wRONgainey

Evolution, Philosophy, and Metcalf

noreply@blogger.com (wRONgainey) — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 04:02:00 +0000

I have been slightly puzzled to find Stephen Metcalf, of the Slate Culture Gabfest, consorting with anti-evolutionists, or at least taking them seriously. For some background, you can read an article co-written by philosopher Jerry Fodor, and recently endorsed by Metcalf, as well as a discussion of the article, in which I participated. The upshot is that Fodor, et al, make philosophical arguments against Darwinian natural selection. Few philosophers, and no serious scientists of which I am aware, give these arguments much credence, but they appear to have a hold on the minds of some very bright and well educated people, and I find this troubling.

With today's podcast, suddenly I think get it. I judge that Metcalf's real goal is to defend the study of English literature, and of the humanities generally, as a worthy endeavor in its own right, and to reject the notion, apparently fashionable in some circles, that we should try to interpret literature, for example, in the context of evolutionary psychology. With this goal, I am in complete accord, and would not have it otherwise. But the flirtation with the work of Fodor and like-minded folk is the intellectual equivalent of "forward leaning," preemptive warfare. Fight the terrorists in their homeland so we don't have to fight them here! But this is a grave error.

This attempt of certain humanities partisans to sally forth and strike at evolution in the heart of the sciences recalls the Army of Northern Virginia's ill-begotten venture into the Pennsylvania countryside, and will surely share its fate. What may seem, initially, like a bold and brilliant tactical stroke will ultimately bring them only to ruin. Traipsing around out there, their supply lines are long and vulnerable, they don't know the territory, and sooner or later, they are going to engage with an army that is far larger and better equipped. And this Fodor fellow is no Lee, either. He's more like J.E.B. Stuart, flashily racing about, showily making a lot of fuss, and achieving nothing substantive, leaving the cause worse off than before.

When they keep their argument grounded in the humanities, and advocate the study of literature, and its rightful place as an essential part of the intellectual heritage of Western civilization, they will find that they have allies. They are, in fact, fighting a two-front battle here, and in today's podcast, Metcalf spends some worthy energy going after their true, main opponents--the internal ones. These are the people that drank the Kool-Aid of all the deconstructionist, identity studies, and Marxist/capitalist theorizing, and destroyed the meaningful discussion of great texts on their own merits, as all three Culture Gabfesters appear to lament. Hear, hear! I could not agree more, and I think that is where the cause is truly to be won or lost. To rescue English departments, they need get back to talking about the ideas and passions of great books, stories, and poems. This is, in one sense then, an internal civil war within the humanities, or at least English departments. Having studied science (though I minored in the humanities) at an engineering school, my own resources to help them in the internal humanities fight are limited.

But as to second front, the lesser, but real, encroachments from certain overreaching science types who are trying to aggressively push concepts like evolutionary psychology into the study of literature, I am happy to help man the barricades. A caveat: Ultimately, of course, there will be some things to be gained from the nascent field of evolutionary psychology. Since the brain most assuredly evolved, then the things that our brains are capable of are likewise the product of evolution, QED. However, to suggest that we are today at a state where we can begin to discuss literature within the context of brain scans is absurd in the extreme. We do not, as yet, have a remotely coherent theory of how intelligence arises from the firing of neurons, and so talking about literature in those terms is a tad, um, premature, to say the least. It is as if, having discovered quantum mechanics, we immediately began trying to describe the preparation of a seven course gourmet meal in terms of quarks and leptons. Sure the quarks and leptons are down there, but they tell us precious little about the taste of butter on the tongue. Generally, the application of brain scans to interpretation of literature is, today, about as scientific as phrenology, and should be treated similarly.

So let us not waste time and precious mental energy disputing the rather ironclad evidence of the evolutionary origins of the human body, including our marvelously intricate brains. Instead, let us use those brains to wrestle with ideas, great and small, in the realms of great literature, and film, and music, and... podcasts!

Republicans and "Conservative" Establishment to Libertarians: Drop Dead (Again)

noreply@blogger.com (wRONgainey) — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:46:00 +0000

So Ron Paul wins an essentially uncontested straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference, and is not only roundly booed for his troubles, but a conference spokesman "rushed over to reporters after the announcement to make sure they had heard the unmistakable boos." So, the small government people show up, are the only ones with the discipline and coherent vision to actually vote for someone who represents their views, and the organizers run away from them as quickly as possible.

I will repeat myself (again): Attention, people who actually believe in small government (classical liberals and libertarians), the Republicans don't WANT you. Quit hanging around, hoping they'll let you sit at the cool kids' table. They don't fucking want you. Take a clue from the Kid here: I never cared about sitting at the cool kids' table. When you're comfortable in your own skin, come join us at the freaks and geeks table.

Note: They don't want, or respect, your VIEWS, that is. They will be happy, of course, to take your votes and money, as long as you are stupid enough to give them.

Peace.

Open Letter to the Woman Lighting Up While Pumping Gas

noreply@blogger.com (wRONgainey) — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 01:40:00 +0000

Ma'am,

I just missed an important and teachable moment, because I was too chicken to approach you, but let me throw my thoughts into the ether, on the chance that someone, somewhere might run across this and think.

While filling my gas tank here in Decatur, GA, I just watched you light and begin smoking your cigar, while filling your own tank, with a child (presumably yours, but at the very least in your care) in your car. I watched the whole event with shock and no small amount of fear, as I and my own son were not entirely out of harm's way, should that very reckless behavior have caused the worst case scenario. There was a narrow window, where you had completed the pumping and capped the tank, but before you got into your car, when I should have approached you, but found myself too socially inept and cowardly to do so.

Here is a quick primer, since you may not realize why it is illegal to smoke while pumping gas. It is not necessary for the flame to contact the actual, liquid gasoline that you are pumping. Gasoline, like most liquids, is constantly evaporating, producing a vapor. (Think of it like water evaporating.) Gasoline vapor is actually far more volatile and dangerous than the liquid form. By this I mean it is highly flammable. It is also heavier than air, which means it does not quickly disperse and float away, but can linger in the area for some time after it spills out into the environment. Although cars don't actually explode like the cars on TV, it is entirely possible for a large and rapidly spreading fire to break out in the area where gas is being pumped, if it come into contact with an open flame. A fire at the gas station, started by your cigar, or the match that you stuck to light it, could easily have consumed yourself, your car, and the child within, in a matter of seconds.

Although I am also personally disturbed by the thought of your smoking in the car with the child, which can cause harm, that does not, at the very least, pose an immediate threat of horrible injury or death to yourself, the child, and even unrelated bystanders. Since you were smoking in the car anyway, I would hope that in the future, you could at least wait until you are finished pumping gas and are "safely" back in the car, before lighting up.

Sincerely,
Your Fellow Citizen

Bigger Than Jesus

noreply@blogger.com (wRONgainey) — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:42:00 +0000

Friends, colleagues, and other acquaintances may be surprised to learn I have written practically nothing on The Simpsons. One does not have to know me for long to learn I'm one of THOSE geeks who has a vast array of quotes ready for any occasion, but, other than making a couple of minor edits to the Wikipedia entry, my contribution to online Simpsons communities has been nil. The recent 20th anniversary celebration, and a shout out on my favorite podcast, the Slate Culture Gabfest, have prodded me to action. Also, my friend Barry recently asked his Facebook community to list their all time favorite quotes from television, and I realized when considering his question that I would really have to do two lists. That is, I would need to make a separate, non-Simpsons list, because otherwise...

At any rate, "quotes" would end up being a slight misnomer, since most of these examples require at least a bit of context. There may be, in each, a perfect line, but the context is generally needed, to support the brilliance of the line. If I can find the clips, I will provide them. [Looks like I only found a couple of actual clips, so I will try to give some written context for the rest.]

So, in countdown form, these are some of my favorite moments, or quotes (not necessarily favorite episodes, although a couple of them are):

#6 - All in the Family Intro

#5 - "Just, just say 'slavery'" [3F20]

#4 - From "Homer and Apu" [1F10]

At an airport in India, several people departing a plane are (by appearance) Hare Krishnas. Some Western-looking people, dressed in suits, are singing at them, very Flanders-like, "If you're saved and you know it, clap your hands!"

Hare Krishna traveler [annoyed, rolling eyes]: Oh, great, Christians.

#3 - From "The Bart of War" [EABF16]

Bart and Milhouse have discovered (and damaged) a vast cache of Beatles memorabilia in the Flanders basement. Homer arrives.

Homer: Gee Ned, I had no idea you were such a Beatles fan.
Ned: They were bigger than Jesus!

#2 - From "Two Cars in Every Garage and Three Eyes on Every Fish" [7F01]

Burns has just lost the election, after being served the three-eyed fish.

Burns: Ironic isn't it, Smithers? This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail! That's democracy for you.

#1 - Sacrilicious

A couple of quick observations. Yes, there does appear to be a religious, or even Christian, theme, to my favorite quotable moments. I think it may have to do with the fundamental spirit of irreverence, of truly holding nothing sacred.

And while I honestly cannot choose a favorite episode, two referenced above are among the greatest: "Two Cars in Every Garage, and Three Eyes on Every Fish" and "Much Apu About Nothing." Here too, I notice a theme of sorts--both episodes are sharp, cynical, political satire. Combined with the aforementioned irreverence, yet also ultimately with a deep, abiding love for America, in all its flawed excess, these episodes capture the show at its greatest. In particular, I still find the opening segment of "Much Apu About Nothing" to be the most brilliant piece of American political satire I have yet seen. (Starting with a bear wandering into Springfield, and closing with Quimby blaming illegal immigrants.) And this I say with all due respect to SNL, Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart, the Smothers Brothers, et al. If you haven't seen it in a while, it is very much worth it.

The Slow, Steady March of the Nanny State

noreply@blogger.com (wRONgainey) — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:35:00 +0000

Step by step, inch by inch, they are coming for my cheeseburger. If you enjoy deciding what you will eat, instead of, you know, having daddy decide for you, you might want to say something. Just a thought.

Thought for the Day

noreply@blogger.com (wRONgainey) — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 04:52:00 +0000

Dumbasses make smartasses.

Ingredients & Preparations Mixer

noreply@blogger.com (wRONgainey) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 02:52:00 +0000

You may edit the lists. Simply separate your desired items with a comma. A preparation style will be paired up with an ingredient. The "Many" button will generate a list of 7 combinations in a popup window, suitable for printing. (You may, of course, need to tell your browser to allow the popup. Or not.)

Ingredients	Preparations
chicken, beef, pork, fish, tofu and veggies	fried, grilled, baked, boiled

Guilt by Association

noreply@blogger.com (wRONgainey) — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 17:28:00 +0000

Just because you agree with someone about one particular issue does not mean you agree with them about all issues, or even, necessarily, the manner in which they argue for the position with which you agree. I would hope this goes without saying, but I feel the need to remind people frequently. All too often, I find myself in agreement with something that someone says, only to be appalled at the next thing that comes out of their mouth. Like the little pinhead I recently encountered who started off by briefly making a valid point about "hate crimes" legislation (of which I applaud the spirit, but ultimately believe is misguided) but then immediately went off the rails with bizarre, irrelevant, and unjustified homophobic ravings, and claims of "persecution" for his straightness. Sigh.

And then there is the matter of the Randians. Yes, I really do have a problem with the Rand thing. Even though I end up agreeing with those people on a great many issues, there is still something distinctly off-putting, both stylistically AND philosophically, about so many of them. Let it not be lost on anyone that Rand herself rejected the "libertarians," as she found them insufficiently... well, something or other. (I also direct the interested reader to a concise, well-stated critique of Rand over at Reason.)

A quick thought on one of the obvious responses to my dilemma. You might say, "Well, if this often happens to you, don't you think you might be on the wrong side?" My answer is that it is certainly true that someone is being inconsistent, or not adhering to a coherent world view. If I thought it was me, I'd change my position, but I don't, so I haven't. One of the main reasons I have become an advocate for limited government is that, in fact, it is a fundamentally consistent philosophy. Why so many people agree that it is wise to keep the government out of your bedroom, for example, but simultaneously believe it's OK to let it meddle in your economic decisions, or vice versa, is an ongoing source of frustration, but I will keep making the case for individual freedom as long as I am able.

At any rate, I am prompted to write because I recently subscribed to the print edition of Reason. I have been an avid reader for some years now, and the website is one of my favorites. I endorse it heartily. I find the writing intelligent, cogent, and relevant. The philosophy is solidly and consistently pro freedom (That is to say, classically liberal, and I will fight you for that word. No "conservative" here, dammit.), but not prone to raving, foaming at the mouth rants. Rather, the arguments tend to be well-supported and well... reasoned. Pretty much everything from the magazine gets published on the website, so a subscription isn't really necessary, but with my son's recent school fundraiser, I decided to go ahead and show them a little monetary love, seeing as how I really like what they have to say. So, naturally, my first print edition arrives and...

Any random string of letters emerging from this quarter will likely be due to my head banging repeatedly against my keyboard. Peace.

Jordan Scores

noreply@blogger.com (wRONgainey) — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:02:00 +0000

To present him at his induction to the NBA hall of fame, Michael Jordan chose David Thompson.

Oh. Hell. Yeah.

Thompson and Julius "Dr. J" Erving basically invented the slam dunk in the 70's, blazing the trail for the likes of Jordan. And I do mean "blazing."

Those of us who remember (and we will never forget) that Jordan grew up watching Thompson play at N.C. State, and was a Wolfpack fan in his youth, but then betrayed his boyhood allegiance to play for... some other school (I can't quite recall, seems like they wear powder blue jerseys), will never forgive him for that particular lapse in judgment. But with this pick, he reclaims just a little bit of his lost class.

That'll do, Michael, that'll do.

Hat tip to Stephen Metcalf at the Slate Culture Gabfest for bringing this to my attention. If you enjoy high flying basketball, please treat yourself to one or both of the following videos. And, finally, I would feel slightly remiss if I did not point out that Thompson is 2 inches shorter than Erving and Jordan. I'm just sayin'...

David Thompson Highlight Reel

Both #3 and #2, starting at 1:33, are more spectacular than #1, IMO. See him dunk on the fast break over TWO defenders!

ABA Slam Dunk Contest, 1976

All these guys are impressive, of course, but if you want to cut to the chase, go to 3:10. Thompson is followed by Dr. J, who closes the show. Thompson's 360^o spin is clearly the dunk of the day, but he misses his 4th shot, so the nod goes to Erving.

Stochasticity

noreply@blogger.com (wRONgainey) — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 01:21:00 +0000

Radio Lab is one of my favorite radio shows/podcasts, and the recent episode "Stochasticity" is one of the better shows they've done in a while. They do a very good job of both capturing a sense of wonder and awe, while at the same time keeping you grounded in the real facts and real science. The story of the two British girls is pretty striking, and the treatment of "streaks" in athletic performance is quite solid, as well. It is not necessarily recommended if you cherish your mystical predispositions. But I believe in always looking at the world with our eyes fully open, and not with our prejudices. (As much as is humanly possible.)

Lastly, I am the only person that I know of who used the term "stochastic" in my "25 Random Things" note on Facebook, so it seems obligatory that I link to this episode...

Michael and Al

noreply@blogger.com (wRONgainey) — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:22:00 +0000

While never a huge Michael Jackson fan, I certainly knew the boy had talent. And my personal remembrance is actually a meta-fandom sort of thing. All of us nerd-boys owe Michael a huge debt of gratitude: without MJ, there was no Weird Al Yankovic. Oh, to be sure, Weird Al would have been around, and done his thing, and still been brilliant, without Michael. It's just that no one would have ever heard of him.

Jackson's fame was so outsized that a goofy, geeky, parody artist could become a really big star in his own right, just riffing off the king. The kind of adoration showered on him and other pop "gods" was always a bit irrational and hysterical (hell, I love the Beatles as much as anybody, but those screamers were downright scary), but clearly these talented folks tap into something primal and glorious in the human spirit.

Good on you, Michael. After a short and tragically troubled life, may you be at peace.

Potential

noreply@blogger.com (wRONgainey) — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:28:00 +0000

The letter of Jourdon Anderson to his former master prods me to write down the thoughts on potential that have bumped around in my brain for many years. I, like Ta-Nehisi Coates who provided the link, was so astonished by the letter that I found it slightly suspicious at first. Just too amazingly brilliant and subtle to be authored by some anonymous person lost in the sands of history. Of potential ghost writers, Mark Twain was the first to come to mind, but I could easily imagine this being written by Frederick Douglass, or Lincoln, or William Lloyd Garrison, or... But, of course it is genuine, and it is a stark reminder of something I already knew, but do not hold in my mind every day (but probably should).

Great swaths of human brilliance have always been, and still are, lost to us and our posterity by the scourges of poverty, oppression, disease, famine, and war. Is is not certain that somewhere a brilliant poet just died of malaria in the Sahel? Or that a great mathematician lived his or her whole life eking out a bare subsistence on a Chinese farm 500 years ago? Or that an astonishing musical prodigy died from a tooth infection in the Amazon last century?

How many of these people have lived and died, unnoticed and unrealized? How many Einsteins, Douglasses, Lincolns, Euclids, Baryshnikovs, Darwins, Beethovens, Leonardos, and Michelangelos have toiled away their lives in obscurity, scratching and clawing each day for their very survival?

On the one hand, the question is obviously rhetorical, an exercise, essentially, in metaphysical speculation. But in another sense, I think not. We know that, in fact, desperate poverty has been the default state for the great mass of humanity, for almost all of our history. It is only within the last few hundred years that our knowledge, our science, technology, and, crucially, our social and economic institutions, have combined to begin to change this, to alter that default state and to produce the mere possibility for people to achieve their potential. So, I would say the question can actually be answered, not with precision, but nevertheless with accuracy:

How many? Almost all of them.

Letter to a Christian Friend

noreply@blogger.com (wRONgainey) — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 15:34:00 +0000

The argument for gay marriage belongs, mostly, in the realm of equality before the law. But in the interest of dialog, I have also recently argued about matters of faith with someone from the "other side." This is taken, with some very light editing, from a private correspondence with a Christian friend who does not support gay marriage. Having spent some significant time on it, I'd like to think it might make a few points of general interest. I have not edited it for grammar, as I typically do an "official" blog post, please excuse any sloppy grammar...

So, I am pretty sure I have alluded to this previously, but I will lay it out here in more explicit detail. I happen to agree that the question of moral imperatives and absolutes is the real question that might challenge an atheist or skeptic. There are certainly other reasons that many people are religious, but I cannot give much consideration to them. My desire to feel comfort, or to be reassured, or to feel that I have some eternal existence beyond this physical body, are all things that can sympathize and empathize with as a person with feelings, but none of those hold up as any sort of reason to actually believe anything. Any sort of faith based on that strikes me as nothing more than wishful thinking. As much as I might like to believe for those reasons, I cannot given them any real weight. I also wish I was stronger and smarter and didn't have so much gray hair, but oh well...

No, but the question of morals does hit home. Now, quite frankly, that too, could, in principle, just be more wishful thinking. It is most certainly possible, from a logical, empirical standpoint, that we are just on our own, morally speaking as well. Might makes right, or whatever you want to do goes... But it doesn't have to be so, in a Godless universe. Quite simply, I say God is "an" answer to the metaphysical question, but not necessarily "the" answer.

I have proposed that the basic moral laws can simply "be," just as the physical laws of the universe can simply "be." If someone else (you, perhaps) wants to say that God made them, or perhaps that God IS them, it is both impossible and undesirable for me to quarrel with you. This is a "lawgiver God," and I am explicitly indicating both moral law and physical law, and I have no problem with this conception. I imagine we're cool so far, yes?

Then, I expect, we get not so cool rather immediately after this. Terms, please: yes, in spite of my apparent "agnostic" concession in the above regard, I nevertheless would use the term "atheist" because my understanding of the "theistic" God is that the concept goes well beyond the "lawgiver God" that I designate above. A God that actively intervenes in the world, takes note of individual behavior, passes judgment on us, helps or fails to help us (or even when he's not answering our prayers, it is all according to some inscrutable "plan")??? I think this is all extremely unlikely. In my view, this is all NOT merely abstract metaphysical reasoning, I think the notion of an activist, interventionist, and benevolent God is actually subject to empirical analysis, and that that conception of God does not survive the encounter with facts in very good shape.

But let me not make the general case here. This has been my own preamble to an assault on the specific notions about sexual "sin." Is it really your contention that the creator of the universe concerns him/herself with how and with whom we rub body parts together? Apparently so, and the rather obvious proximate source for this belief appears to be these ancient texts, purporting to represent God's revelation to humanity. Really? That's where you're going to hang your hat!? You've already acknowledged, then, how you have no scriptural basis for condemning polygamy. How about stoning as punishment for adultery or fornication? How about slavery, explicitly endorsed in Leviticus? How about the genocide of the Israelites against the Canaanites?

OK, on those last two, I'm slipping back into the general case, but I think they remain rather difficult questions, to say the least... back to the main. Why, WHY would God make these rules!!?? Even more to the point, why would he make them, and then turn around and make people who, profoundly and deeply in their very nature, passionately want to break them!!?? I really think this God, if he existed, would be a real sick bastard. Having heard both directly and indirectly the stories of a good many gay people, almost all the stories I have heard indicate that there were signs from a VERY early age. And this is no surprise to me. Although I knew nothing of sex until much later, I do know that by 5 or 6 years old, I was interested in girls. And I was not just modeling adult behavior (although it was partly that, no doubt). I mean I was intrinsically fascinated by girls and women in some way that my fellow boys simply did not interest me. And as I have said, the stories of gay people I have heard are just the same, only it was the same and not the opposite sex that caught their eye in this way. If you think God made people (and I don't, but you do), then God made gay people. He made them, and then told them they could not act on their deepest sexual desires. While I guess I feel fortunate to not have been given that particular curse, I would have to call Him a bastard for cursing so many in this way.

The only rational basis for these proscriptions that I know of (and I use "rational" a bit loosely, here) is the purely teleological theory of sexual desire: God made sex in order to ensure the propagation of the species, and any other sexual expression is therefore a perversion of His design. Whew. Uh-oh. Guess I am cursed after all. Everything I have ever done in this regard, which was not specifically intended to at least theoretically produce a baby, was ALSO a perversion, right? Which was your point, in saying that we are all sinners... Well then, here is where I will call you on a different inconsistency then, why pick one perversion and single it out for moral (or legal) distinction? Either non-sanctioned sexual practices (anything other than married vaginal intercourse, apparently) are a "big deal" kind of sin, or a "little deal" kind of sin. If it's no big deal, then let the gays alone, let them do what they will, just as many of us do. If it IS a "big deal" kind of sin, then let's get right on in there and make sure all us heteros aren't doing any non-reproductive rubbing...

And consider, yes, the animals. In particular the dolphins and the bonobos, who are both observed to engage in non-reproductive, same-sex pairings. I think, in this instance (as with myriad other instances, in fact all instances I know of), evolution makes a whole lot more sense than some sort of divine design. Our brains evolved to enable all sorts of complex, social behaviors, which, in the aggregate, have enormous payoffs in survival and success. Sex has become, in part, one of those many forms of complex, social behavior, and it has, in many contexts at least, been divorced from its direct link to reproduction. A byproduct of our big, creative, adaptive brains. Not, I argue vehemently, a sick joke by a cruel God.

I will close out with more high-level theological musings. Do I assault your Christianity, per se? Well, I don't know, you may feel that I have, and perhaps it's true. But I really, truly do NOT object to the "lawgiver God." Not at all. But what I believe we should strive for, in talking about those laws, is to look for the deep structure laws, the ones that get at the core principles of what it means to be moral. I think worrying about where people put their genitals is WAY off track. It's there (in the Bible) because the people who wrote that book were quite concerned about it, for reasons that are not always clear (though I have my theories), but have nothing to do, in my view, with the will of a benevolent God.

I would take a cue from Jesus, in fact. He swept away all the arcane, Old Testament Jewish proscriptions about food in single sentence (I paraphrase from memory): "A man is not made unclean by what goes into his mouth, but by what comes out."

I would take his phrasing and suggest a reformulation for this context: A man or woman should not be judged by the places they put their sexual organs, but by the love that flows from their heart.

Sincerely, and with much regard,
Ronald

Vow-Testingly Bad

noreply@blogger.com (wRONgainey) — Sun, 24 May 2009 14:15:00 +0000

So I did something bad, in a vaguely mid-life reflective sort of way (but only just a little, notice I didn't say mid-life "crisis"), which prompted the following comment from my beloved: "Well, I did say 'For better or for worse'..."

What, pray tell, manner of indiscretion did I commit? Did I blow a big chunk of our savings on a boat, or a sexy little sports car? Did I sprain my back trying to wrestle with my teenage son? Did I go chasing after a younger (or older, for that matter) woman?

Nah, I shaved my beard.

Actually to be perfectly clear and honest, she's right. The beard looks better (at least if I keep it reasonably trimmed). And even if I disagreed, her opinion on the matter is the only one that really counts anyway... but I don't disagree. The beard will come back. I was just gripped by a nostalgic urge to see what the old mug looked like under there. And, really, she's being quite a good sport about it. But I really did find her "for better or for worse" comment highly amusing, and can't resist a tiny little teasing...

So for anyone who may care to see it, Gainey productions presents, for a very limited engagement, appearing for the first time in 15 years (or so), and probably for the last time ever...

...my face.

A side by side view, with a pic from a couple of weeks back.

Things I Said... (Precedentedly Clever)

noreply@blogger.com (wRONgainey) — Sun, 03 May 2009 13:59:00 +0000

Isaac Asimov wrote long ago about how he liked to dabble in math and come up with proofs, which were invariably either a) clever, correct, and already done (typically hundreds of years previously) or b) clever, novel, and wrong.

Since blogs are kind of the ultimate vanity project anyway, I am putting down a list of things I came up with, that someone else had already said. You know, just 'cause I'm like that. I said each of the things below, and I list the person who had already said it. (Oh yeah, I suppose it goes without saying that I have probably said a lot of things that others have said, these are just some of the ones with which I was particularly pleased.)

"Children should be obscene and not heard." - John Lennon

"You spend the night like you're spending a dime." - Lyle Lovett

"Never is a long time." - Shane

I wrote a blog post entitled "Cheeseburger in Purgatory," a pun on the Jimmy Buffet song. Don't remember details, but googling indicated a news headline writer somewhere (and several others) had done this previously.

"I'm only superficial on the outside." Just came up with this one, but I think it is highly unlikely I am the first. Don't feel like googling to prove my unoriginality right now... (P.S. Hey! This last quip, "superficial on the outside" did NOT actually show up in google, so maybe I'm first, after all! Let this be my claim to priority...)

The Torturers

noreply@blogger.com (wRONgainey) — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:40:00 +0000

Goddamn fuckers.

Yes, I am culpable too. If you are an American, or one of our "allies" who facilitated this, then you are culpable, too. I should have done more. I didn't know exactly what to do. I did squeak my little pipsqueak voice out into the uncaring void. I did contribute to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. I didn't do enough. I have let the petty distractions of life stand in the way of a moral duty. I am sorry.

I mention and link to some of my stuff on torture below, not because I want "credit" for anything, but because I don't feel like repeating myself. Again.

Yes, prosecute them. Nothing less is really acceptable. If our chickenshit system won't do it because of political cravenness, maybe some of them might forget themselves and go to Europe, or Canada, or somewhere else, where maybe they'd get snatched up and held to account there. A boy can dream, anyway.

Goddamn fuckers.

(If you are someone who believes that the torture that happened under Bush can be defended, this is a rare opportunity to say whatever you want to me without response. I will not respond to or engage with any arguments of that sort, at this point.)

Some of my old stuff, if you care...

12/31/05 - Outlaw Administration My very first blog post ever. Summary: the Bush administration was an outlaw administration, and not in the cool Waylon and Willie sense, but in the need-to-go-to-jail sense. Torture is featured.

1/24/06 - Outlaw Outsourcing. Summary: No smoking guns, at that time, to directly link Rumsfeld, Cheney, & Bush to Abu Ghraib, but not really necessary. Aside from the semantic games they loved to play about waterboarding and such, it had just been documented how we used dictatorial or authoritarian governments nominally "aligned" with us to torture on our behalf.

12/30/06 - One Year On, and the Outlaw Administration Rolls On... An anniversary piece, of sorts, for my blog. Summary: Includes a handy recap of some of the known facts about our torture practices, including legal documentation of the torture of Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen.

1/27/07 - Thatcher on "gitmo." Summary: Margaret Thatcher shamefully and dishonestly compared her treatment of certain IRA prisoners--which, whether you liked her decisions or not, were conducted according to the rule of law--with the Bush administration's practices at Guantanamo Bay, where Bush asserted unchecked executive power beyond the rule of law (and was eventually overruled). An excerpt (not quite on the main topic of the post):

...as for "rendition," i.e. the outsourcing of torture to unscrupulous foreign governments, one would hope such a practice would be considered despicable in its own right, but the fact that completely innocent people have been tortured at our behest should shame even the most hard-core Bush defender. Should, but apparently doesn't. Disgusting. It shames me as an American, even though I didn't vote for Bush.

I had a "mini-series" on waterboarding, and the confirmation hearings for Mukasey as attorney general, in November 2007. Here, here, and here.

Why the Teabaggers Really Were Full of It (and I Don't Mean Tea)

noreply@blogger.com (wRONgainey) — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 18:36:00 +0000

**Special note to any of my GOP-minded friends that might happen by here. I do, in fact, call some of your partisans "twits" and "pinheads" below. But I am sure I didn't mean you, and I do stand by my characterizations of those who did and said the specific things discussed.**

In the midst of a good, friendly debate over at the DinkZone blog, my bud Heath (tongue-in-cheek) said he hoped I "had fun teabagging" on Wednesday. While far too much has already been made of this whole dismal spectacle, I feel the need to take a moment to distance myself from this particular "protest." If you told me, in abstract terms, about some people who legitimately believed that our government was excessive in size, and who decided to take April 15 as a day to stage a peaceful, respectful, and principled demonstration in favor of reducing said wasteful government, then, yes, I would confess that it sounds like something I might endorse, or hell, in which I might even participate.

Of course, the "tea parties" that took place on Wednesday were nothing of the sort. Yes, the twin facts that various entities and individuals within the GOP establishment, including Fox News, organized and promoted it heavily, even while Fox simultaneously hyped the parties as "spontaneous citizen protests" would have been funny, had it not been so insulting to our collective intelligence. But beyond that, the blatant hypocrisy of so many of the twits that showed up at these events was truly hard to stomach. After sitting by and watching 8 years of astounding fiscal irresponsibility and the biggest expansion of federal spending since at least LBJ, now is the time to get outraged at excessive government spending!?!? Anybody who really meant a damn word of their "I believe in small government" speechifying, would have to admit that the Bush administration has trounced all others in recent memory in expanding spending, executive power, and secrecy. To pick this moment, and this (still very new) administration as your target is ridiculously and transparently partisan and oxymoronic (or perhaps just moronic), even if the provenance of this "movement" had not already made that clear.

Please don't associate me with any of these pinheads. All of this was really enough to put yours truly, a genuine believer in limited government, off his lunch. Nearly as much as feeling obligated to finally go look up "teabagging" at the Urban Dictionary. Now there is something I really did not need to know.

Alex at the Water

noreply@blogger.com (wRONgainey) — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 20:06:00 +0000

My nephew, Alex, loves the beach as much as anyone I have yet seen. To witness such pure delight is to touch something timeless. It is impossible to not be moved, in the face of such pure joy, unmediated and unfiltered.

Then take me disappearing through the smoke rings of my mind,
Down the foggy ruins of time,
Far past the frozen leaves,
The haunted, frightened trees,
Out to the windy beach,
Far from the twisted reach of crazy sorrow.

Yes, to dance beneath the diamond sky with one hand waving free,
Silhouetted by the sea,
Circled by the circus sands,
With all memory and fate driven deep beneath the waves,
Let me forget about today until tomorrow.

....in the jingle jangle morning, I'll come following you.

-Bob Dylan

Great Things You Might Not Have Already Seen

noreply@blogger.com (wRONgainey) — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 21:05:00 +0000

I share with some of my FB friends a slight aversion to checking off a list of movies/books made by someone else. Also, while I suppose some of my friends my enjoy a "favorites" list of mine, I had another thought. Why not try to actually list a few "useful" recommendations? A lot of my favorites are, in fact, mainstream enough that most everyone will have already seen them. So, here is a subset of my favorites, which are at least a little off the beaten path, or were not big commercial successes, so there is at least a chance you may not have seen them. And my (very brief) comments. Combining movies and television here, music and books may come separately.

Harold and Maude
A delightful twist on the "May/December" relationship trope. Bud Cort's macabre, death-obsessed Harold plays wonderfully against Ruth Gordon's whimsical Maude. The rest of the characters are played as one-dimensional caricatures, but hilariously so, and that's part of the point--in a real love story, the rest of the world is just backdrop, right? Cat Stevens, way back before becoming a terrorist, contributes an alternately playful and wistful soundtrack.

Freaks and Geeks
A very short-lived TV series, and tragically so. The best thing I have seen about adolescence. Forget "The Wonder Years" or any of that, this blows them all away. I don't know how they found these kids, but they are as perfectly cast as I can imagine. (And the adult actors are also great.) The trio of young geeks is, for me, a special delight. The three boys do not map in any direct way to my own triumvirate from back in the day, but many aspects of the story line are very resonant. (Also, these characters are just about exactly my age, maybe a year older; there's a great vintage 1980 soundtrack.) Seth Rogen and James Franco star, in what I believe were their first major roles. Rogen is particularly hilarious. (Special warning/caveat: In the last couple of years, the Apatow/Rogen juggernaut has become so ubiquitous as to perhaps prompt a backlash. Yes, some of their shtick is getting a little overdone, or a lot, maybe. Do NOT be put off by this! This was one of the early Apatow projects, and it is fantastic.)

Repo Man
Generally, I don't care much for the Sheen boys, but Emilio Estevez is perfectly cast as obnoxious suburban teen punk Otto. A low budget, surrealist jaunt through a seamy, distopian Los Angeles. Mixes jaded cynicism and dorm-room philosophical bullshit with gratuitous violence, lots of foul language, and radioactive alien corpses. Oh, and a nice punk soundtrack. What's not to love?

Leila: Otto, don't go, what about our relationship!?
Otto: Fuck that.
Leila: You shithead! I'm glad I tortured you!

The Wire
After all the glowing things that have been said about this show, I no doubt have poor power to add or detract. All the superlatives you have heard are true. Jacob Weisberg's summary at Slate is pretty famous, and spot on, IMO. Seasons 3 and 4 are literature on the epic scale. My one bit of possibly useful advice: a couple of people I know who have not "gotten" The Wire have apparently seen episodes in isolation. If there is a "flaw" to the show, it is that it is a serial plot, and not episodically independent. You MUST start at the beginning and watch it through. (Not all at once, of course, though you may want to.) Get it on DVD and watch the whole thing.

Rushmore
This may not qualify as "obscure" enough for this list, I'm not sure, but I don't think it was a big hit. This is probably the funniest movie I've seen in the last 10 years or so. (Although I admittedly don't see a lot of movies. Lars and the Real Girl might be a close second.)

The Nightmare Before Christmas
Most of you have probably seen it, but it was not a commercial success (!!!???!!!), so I included it to cover the bases. Visually stunning. Wildly inventive. Score and soundtrack (Danny Elfman) are superb. My favorite animated film, and probably in my top five overall.

Stuff You May Have Seen, But May Need to Watch Again
All right, I can't quite resist, here are a couple of favorites that you probably have seen, but if they aren't in your favorites, you need to go watch them again.

If you have seen Raising Arizona fewer than five times, you haven't really seen it. (The Big Lebowski's only serious flaw is that it is not Raising Arizona.)

Unforgiven is the greatest western yet made. OK, I haven't seen them all, but I'll stand by this. ("Deserve's got nothing to do with it." My favorite quote, ever.)

The Muppet Movie. When is the last time you saw it? If it's been more than 10 years, this movie is probably better than you remember, even if you remember it being great. Henson, Oz, genius.

Spinal Tap goes to 11.

Nerd = Gay, A Post Script

noreply@blogger.com (wRONgainey) — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 01:32:00 +0000

A few items arose in the discussion of Nerd = Gay that seemed, collectively, to warrant a separate post.

First, while I certainly intended my tone to be light and whimsical, some of my themes were at least slightly serious and heavy, and I would hate anyone to get the feeling I was being whiny about some awful adolescence. Far from it, I was generally a very happy kid, and enjoyed the company of my (mostly nerdy) friends. I was, in fact, rarely picked upon. And not being among the very popular crowd, well that is most of us, after all, isn't it? The people who treated me with decency (or better) far outnumbered the meatheads, although the latter group can make a big impression. And, in fact, there were even some among the athletic, beautiful, and popular crowd who always treated this nerd boy with respect, kindness, and even generosity. I appreciated it then, and I still do.

Second, as my gay-nerd friend Heath discusses in an illuminating and entertaining confessional (note: a little "adult" in parts, but nothing too shocking by modern standards, IMO), there are many qualitative as well as quantitative differences between the gay and nerd experiences. I am absolutely sure it is true, and I really never meant to imply otherwise. I only stand by what I wrote in that the specific parallels that I cited do seem to me to be legitimate. In no sense did I mean to suggest that they were the whole story, or even the bulk of the story. I.e., I think what I wrote is fairly true and accurate, but it is certainly not a comprehensive description of the gay experience (or the nerd, for that matter), nor did I intend it as such. I suppose any confusion on this front may stem from the title "Nerd = Gay." It certainly seems to state an equivalence, doesn't it? The title was intended as tongue-in-cheek, and it seemed like, well, an awfully nerdy touch to put it in the form of an equation! (Heath responds, in kind, with a Venn diagram. Très magnifique, mon ami!)

Finally, to get back to the fun stuff, my friend Sharon suggested an addendum to define exactly what is nerdiness. Well, a comprehensive test matrix would be beyond the scope of this text, but I might leave you with a list of some of my own traits and experiences, as a member of the true nerd de la nerd. You can see this as a sort of "...you might be a nerd" list in the style of Jeff Foxworthy. However, each of these statements is factually true. I am NOT making any of this up.

Some non-random (stochastic at best) Nerdphemera vis a vis Ronald

I have, in fact, worn glasses held together with tape, paper clips, twist ties, and once, in sixth grade, a rubber band.

At age 20, I stood 5 feet eleven and one half inches, and weighed 120 pounds.

If there is a circumstance in life for which an appropriate quote cannot be drawn from either The Simpsons, Raising Arizona, or a classic rock lyric, I have not encountered it.

Late in high school, I did actually memorize all the elements of the periodic table, in order. (Yes, including all known lanthanides and actinides.) I forgot it fairly promptly. (This is as far as I can go now: H, He, Li, Be, B, C, N, O, Fl, Ne, Na, Mg... ouch!) I could not, however, sing Tom Lehrer's "The Elements," but my friend Heath could do a pretty good job, as I recall.

3.14159265359. That's all for me.

Once in college, I saw a girl wearing a sweatshirt with the following printed on it

ΣΚ

Upon observing this, I thought, "Summation of K... hmm, wait, what is K? Boltzmann's constant? No, that makes no sense. What are the limits of this sum? What the hell does this shirt mean?"

I still have my original paperback copy of The Lord of the Rings, purchased circa 1981-82, water damaged when my apartment flooded in 1988.

Also, my copy of Cosmos, purchased at around the same time.

Finally, returning to the Greek letter theme, I recently was amused when I encountered an onion ring that had formed a perfect lower case theta.

As always, peace out.

Nerd = Gay

noreply@blogger.com (wRONgainey) — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 18:04:00 +0000

Yeah, yeah, I know. Any meatheads who literally said this back in the day would say, "See! I told ya, Poindexter!" But most of them don't read very much. No, I don't actually mean that nerds are gay. At least, not all of us are. (I do, in fact, have a number of close friends with the honorable distinction of being both.) It's just that I recently began noticing what I believe are some interesting parallels in the nerd experience and the gay experience.

*Disclaimer Paragraph*
This is most certainly not an attempt to show strict equivalence, or to argue that nerds have it "as bad" as gay people growing up, or in society, etc. First, "who suffers more" is just another form of pissing contest, and I try to avoid those. (Unless it's "who's the biggest nerd in the room/state/solar system," in which case, beware!) Second, gay people definitely have had it harder. Nerd behavior has never been religiously or legally condemned, as far as I know, unless you count belief in evolution, or the Copernican solar system. Third, my gay nerd friends win this battle hands down! And oh, yes, is it OK if everyone would just read "gay and lesbian" everywhere that I write "gay"? If not, I guess I can come back and use find/replace.
*End Disclaimer Paragraph*

I base this on comparisons of my (necessarily limited) second-hand understanding of the gay experience to my extensive, first-hand experience of nerdhood. You understand at a fairly young age that something is different about you, but you can't quite define it. There follows a significant awkward period usually involving some degree of social isolation and stigma, including derision and, occasionally, threatened or actual violence. Unless you are well-closeted and successful at "passing"!

Yes, I do believe there is some sort of nerd equivalent of the "closet," although it may seem oxymoronic at first--what is a "nerd" if not a set of public behaviors!? I would hold that nerdiness is actually a frame of mind and part of identity, and doesn't necessarily require public display, or even acting on the impulse in private, much like being gay. I think it is a very rare occurrence, much rarer than closeted gay people, but some nerds are socially gifted enough to recognize and suppress their tendencies in public and get away with "normal," or even "popular." (A close inspection of our new President might be revealing. I have my suspicions.)

Then, of course, there are the "flamers." These are the people that are so obvious that everyone knows from an early age. Indeed, the rest of the world usually recognizes the young flaming nerd at least a little before they know it themselves, or at least before they admit it to themselves. (**Ronald coughs nervously, adjusts glasses, pulls at collar in the style of Rodney Dangerfield.**)

Young nerds in the typical school milieu do typically find at least one or two kindred spirits and form their own little circle. This is like gay people in some small conservative, rural place. Quietly and carefully, they generally seem to find one another, and form a tiny community. Sometimes they do not, perhaps, and such a person may feel that they are the only one in the world. But then they see Star Trek on TV, and they know others must be out there...

From this perspective, I would say that arriving at NCSSM in the fall of 1983 was, for me, the nerd equivalent of moving from a tiny, conservative southern or midwestern town to, say, San Francisco's Castro, or Greenwich Village, or Midtown Atlanta. Holy cow! There are really others like you, a whole, real, vibrant community, where you can act like yourself in public without getting mocked or beaten up by some dim-witted thick neck. This is also not to say that everyone there was a nerd, just as not everyone is gay in the aforementioned locales. There were, in fact, athletically and/or socially gifted people who were as popular there as they always are, but we nerds were numerous enough to stand on our own, and with our own measure of pride.

The final parallel strikes me in the realm of broader public acceptance and social change. Nerds and gay people are as old as humanity itself, we have always been here, just not always acknowledged and/or accepted on our own terms. Just as we most certainly would have had much less great art, music, drama, architecture, and many other things without gay people, we also know that when the Pharaoh commanded his great tomb to be constructed, or the President said we were going to the moon, it was the nerds who made it happen. (I am most impressed that the ancient Egyptian nerds were able to do their calculations without the benefit of glasses! They must have computed in large glyphs.)

But I believe that in my lifetime, and especially the last 30 years or so, we have seen great strides in acceptance all around. Look at the difference between Jack on "Three's Company" (not even actually gay, just pretending in an offensively stereotypical way) and Will from "Will and Grace," as cool and likable a character as you are ever going to see. And of course we could go on. As for the nerds, we have seen the coming of the PC and the "Internets," which have put us front and center in the technological and social revolutions of our time. Yes, nerds were always there making sure the lights came on or the engine started when you turned the switch, but the computer has put us right in everyone's face, literally! When the richest man around is a flaming nerd, and someone like Steve Jobs comes off as super cool, you know the world has changed.

Finally, another very personal note. I was recently given a chance to view ancient footage of yours truly, getting his geek on at the very zenith of spazziness. It was a bit of a shock, indeed. Arms flailing in wild gesticulations, eyes bugging, I was quite the piece of work, and I suppose I still am. I fully understand why girls would, say, cross to the other side of the hall, and why guys would laugh and mock (actual violence not excused). But if you observe the picture with care, you will see something else that matters--my friends laughing. And if making your friends laugh isn't good enough reason to be a spaz, then I guess nothing is.

Peace out, ya'll. Or, if you prefer, live long and prosper.

Christmas Trees and Kandy Keynes

noreply@blogger.com (wRONgainey) — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 15:49:00 +0000

So, in the interest of "getting it" and not being labeled as some wild-eyed extremist, let's consider the theoretical, and perhaps empirical, case for government "stimulus." (Am I alone in wishing that Beavis and Butthead would make a brief reappearance to snicker idiotically at the phrase "stimulus package"?) Hopefully, I can get my economist friend to offer a critique, if I am missing something fundamental.

The true essence of Keynesian stimulus theory is psychological. The free market critique of Keynes seems so straightforward as to be unassailable, as long as pure rational market actors are assumed. That is, neither the government nor the private sector can magically create wealth. It is, as always, a marriage of capital and labor to produce something of value. And if the government is allocating capital, then it is inevitably displacing something else that could be done in the private sector, i.e. opportunity cost. A quick sanity check on this: the money must come from somewhere! So the government must either tax it, borrow it, or print it. Either taxing or borrowing removes the money from private hands, and printing it is the ultimate illusion (no new stuff, just more money to buy it with--inflation). So, in a classic, rational market, government stimulus could be compared to scooping water from the deep end of the pool and pouring it into the shallow end.

But the reason Keynes could be right would be that, in the midst of a severe downturn, a crisis of confidence can cause those with capital to basically withdraw from rational investing. That is, there are bound to be good opportunities somewhere (there always are, there have to be, it's just a matter of finding them) it's just that in this moment of crisis, investors have no faith in anything and want to sit on their cash. So, enter the government. Said fearful investors, unwilling to bet on anything else, are nonetheless willing to lend to the government, i.e. buy treasury bonds. By being the borrower and spender of last resort, government gets the money moving again.

Keynes in a nutshell: psychological! Unless you really do believe that government, on average, as a matter of principle, actually does a better job at allocating resources than the private sector. And if you do believe that, then I think maybe the "S" word does apply... though I won't utter it, seeing as how mercilessly McCain (for whom I did not vote) was mocked.

And so, further, it does not really matter, from this point of view, whether the money is particularly well-spent or not. Yes, other things being equal, it is better for government to spend wisely rather than unwisely, but if what you want is stimulus, and if Keynes is right, just show me the money! Enjoy the Christmas tree of a bill that we have! Let us hope our children don't regret having to pay for it...

Ethel Myers, Where Are You?

noreply@blogger.com (wRONgainey) — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:11:00 +0000

We're looking for Ethel Myers, aka "Rat," or perhaps now Ethel Krumm, a member of the NCSSM Class of 1985. Later, she joined the US Army, where she met Roy Krumm (while stationed in Germany?) whom she subsequently married. Last known to be residing in Festus, Missouri, in 1992.

As before, when I used this space to find Hunter Middleton, I am not expecting to find her among readers of this blog, of which there are very few. But I am creating this entry as a "Google Trap" whereby Ethel Myers, or someone who knows her current whereabouts, might come across this post while googling her name. Anyone wishing to contribute can add their own remembrance to a blog, or any sort of web page over which you have editorial control. Use her name "Ethel Myers," and link back to this post. (And if you like, you can let me know and I could link back to your page.) This should, over time cause this page to rise in the Google search results.

Here is a wonderful picture of Ethel ("Rat") with Sula Riden (now Kosacky) at graduation, June 9, 1985.

An Open Letter

Dear Ethel,

I always eschewed your ubiquitous appellation, "Rat" in favor of your given name. Since you had embraced the nickname, I am uncertain whether you appreciated my distinction, or merely tolerated it. We did not hang out much, in my recollection, junior year. By the end of senior year, however, you were an indispensable presence at the Dining Room Table, and one of my very favorite people. Recently looking at the old yearbooks, I came across what you wrote to me, and I guess you thought I was OK, too. You were very kind, thank you.

I hope you are well.

Yours sincerely,
Ronald

Update 2/18/09

More information supplied by Heath: Ethel attended the University of Missouri at Saint Louis (UMSL), where she obtained a B.S. in biology in 1999. Later, she is known to have lived and worked for some time in the St. Louis area.

Update 7/26/09
Found! Not through my efforts here, but through our mutual friend, Heath. Huzzah!

Gödel, Escher, Bernanke

noreply@blogger.com (wRONgainey) — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 19:58:00 +0000

I have recently been thinking about Gödel's Theorem and the regulation of markets. No, seriously... I know. I can't help it.

It is extremely important to note that I recognize a serious hazard here. It is dangerous to attempt translation across domains of knowledge, and such attempts often go awry, but I believe there is at least a slight chance that there is something real with this idea.

The question is whether the law can be accurately described as a "formal system," which has a mathematical definition. It seem plausible to me to suggest that it can, because all legal questions ultimately seem to boil down to a binary choice: Is action X lawful? That is, given a set of facts, describing the actions of some person, group, or entity, were those actions permitted or prohibited by the law?^* In greater detail, the laws and regulations would represent the axioms of the formal system. Furthermore a grammar exists (largely inscrutable to most of us, but natural for lawyers, judges, and such) for constructing assertions or statements in this system, e.g. "Being that, on the Eleventieth of Smarch, Homer J Fonebone did willfully violate article diggity-two, section naughty-five of the state penal code..." (Heh, heh, he said "penal.") Finally, at least in this brief treatment, the grammatically valid statements in this system are ultimately adjudicated as "true" or "false," i.e. a verdict. The law in practice, messy as it is, surely never obtains the status of a formal system, rigorously defined, but in idealized form, this is a reasonable model of what law aims to be.

Now, Gödel tells us, for those who have not visited our friend Kurt recently, that any rigorously constructed formal system must be either incomplete or inconsistent. That is, the system will either contradict itself by producing at least two derived statements that actually contradict each other, OR, if such contradictory statements are prohibited, then the system cannot validate the truth or falsity of all possible statements. That is, there can never be a simple, mechanistic algorithm for determining the truth of any and all possible statements in the system.

If this does, in fact, apply to law, then the signs are certainly all around us. I see two major consequences: First, this renders the idea of "strict constructionism" logically impossible. Various "lower" courts are often arriving at blatantly contradictory conclusions on matters of constitutional law, and since the law, at least in theory, must be consistent, the Supreme Court must resolve the dispute. In doing so, the court sometimes makes new law, which, if I am correct, is not (necessarily) arrogance or hubris, but actually a logical necessity. This is not to say that the Court is always right, or that it does not sometimes exceed its proper bounds, but merely that existing law, as written, will never be both complete AND consistent. This is not quite the same as the classic "the framers couldn't forsee everything" argument, but a statement about logical inevitability.

The other consequence relates to the currently heated "debate" (really at lot more like ad hoc and ad hominem arguments hurled about the chattering political commentariat) concerning regulation and the economy. I have more than once heard prudent, thoughtful people argue that no matter how much we regulate, clever accountants, CEO's, CFO's, and lawyers will find a way to innovate to find "loopholes" that enable some sort of behavior that was intended to be prohibited. I have always found myself nodding, or even exclaiming, my agreement. Now, it seems that this argument may possibly be mathematically true.

Finally, as always, yes, we need regulation. Regulation is just law at the lowest level, and without the rule of law, not only will markets fail to function, but society collapses. But I do believe the Gödelian argument, if valid, points in the direction of so-called "principle based regulation" as an alternative to the minutely detailed proscriptive framework that dominates the modern regulatory landscape. Rather than chasing the mirage of a perfectly tuned and adjusted vast edifice of rules, which will inevitably fail to cover all situations, we should formulate the problem as one of basic principles. Regulate transparency, disclosure, and clarity. Do not, as a rule, try to prohibit any particular contractual arrangement between parties, but rather ensure that the parties fully disclose relevant obligations, and do our best to ensure that disputes about any given contract can later be sorted out effectively and fairly by the courts, for when the shit inevitably hits the fan.

Notes

* I am expressing the problem in language suitable for criminal law, but the reasoning should apply equally well in the civil arena, with suitably adjusted verbiage. Also, the observant, or lawyerly, reader will have noted that I asserted "given a set of facts," omitting the courts' role in actually finding facts. I understand that finding facts is also one of the chief duties of our legal system. This actually makes the argument stronger. Not only are courts needed to find the facts, but they can never be replaced by some mechanisitic framework even taking the facts as given. (Return)

Libertarianism Without Rand

noreply@blogger.com (wRONgainey) — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 19:14:00 +0000

(or "Bleeding Heart Libertarianism")

While this note has been in my head for some time, I am prompted to write it down by a friend's fierce reaction to a mention of Ayn Rand in my Facebook profile. I mentioned her in the sense of negative space: Truthfully, I am 41 years old and have not read a word by her. (Oh, certainly there must the occasional quote somewhere in things I have read by others, but you take my point.) What I want to say is that well into my 30's, I came to a very strong set of convictions, which seem to map quite closely with modern "libertarianism," or better yet "classical liberalism," without reading any Ayn Rand, which seems to be unusual.

I probably should read at least some of her at some point. Anyone who inspires such passion, both for and against, must have at least something interesting to say. To even mention reading her is to have some people act like you're talking about the Bible, and others like you were referencing Mein Kampf, and not a whole lot of people in the middle. Here are some things I think I have derived second hand. She was brilliant and maniacal. Most of her devotees seem to have read her in adolescence; I'm surmising that she wrote with a passion and rage of conviction that is very compelling to a young mind taking shape. Well, I have no need of that. I have my Mark Twain, Kurt Vonnegut, and Carl Sagan, and they suit me very well, thank you.

I am, in fact, quite pleased to use the phrase "bleeding heart libertarian" to describe myself. I must credit my wife for coining the term, and she doesn't seem to define it the same way I do, but here is my own take. I still have the exact same goals as I always did. I believe in ending poverty, war, and injustice. I believe that finding a sustainable way to live within the ecosystems of Earth is an obvious imperative. And yes, I believe that providing maximal freedom for individual choices is also profoundly moral and desirable.

And I believe that this last ideal does not trump the other ones listed before it (which would appear to be the Randian view, at least in caricatured form), but rather that it actually serves to advance them. It is not that free minds and free markets produce nirvana, but that that system is the least awful alternative. You cannot do better with centralized planning and control, no matter how hard you try, or how noble your intentions. This is why Churchill's declaration, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other ones" is possibly my all time favorite quotation. I do not believe in anarchy and selfishness, but rather that voluntary cooperation is the greatest engine for good, and that any form of coerced communalism might be a necessary evil, but it is definitely an evil.

Now, I could be wrong. It has happened. (Jeffery Priddy will give you the exact date, if you care to ask.) But my own passion in these beliefs is founded in the notion that less government will, in general, lead to a better world--not because I want to smoke pot or pay less in taxes. (Not that there is anything wrong with those pursuits, per se. ;-)

Peace, y'all.