
Another example: it looks as if the intra-party coalitions which comprise both parties are under strain. The Democrats are debating whether to change the Clinton/Obama formula to be more aggressively liberal and perhaps more class-conscious, a direction which may lessen their support from the professional upper classes. The Republican coalition of fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, libertarians is now figuring out whether it can accommodate a renewed appeal to the "Reagan Democrats". IMO the original Reagan Democrats tended to be Catholic working class who left the Democrats as a result of social issues, mostly abortion, and resentment of blacks. The new working class seems to be more populist in tone, which doesn't work well with Wall Street Republicans.
So if Trump is successful as a change agent, does that mean he'll be successful as a President. My answer--no. But are these changes "good"? I'd resist that term; rather I'd say the changes are somewhat inevitable. We shall see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)