Says Alice Lerman, the owner of pet store Barker & Meowsky in Chicago: "I don't think I've ever looked at anything and said, Oh, that's the most ridiculous thing." Her brother, a businessman who deals in metals, once lectured her about how no one would ever pay $6 for a catnip cigar. She still has trouble keeping catnip cigars in stock.
Welcome to Adam Kraus's random mixing of essays, commentary, and humor, all presented in a blog format. Hopefully you will find it interesting.
9.28.2004
More Stoner News
I don't know how to break it to this pet store owner enthused over the good sales of her new product that the catnip cigars probably aren't being purchased for feline consumption.
KrisKraus: Balancing Out The Big Media Since 2004
As election day draws near and America is sure to hear but a scant mention of Ralph Nader's name by the press, I think it would be a good time to call some attention to this figure and give some of my thoughts on the matter. Ralph Nader has been clearly shunned by the mainstream media. It would be ok I think for people in the press and in positions of influence who have strong feelings on the matter to make clear that they feel voting for Nader carries with it certain consequences, namely that he is a lost vote and liberal voters would be better served by voting for the more viable liberal candidate. It's another thing to arrange what really appears to be a concerted effort to block out the candidate and his views from the public discourse, because the liberal press knows what's best for the liberal voters in the country, or even more cynically, because they are using their position of power to influence political outcomes according to their liking. Somewhere along in the process of shunning this candidate, anti-Nader liberals in this country have developed something of a consensus justifying why the candidate isn't deserving of being heard. "He's an egotist," "he's a megalomaniac" are some of the charges that are routinely offered but not questioned. If I may, I'd like to take issue with these assumptions, because I don't think they are true.
He's power-hungry and a megalomaniac: Clearly this is something that could be said for every person running for political office; it's a prerequisite for the job. There are no illusions about the fact that the president has a lot of power, and so naturally a person seeking that position will be power-hungry. There's nothing wrong with that unless there's something wrong with all politicians. And yet Nader, unlike the other two candidates, is the one who has devoted his life to public service, whereas they have devoted their lives (or a significant portion of it) to the pursuit of political office. Who is more in the business of seeking power here?
He's an egotist: The only reason Nader is running is for his ego, the charge goes, or even better, for his legacy. Just examining this allegation on its face, you can come to the easy conclusion that it's invalid. If Nader wanted to stroke his ego or guarantee his legacy he would not have run this year. Perhaps you could make the argument that there was no way he knew ahead of time how universally criticized he would be for running in 2000, but don't think he's not aware of it this year, however dense he may be. He knows he's going to be even more scorned this time around. The deeper reason is that there's manifestly nothing egotistical about his motivations. I know that sounds like circular reasoning so let me explain what I mean. His platform as a candidate is entirely consistent with what's driven him all along, which is to protect citizens from abuses of corporate and government power, to help to enlighten them as to the things that the people in power are not telling them, or not telling the truth about, encouraging innovation for the common good, civic responsiblity toward the poor... These are hardly selfish goals.
So he wrote a few books about his trials as a presidential candidate and trying to save the world...does that make him an egotist? Is his candidacy just a stunt to up book sales? What exactly is egotistical about what he's doing? Of course by "egotistical" people could mean that he's doing something they don't want him to do, or maintains resolve despite the good advice and appeals of everyone else. "Egotist" clearly isn't the best word then. "Pariah" may be the better term, because of the way its use self-fulfillingly makes it true.
He's crazy: This I think refers to the fact that he has no chance of winning. The first thing is, the reasonableness of his own personal aspirations really must be separated from the reasonableness of what he has to say or what he stands for. The fact that he's running and he's at 2% in the polls doesn't make his general sanity equivalent to that of Lyndon LaRouche. Saying "he's crazy" in this sense amounts to nothing more than saying his bid is a very long shot. That being said, I don't think he has any illusions about winning. So I think that, given his motivations, his behavior is quite sane. As I've said before, I believe his run is an activist measure intended to 1) increase the long-term acceptability of third parties 2) influence the candidates by bringing up issues that would be impossible for a politically-viable candidate. In fact, just looking at the statements that these figures make, if you were to define craziness on the basis of disconnection with reality, at this moment President Bush would be scoring higher than Ralph Nader.
He's power-hungry and a megalomaniac: Clearly this is something that could be said for every person running for political office; it's a prerequisite for the job. There are no illusions about the fact that the president has a lot of power, and so naturally a person seeking that position will be power-hungry. There's nothing wrong with that unless there's something wrong with all politicians. And yet Nader, unlike the other two candidates, is the one who has devoted his life to public service, whereas they have devoted their lives (or a significant portion of it) to the pursuit of political office. Who is more in the business of seeking power here?
He's an egotist: The only reason Nader is running is for his ego, the charge goes, or even better, for his legacy. Just examining this allegation on its face, you can come to the easy conclusion that it's invalid. If Nader wanted to stroke his ego or guarantee his legacy he would not have run this year. Perhaps you could make the argument that there was no way he knew ahead of time how universally criticized he would be for running in 2000, but don't think he's not aware of it this year, however dense he may be. He knows he's going to be even more scorned this time around. The deeper reason is that there's manifestly nothing egotistical about his motivations. I know that sounds like circular reasoning so let me explain what I mean. His platform as a candidate is entirely consistent with what's driven him all along, which is to protect citizens from abuses of corporate and government power, to help to enlighten them as to the things that the people in power are not telling them, or not telling the truth about, encouraging innovation for the common good, civic responsiblity toward the poor... These are hardly selfish goals.
So he wrote a few books about his trials as a presidential candidate and trying to save the world...does that make him an egotist? Is his candidacy just a stunt to up book sales? What exactly is egotistical about what he's doing? Of course by "egotistical" people could mean that he's doing something they don't want him to do, or maintains resolve despite the good advice and appeals of everyone else. "Egotist" clearly isn't the best word then. "Pariah" may be the better term, because of the way its use self-fulfillingly makes it true.
He's crazy: This I think refers to the fact that he has no chance of winning. The first thing is, the reasonableness of his own personal aspirations really must be separated from the reasonableness of what he has to say or what he stands for. The fact that he's running and he's at 2% in the polls doesn't make his general sanity equivalent to that of Lyndon LaRouche. Saying "he's crazy" in this sense amounts to nothing more than saying his bid is a very long shot. That being said, I don't think he has any illusions about winning. So I think that, given his motivations, his behavior is quite sane. As I've said before, I believe his run is an activist measure intended to 1) increase the long-term acceptability of third parties 2) influence the candidates by bringing up issues that would be impossible for a politically-viable candidate. In fact, just looking at the statements that these figures make, if you were to define craziness on the basis of disconnection with reality, at this moment President Bush would be scoring higher than Ralph Nader.
9.20.2004
That Name's Already Taken For The Wall
In other developments, the army decided to change the military code name for the Gaza withdrawal, to avoid offending religious Jews. The name initially chosen was “heavenly splendor,” a phrase used in a Jewish prayer recited at funerals, a security official said. No new name has been chosen, but the Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot said “stepping stones” was being considered.
Seems like a good call overall. I would also add that God might be offended also.
Update: Other rejected code names include "Adventures in Unilateral Disengagement," "The Fence and Forget Project," "Visions for a more integrated middle east," "Scorpion Jar" and "Hamasland."
9.19.2004
No Puedo Hablar En Espanol
On a more personal note, I love singing in Spanish. People who know me know that I don't sing a word of English, but I just spent a whole car ride singing along to a cd in Spanish (the Buena Vista Social Club Ibrahim Ferrer one.) I'm really bad at speaking Spanish, so I think when it comes to Spanish I'm like one of those stage performers who's only comfortable in his own skin when singing or acting or something.
This makes me think that singing is an under-utilized technique for teaching languages. Song lyrics require a very low level of linguistic sophistication. Think of the majority of hits and popular songs on the radio today. Even with a beginner's vocabulary, a reasonably entertaining and compelling song can be constructed (Everyone who's taken a high school language knows that the same cannot be said for short stories and narratives.) This would be a better alternative to reading lame stories or filling in mindless vocab blanks which you always end up doing at the beginner level.
Second, and I know this sounds cheesy, music is a language we can all understand. Seriously, how else do you explain the ubiquity of music across all cultures and the prevalence of nursery rhymes? The scientific camp would argue that music is an even more primal form of communication than language, which makes some sense if you think about how animals communicate. It seems logical that teaching a language through music would catalyze the learning process. Music is fun, and kids will be more engaged by songs than they will by dry and laughable stories. It will also result, I would think, in better language acquisition and retention; people have a remarkable capacity for remembering lyrics.
And music will do wonders to squeeze in that cultural element that every Spanish teacher for some reason seems so eager to include in their class. It would seem that the average Spanish student would be able to sing real contemporary music by the third or fourth year of study, which obviously cannot be said in regard to written items. Perhaps if singing were used more, future classes of a certain teacher I had who loved to salsa dance would be spared the experience.
This makes me think that singing is an under-utilized technique for teaching languages. Song lyrics require a very low level of linguistic sophistication. Think of the majority of hits and popular songs on the radio today. Even with a beginner's vocabulary, a reasonably entertaining and compelling song can be constructed (Everyone who's taken a high school language knows that the same cannot be said for short stories and narratives.) This would be a better alternative to reading lame stories or filling in mindless vocab blanks which you always end up doing at the beginner level.
Second, and I know this sounds cheesy, music is a language we can all understand. Seriously, how else do you explain the ubiquity of music across all cultures and the prevalence of nursery rhymes? The scientific camp would argue that music is an even more primal form of communication than language, which makes some sense if you think about how animals communicate. It seems logical that teaching a language through music would catalyze the learning process. Music is fun, and kids will be more engaged by songs than they will by dry and laughable stories. It will also result, I would think, in better language acquisition and retention; people have a remarkable capacity for remembering lyrics.
And music will do wonders to squeeze in that cultural element that every Spanish teacher for some reason seems so eager to include in their class. It would seem that the average Spanish student would be able to sing real contemporary music by the third or fourth year of study, which obviously cannot be said in regard to written items. Perhaps if singing were used more, future classes of a certain teacher I had who loved to salsa dance would be spared the experience.
9.14.2004
A Coeducational Response
Reader Jung has responded to my controversial post defending single-sex schooling. He writes:
But say you think boys and girls should learn how to interact in a cooperative, work environment. This is a laudable goal for its effects on later inevitable interaction between men and women in the workplace. School, the way it is set up now, is a very individual endeavor, with each individual striving for achievement, grades, learning etc, and where there is very little cooperative work. Group work and collaborative projects are subordinated by the push for individual achievement. So having girls and boys together in the same classrooms won't teach them how to work together nearly as much as some people would think.
If you're going to start getting into the "it's tough but it will make them stronger argument" or "it's natural" I think you should seriously re-evaluate your position on the matter. Do we, for instance, have a system where students with only higher than a certain grade point average cut-off are eligible to take the more advanced classes? This would certainly exaggerate any competitiveness, raising the stakes at all times, increasing stress levels and making school generally a harder experience. My high school doesn't even rank students, because they see it as unnecessarily competitive and something that will detract from the education. Do we permit taunting and teasing in school, which is both difficult for the victims and happens naturally, because it will make the victims stronger?
By all means, there should still be school dances, and school-sponsored socializing with the other sex. This way even the timid and less proactive youngsters will have experiences with the opposite sex at a critical developmental stage. And all students will find an outlet to "release their sexual urges" so that, as Jung cautions, we don't raise a group of children "forced to release these urges at a later time, and stalling their emotional and psychological development." There's nothing about having school-aged girls attend a different school than boys that makes dating difficult. Sleep-away camps have been built on the prototype of brother and sister camps for many years, and yet summer camp is still known for being a time of experimenting with the opposite sex.
I know my stance is controversial, and there may be some structural effects arising from this scheme that I haven't anticipated (like perpetuating workplace segregation / inequality) which would be bad, but for now I'm going to hold to my belief that this could be good and is something people ought to consider.
Update: (pub -- I fear this view won't sell with the mainstream of Americans...)
First off, people seem to have the impression that single-sex schooling precludes in some major way interaction with the opposite sex. Precisely, what I was calling for was that all aspects of school that were considered educational would be carried out in a single-sex environment. This is because I think that school-type education, whether it be academics, etiquette, athletics, organization-building, whatever, doesn't mix well with the other kind of equally important education that we get as adolescents, which is learning how to relate to ours peers and members of the opposite sex, both functionally and romantically. My impression is that having to navigate the trials of romantic relationships during school only distracts and detracts from the business of learning and training that school provides. And I think it would be hard to make the case that having the two types of education concur is synergistic somehow.Yeah, but the issue of mixing the sexes aren't the only social pressures that distract students from learning. To eliminate that one issue will not help students to learn better. In fact, it may be the case that because of their lack of interaction with the opposite sex, students become less socially adept when they are faced with the unsegregated real world. Single-sex schools may quite possibly repress the sexual urges of these students, forcing them to release these urges at a later time, and stalling their emotional and psychological development. Releasing these sexual urges, that is to say, gettting in a "high school" relationship and then having it inevitably break apart, is an EXTREMELY valuable learning tool to understand the world we live in. I'm not going to go into that much detail, but maybe I'll post something about that later on...
My overall point is that the issue of mingling with the opposite sex during school hours is something that "must be overcome" so to speak, and not something that children must be protected from. It is the equivalent of having a parent keeping a child indoors their entire lives for fear of abduction, injury, skin cancer, or whatever. Let them overcome these problems and grow from them, instead of shielding them from it, making them weaker and more vulnerable later on in life. Because if these social pressures aren't dealt with now, they will inevitably have to deal with them later on.
But say you think boys and girls should learn how to interact in a cooperative, work environment. This is a laudable goal for its effects on later inevitable interaction between men and women in the workplace. School, the way it is set up now, is a very individual endeavor, with each individual striving for achievement, grades, learning etc, and where there is very little cooperative work. Group work and collaborative projects are subordinated by the push for individual achievement. So having girls and boys together in the same classrooms won't teach them how to work together nearly as much as some people would think.
If you're going to start getting into the "it's tough but it will make them stronger argument" or "it's natural" I think you should seriously re-evaluate your position on the matter. Do we, for instance, have a system where students with only higher than a certain grade point average cut-off are eligible to take the more advanced classes? This would certainly exaggerate any competitiveness, raising the stakes at all times, increasing stress levels and making school generally a harder experience. My high school doesn't even rank students, because they see it as unnecessarily competitive and something that will detract from the education. Do we permit taunting and teasing in school, which is both difficult for the victims and happens naturally, because it will make the victims stronger?
By all means, there should still be school dances, and school-sponsored socializing with the other sex. This way even the timid and less proactive youngsters will have experiences with the opposite sex at a critical developmental stage. And all students will find an outlet to "release their sexual urges" so that, as Jung cautions, we don't raise a group of children "forced to release these urges at a later time, and stalling their emotional and psychological development." There's nothing about having school-aged girls attend a different school than boys that makes dating difficult. Sleep-away camps have been built on the prototype of brother and sister camps for many years, and yet summer camp is still known for being a time of experimenting with the opposite sex.
I know my stance is controversial, and there may be some structural effects arising from this scheme that I haven't anticipated (like perpetuating workplace segregation / inequality) which would be bad, but for now I'm going to hold to my belief that this could be good and is something people ought to consider.
Update: (pub -- I fear this view won't sell with the mainstream of Americans...)
9.13.2004
I'm Getting Cynical
Lots of people are saying that Kerry's campaign is all but over. I don't know if I believe that, but one thing is for sure. The Democrats made the conscious decision to take the high road this campaign, starting with their carefully controlled convention, hoping to set an example for the other party to do the same. And the Republicans have taken this more as an opportunity than a positive precedent to follow. That is what makes me sad. I don't know any other word for it than cynical when your opponent nobly uses his convention's earlier placement to try to direct the political dialogue toward the things it should be focused on - the candidates' merits and the future, not on negative campaigning, character assassination and slander - and you not only don't follow the lead but devote a repulsive amount of your convention to doing just that. And the fact that the Republicans' tactics seem to be working by increasing Bush's popularity while decreasing Kerry's makes the whole thing even more repulsive. Republicans say that Kerry milks his Vietnam service, arguing it's really something that happened thirty years ago and shouldn't weigh on his level of qualification for the presidency. The argument that military service doesn't make one any more fit to be commander in chief is a whole other debate, and certainly not a closed one. Yet they didn't hesitate to bring to attention isolated quotes taken out of context which Kerry made thirty years ago trying to call his strength on defense into question, as if they were more relevant (about the UN giving the U.S. authority to go to war). This is not just negative campaigning, it's deception.
The fact that Kerry has so many areas in which Bush is quite vulnerable to negative campaigning tactics (such as questions about his guard service, his "flip-flopping" on the intelligence director proposal), and that he hasn't addressed them seriously undermines my confidence in his campaign's competence and judgement. As many people have been saying, at this point, any further decline in the polls is Kerry's own fault.
Whatever happens in November, it will be the American people's fault if they continue to let this kind of discourse to be effective in politics. And only they can render it ineffective and thus raise the level of political discourse beyond the utterly cynical state which it is currently at.
The fact that Kerry has so many areas in which Bush is quite vulnerable to negative campaigning tactics (such as questions about his guard service, his "flip-flopping" on the intelligence director proposal), and that he hasn't addressed them seriously undermines my confidence in his campaign's competence and judgement. As many people have been saying, at this point, any further decline in the polls is Kerry's own fault.
Whatever happens in November, it will be the American people's fault if they continue to let this kind of discourse to be effective in politics. And only they can render it ineffective and thus raise the level of political discourse beyond the utterly cynical state which it is currently at.
9.11.2004
Voting, Writing and Arithmetic
Another great example of David Brook's almost-too-aburd-to-be-true sociologizing in today's Times. It starts out "there are two sorts of people in the information-age elite, spreadsheet people and paragraph people." There are so many things to say about this article, but it's not even worth getting into them. Here's a representative snippet:
We are dealing with classic Brooks: "there's a rift forming between segments of American society, and it's growing!" Invoke an implicit class war, not the Marxist kind which is passe (pub -- and not in line with his conservative leanings), but cultural, which is chic. The rift must conform with some commonplace stereotype, or at least something that can be easily understood by a five year old. See, half the country works with numbers - they vote for Bush - and the other half work with letters - they vote for Kerry (who votes for Nader then? [pub -- people who work with grow lights]) Of course there's an obvious flaw in the theory, and that is that all professors vote 11 to 1 democratic. But Brooks just lumps them all into the "paragraph people" category and everything is all right. As Brooks says, "At M.I.T.,[democratic support among the faculty] was 94 percent." I suppose that 94 percent of M.I.T. professors spend more time working with paragraphs than numbers. At least it is clear the scientific method doesn't apply much to the Times editorial page.
Another great piece of reasoning..."C.E.O.'s are classic spreadsheet people. According to a sample gathered by PoliticalMoneyLine in July, the number of C.E.O.'s donating funds to Bush's campaign is five times the number donating to Kerry's." Which, of course, is because they all learned Microsoft Excel in college and has nothing to do with the fact that Bush's economic policies overtly favor them.
Here's another great line: "Why have the class alignments shaken out as they have?... Numerate people take comfort in the false clarity that numbers imply, and so also admire Bush's speaking style." I don't know if he means to imply that when Bush speaks he evokes a false clarity. Would "false clarity" be synonymous with "convincing lie?" That must mean scientists, mathematicians, quants, actuaries, accountants, statisticians, and engineers are stupid. They might be, but they're certainly not stupid enough to write and seriously back an editorial promoting the ideas quoted above.
At any rate, I don't see any of this as a very big complement coming from a Bush supporter.
This is proof that David Brooks is living in some kind of weird ivory tower parallel universe. All political affiliation breaks down to college majors...uh huh.I subscribe, however, to the mondo-neo-Marxist theory of information-age class conflict. According to this view, people who majored in liberal arts subjects like English and history naturally loathe people who majored in econ, business and the other "hard" fields. This loathing turns political in adult life and explains just about everything you need to know about political conflict today.
(Emphasis added.)
We are dealing with classic Brooks: "there's a rift forming between segments of American society, and it's growing!" Invoke an implicit class war, not the Marxist kind which is passe (pub -- and not in line with his conservative leanings), but cultural, which is chic. The rift must conform with some commonplace stereotype, or at least something that can be easily understood by a five year old. See, half the country works with numbers - they vote for Bush - and the other half work with letters - they vote for Kerry (who votes for Nader then? [pub -- people who work with grow lights]) Of course there's an obvious flaw in the theory, and that is that all professors vote 11 to 1 democratic. But Brooks just lumps them all into the "paragraph people" category and everything is all right. As Brooks says, "At M.I.T.,[democratic support among the faculty] was 94 percent." I suppose that 94 percent of M.I.T. professors spend more time working with paragraphs than numbers. At least it is clear the scientific method doesn't apply much to the Times editorial page.
Another great piece of reasoning..."C.E.O.'s are classic spreadsheet people. According to a sample gathered by PoliticalMoneyLine in July, the number of C.E.O.'s donating funds to Bush's campaign is five times the number donating to Kerry's." Which, of course, is because they all learned Microsoft Excel in college and has nothing to do with the fact that Bush's economic policies overtly favor them.
Here's another great line: "Why have the class alignments shaken out as they have?... Numerate people take comfort in the false clarity that numbers imply, and so also admire Bush's speaking style." I don't know if he means to imply that when Bush speaks he evokes a false clarity. Would "false clarity" be synonymous with "convincing lie?" That must mean scientists, mathematicians, quants, actuaries, accountants, statisticians, and engineers are stupid. They might be, but they're certainly not stupid enough to write and seriously back an editorial promoting the ideas quoted above.
At any rate, I don't see any of this as a very big complement coming from a Bush supporter.
9.10.2004
He Would Have Fought The Wrong War Right
I don't have any problem inherently with Kerry's more nuanced view of the world. I think that nuance is a positive thing in a decision maker, as long as seeing nuance leads to making a decision.
A month ago Kerry said that "even if he had known in October 2002 that US intelligence was flawed, that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, and that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001," he would have voted to give president Bush authority to go to war with Iraq. ''Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have." Now, this is all perfectly consistent with Kerry's main challenge to Bush on Iraq: his handling of the war. It's saying that from a constitutional basis the power to decide when, where and how (with a coalition, number of troops etc.) to go to war ultimately rests with the president. This is a defensible stance, and it's consistent with Kerry saying that as commander in chief, he would have chosen to go to war at a different time, with a different plan etc.
Now Kerry has passed over the line of plausible coherence on the Iraq issue by saying that this was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.” If Iraq was the "wrong war," then of course he shouldn't have voted to give the president the authority to wage war. Also, if the war is "the wrong war," the argument that he would have "handled the war better" is sort of a moot point, contradicted by the fact that he wouldn't have started it at all.
A month ago Kerry said that "even if he had known in October 2002 that US intelligence was flawed, that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, and that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001," he would have voted to give president Bush authority to go to war with Iraq. ''Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have." Now, this is all perfectly consistent with Kerry's main challenge to Bush on Iraq: his handling of the war. It's saying that from a constitutional basis the power to decide when, where and how (with a coalition, number of troops etc.) to go to war ultimately rests with the president. This is a defensible stance, and it's consistent with Kerry saying that as commander in chief, he would have chosen to go to war at a different time, with a different plan etc.
Now Kerry has passed over the line of plausible coherence on the Iraq issue by saying that this was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.” If Iraq was the "wrong war," then of course he shouldn't have voted to give the president the authority to wage war. Also, if the war is "the wrong war," the argument that he would have "handled the war better" is sort of a moot point, contradicted by the fact that he wouldn't have started it at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)