We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
When Gutenberg printed his first Bible in 1455, is it possible he ever thought "I believe this technology will be outdated in 650 years"? Doubtful. In fact, he probably didn't even care.
We do care about change, though. Mainly because it is part of our lives. Change shapes us and molds us, even as we create the change we seek in our own lives. For Gutenberg, much of life was relatively the same over the course of time. By the time Benjamin Franklin was a printer 300 years later, he was still using essentially the same technology Gutenberg had created. Some revisions had taken place, but it was still a very manual process and the nature of the process would not seem unfamiliar to Gutenberg.
It's been about 100 years since men like Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst changed the business of publishing. How would they have reacted to a blog like Maggie's? Could they have envisioned the future and recognized opportunity? It's possible, but more likely they would have feared the shift in message delivery systems and fought the new technology. Our perceptions about what we do and where we are going is shaped by what we've have done in the past. As a result, we tend to react poorly to new ideas and products which don't fit neatly into the way we believe life should progress. 25 years ago, we would have considered it odd to think that a TV would hang on a wall or that we could purchase virtually everything we needed as we watched a TV program.
This is the sort of thing I might expect from a lesser, more insecure institution but it is, after all, where Larry Summers got whacked for daring to opine that women might be slightly different from men.
It's creepy as hell, stupid on so many levels, and a good example of pantywaist Dhimmitude too. In fact, you could characterize the Harvard faculty's response as hate speech against the truly peaceful Hindus. Robespierre was like this. Eventually, they decided to remove his head from the rest of his body, too. There's the rub.
It's getting so there are so many things you aren't supposed to say these days...can't even say to a chick in the office that "Hey, you look great today." So no "hate speech" - and no "love speech" either. Or is "love speech" covert "hate speech" because it is demeaning? It's difficult to know, anymore, because it seems OK for them to say to me "You look hot today." I don't really mind being "objectified" as a sex object by women, however. I deserve it, and I enjoy it because I must be an evil part of the partriarchy (or a skirt-chaser, which I am, along with every other red-blooded single guy), or whatever.
Over the years, I think I have posted many things here that would get me fired from Harvard. Things about appreciating pretty girls, things about gals being different from guys, things about Jihadists being a danger to civil civilization, things about Lefties being closet fascists, silly mockery of radical Feminists and of the "Transgender Community" - they have a community? - and plenty of other no doubt dangerous, verboten topics. Somebody should just wire my jaw and cut off my fingers. It's all insane. (Is saying they're all insane impermissible "hate speech"?)
What is this, North Korea? Well, they used to hang Quakers in Boston and burn witches in the suburbs. Veritas, indeed. They should change their motto to "Political Veritas du Jour" instead.
Fortunately for me, I now work for an increasingly-profitable evil Capitalist busiiness where my job is to add value and productivity, instead of for wealthy Harvard which hoards its charity-given, tax-deductible billions and refuses to share it with the struggling 99%. Catch you all around the corner. I'm headed north for family and skiing with friends this week. I'd better play it safe here before I get in trouble, so Happy Kwanzaa and Merry Solstice to our wonderful readers.
We're entering a slow time on the intertunnel between pre-Christmas and the New Year. Normal people don't want to have to think too much right now, and don't want to get bummed out with the daily depressing news.We will press on, however, but readers might anticipate a fair number of recycled posts next week. Many of our staff will be merrily skiing and wassailing in the frozen north, but we have "content" in the pipeline.
A book coming out soon: Too Big to Know: Rethinking Knowledge Now That the Facts Aren't the Facts, Experts Are Everywhere, and the Smartest Person in the Room Is the Room, by David Weinberger
I am not a knowledge-nihilist, but readers know that I take everything I hear with a grain of salt. Stupid not to.
The big thing in recent years for theoretical physicists is the replacement of the notion of the "universe" with the notion of the "multiverse." A quote from The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith:
The history of science can be viewed as the recasting of phenomena that were once thought to be accidents as phenomena that can be understood in terms of fundamental causes and principles. One can add to the list of the fully explained: the hue of the sky, the orbits of planets, the angle of the wake of a boat moving through a lake, the six-sided patterns of snowflakes, the weight of a flying bustard, the temperature of boiling water, the size of raindrops, the circular shape of the sun. All these phenomena and many more, once thought to have been fixed at the beginning of time or to be the result of random events thereafter, have been explained as necessary consequences of the fundamental laws of nature—laws discovered by human beings.
This long and appealing trend may be coming to an end. Dramatic developments in cosmological findings and thought have led some of the world’s premier physicists to propose that our universe is only one of an enormous number of universes with wildly varying properties, and that some of the most basic features of our particular universe are indeed mere accidents—a random throw of the cosmic dice. In which case, there is no hope of ever explaining our universe’s features in terms of fundamental causes and principles.
Read the whole thing. Science fiction, epistemology, God - it's all on the table. All uplifting, bedazzling, profoundly confusing, and probably more the stuff of poetry than of prose. I have no doubt that Really Big Reality is beyond human perception, comprehension or imagination. I am prone to term that swirl of transendent incomprehensibility "God." Not a tame lion, as CS Lewis said. Sometimes reality seems mystical, and labelled "mysticism" just a pale copy.
And, despite it all, we all get up in the morning, say our prayers, get dressed, grab a Dunkin, go to the gym, take a shower, and get to work. Even the theoretical physicists and the priests and minsters do it.
"The post-totalitarian system touches people at every step, but it does so with its ideological gloves on. This is why life in the system is so thoroughly permeated with hypocrisy and lies: government by bureaucracy is called popular government; the working class is enslaved in the name of the working class; the complete degradation of the individual is presented as his ultimate liberation; depriving people of information is called making it available; the use of power to manipulate is called the public control of power, and the arbitrary abuse of power is called observing the legal code; the repression of culture is called its development; the expansion of imperial influence is presented as support for the oppressed; the lack of free expression becomes the highest form of freedom; farcical elections become the highest form of democracy; banning independent thought becomes the most scientific of world views; military occupation becomes fraternal assistance. Because the regime is captive to its own lies, it must falsify everything. It falsifies the past. It falsifies the present, and it falsifies the future. It falsifies statistics. It pretends not to possess an omnipotent and unprincipled police apparatus. It pretends to respect human rights. It pretends to persecute no one. It pretends to fear nothing. It pretends to pretend nothing."
Lots of things drive men, but few are as powerful as the animal instincts which create the attraction between a man and a woman. Many times I've uttered the phrase "Yeah, she's hot" with other buddies of mine. But I've never stopped to consider the differentiation between 'hot' and 'pretty'. Hot is an attraction, a magnet and promotes a desire which is usually more salacious than meaningful. Pretty is also an attraction, but requires thought and consideration. Pretty has lasting qualities. Hot can be fleeting.
I thought this article, forwarded to me by a female friend, was a terrific summation of the difference. I differ from the author in that I'm all for 'hotness' at the right time and place, and in limited doses. Hotness shouldn't be the only selling point. One of the problems of hotness is that it can be too easily revealed to be a charade.
One benefit of pretty is that it can be made to appear hot (as the Olivia Newton-John example points out). It can be stepped back, if necessary. Sometimes, however, hotness is just a veil and we are going to be disappointed with what's really there. The Legends of Micronesia often utilize themes of this sort, people, ghosts and gods who improve their appearance to entice people and promote a disastrous end.
...charity and compassion are always the actions of autonomous people acting as individuals. And, however much intellectuals try to argue otherwise, socialism in the end has to trade on envy and resentment, just as surely as tentative lovers discover that they cannot after all confine themselves to just holding hands, or a stolen kiss. Soon enough people are taken to be good or kindly only if they espouse the correct socialist opinions - we see this all around us in the present age - and human sympathy gets redefined in doctrinal terms.
Yet although left-wing assumptions have captured the intellectual elites of the western world - the humanities are almost dead - they have had limited impact on older people untouched by the bureaucratic and academic caste.
In my little old conservative Connecticut town, people help eachother every day. In fact, we do everything we can to assist eachother. The beauty of collectivism, charity, mutual help, etc. lies in its voluntariness, its mutuality, and in its local-ness. When there are guns and jails behind it (as via government), all of the beauty and love are lost and it just devolves into political power and into legal, armed plunder.
Infantile utopian dreams, in real life, quickly turn into real nightmares. They scare the heck out of me.
After all, there is no doubt that eating less does keep one's body younger, more sexual, and more vigorous, and, as with sleep, the older you get the less food you need. For women, there is a definite connection between weight, insulin-resistance, and breast cancer too.
Works for me. I have not finished a meal in a restaurant for 20 years, and I never would. We prosperous, overweight Americans probably need to re-learn when enough is enough, to re-learn to identify the inborn sensation of satiety if we wish to be fit, strong, and light on our feet. Tasty and abundant food is wonderful, but we need very little of it to remain healthy unless we spend the day digging ditches with shovels.
Carbs? I only touch them on weekends, and in small amounts even if we do daily work-outs and plenty of recreational sports. No, I am far from being anorectic, but I will never leave my muscular Size 6 Tall.
It's not all that much about grim "self-control" as it is about identifying the point at which hunger is alleviated. It doesn't take much food to do that. Unless you're a growing kid, amazingly little. A small handful of almonds or olives will do it. The best, tastiest restaurants serve the tiniest portions for good reason. You pay for the flavor and the quality, not for volume.
In the Western world, and increasingly everywhere on earth, prosperity and food abundance make it possible for every day to become a secular Feast Day of some sort, making the sensation of satiety fade into the background. Still, being able to identify satiety is a more general theme, whether in possessions, substances, money, love, food, etc. I should expand on the topic here, someday. Not at Christmastime, though, when saturnalian greed and self-indulgence were somehow added to the Roman Mass and Feast Day of the Nativity of Christ. I blame those three wise men for that, even though I'm sure they meant well.
In the end, I believe that what we are insatiable for, if we feel insatiable, is for relationship with God. We displace that hunger elsewhere, into the fun and easy stuff. I guess it's all good, but not great.
What a seemingly-simple poem it is. A prayer, really. The sly Robert Frost claimed he wrote it in one minute, but anything that simple usually takes a long time to get right.
Winter solstice, the longest night of the year in these here parts. Julius Caesar placed it on December 25 (for the convenience of Santa and his reindeer, of course), but it's more accurately placed today. Sad to say, the US climate has been getting colder in recent years. Call it "climate change" and spend a lot of time worrying about it (remember - not using plastic grocery bags will make a really, realy big difference in making it colderwarmer whatever).
It's not mid-winter for a month or so, but just the beginning of what we hope will be another invigoratingly chilly and snowy one:
If you haven't heard about Congress' latest push to regulate the Internet, here's a primer:
My feeling is that either SOPA (the House version) or Protect IP (the Senate version) will pass. More info here and here, and if you're looking for a specific reason why they're doing this — outside of the usual power, ignorance and control — check out who's #4 on this list.
Ever since the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, Americans and Israelis who were trying to make peace in the Middle East have had one insoluble problem: how to explain the fact that Palestinian leaders say one thing to the Western media and quite another to their own people in Arabic.
My NYC daughter's Yorkie pup is three months old. (That white thing is a Christmas hair bow.) Pees on the floor, gets up on her hind legs to challenge our big dog - gets right in his face. Sort-of does "Sit" and "Stay" thus far, but not really "Come" or "heel."
I visit Cafe Hayek regularly, though missed the past few days. I was shocked to see today that the Comments section had been closed. I had commented on a few topics there over the years, but generally avoided it because it frequently becomes a quagmire. In fact, I noticed this recently when I'd posed a question, only to find myself under attack for asking any questions that didn't agree 100% with the authors.
Strange thing is, the question I'd posed was a request for clarity by posing an example, not a statement of opposing viewpoint. Suddenly, however, I became a "two-bit moron" and an "uninformed boob". I'll cop to being both, though I think using these terms on people you're exchanging views with, in a somewhat public forum, is rude.
It's unfortunate the professors found the need to shut down their comments. Commenting on articles is a fine balance, not unlike sending emails. You can't properly convey emotion, and as a result sometimes meanings are misunderstood. Typically I try to employ the same courtesies I utilize in real life. I refrain from name-calling and will restate a point, if necessary, to add clarity. On comments (unlike email), you can't always pick up the phone and say "no, that's not what I meant".
I'm happy that I've never seen a comment thread on Maggie's become a name-calling mess. There have been plenty of disagreements, and that's healthy. But when you stop respecting others, you stop respecting the process.
Tax the heck out of the 1% to reduce inequality? As a person happy to be in the 1%, albeit in the lowest reaches of it, I wonder how many people would simply decide that working doesn't pay? When 50% of your income is taken, are you really still working for yourself and your family? Or are you simply subsidizing political campaigns?
I suppose the Tiger Woods could retire for the year after winning a single golf tournament. Brad Pitt could make half-a-movie.
Or Derek Jeter could play in four games. In Canada, doctors have income caps but lawyers and accountants do not. Docs quit working for the year when they hit them, and open other businesses on the side. I have heard that wine shops are popular with them.
I see that the economics-challenged Charles Blow is on the same trail, agonizing over the data that most Americans are neither particularly envious of, or angry with, the prosperous. He also wants to tax the heck out of the prosperous, not for the cash, but for fairness. It would be more fair to lobotomize the rich. Why not?
Well, The Voices of Ascension sang a bunch of Renaissance motets, and some Christmas carols too, in front of the Met Museum's Neapolitan Christmas tree last night. It was a sold out crowd, of course. We had the whole darn museum just to ourselves, too. Remarkable.
A 24-person a capella choir can sound just like an organ. There is nothing better. Anchoress would love this. They did Lauridsen's Magnum Mysterium of course but not the great Palestrina's Sicut Cervus, which is one thing by The Voices which I could find on YouTube:
Here's King's College choir doing Lauridsen's transcendent version of Magnum Mysterium:
The words of Magnum Mysterium:
Latin text
O magnum mysterium,
et admirabile sacramentum,
ut animalia viderent Dominum natum,
jacentem in praesepio!
Beata Virgo, cujus viscera
meruerunt portare
Dominum Christum.
Alleluia.
English translation
O great mystery,
and wonderful sacrament,
that animals should see the new-born Lord,
lying in a manger!
Blessed is the Virgin whose womb
was worthy to bear
Christ the Lord.
Alleluia!
A motet can be almost any compact choral work with complicated interactions of voices. The Voices of Ascension are the world-famous choir of the Church of the Ascension on Fifth Ave and 10th. Not amateurs!
No pics of them allowed, but I did snap a few at the museum:
Ever seen the TV show? I hadn't, but a chef friend who loves the show advised me to check out the YouTubes. It is entertaining and educational. Chef Gordon Ramsey goes into messed-up restaurants and advises them on how to improve.
You'll never want to go to a mid-range restaurant again to eat their thawed crap. Plenty of Ramsey's job seems to be family therapy. It's a study of excuses, blaming, and scapegoating. The family interactions in the Italian restaurants are hilariously hostile. A sample (lots more fun ones on YouTube):
I recently posted about the desirability of attrition in colleges due to substandard performance, expressing the view that low graduation rates are a good, not bad thing, and that they lend some credibility to an expensive piece of paper.
Competitive and highly-selective graduate schools, however, probably should have lower attrition rates as their standards for entry are so relatively high.
...what if you are afraid to control your own destiny? What if you have such low self-confidence that you believe it isn’t worth it to even try, that a Steve Jobs is the exception rather than the rule?
This is the sort of thing
Dance Teacher: 
I am not a knowledge-nihilist, but readers know that I take everything I hear with a grain of salt. Stupid not to. 
"The post-totalitarian system touches people at every step, but it does so with its ideological gloves on. This is why life in the system is so thoroughly permeated with hypocrisy and lies: government by bureaucracy is called popular government; the working class is enslaved in the name of the working class; the complete degradation of the individual is presented as his ultimate liberation; depriving people of information is called making it available; the use of power to manipulate is called the public control of power, and the arbitrary abuse of power is called observing the legal code; the repression of culture is called its development; the expansion of imperial influence is presented as support for the oppressed; the lack of free expression becomes the highest form of freedom; farcical elections become the highest form of democracy; banning independent thought becomes the most scientific of world views; military occupation becomes fraternal assistance. Because the regime is captive to its own lies, it must falsify everything. It falsifies the past. It falsifies the present, and it falsifies the future. It falsifies statistics. It pretends not to possess an omnipotent and unprincipled police apparatus. It pretends to respect human rights. It pretends to persecute no one. It pretends to fear nothing. It pretends to pretend nothing."
Lots of things drive men, but few are as powerful as the animal instincts which create the attraction between a man and a woman. Many times I've uttered the phrase "Yeah, she's hot" with other buddies of mine. But I've never stopped to consider the differentiation between 'hot' and 'pretty'. Hot is an attraction, a magnet and promotes a desire which is usually more salacious than meaningful. Pretty is also an attraction, but requires thought and consideration. Pretty has lasting qualities. Hot can be fleeting.
Stuck in Ohio with the Memphis blues? 
A rambling and interesting essay by David Wemyss: 
You have to be skeptical about any report, but 
Why you 
From MIT:
