June 10, 2010
June 8, 2010
QotD: Remaking Gulliver’s Travels
The reimagined Gulliver’s Travels is probably going to be bad. But at least we’re in for an entertaining time when Swift inevitably rises from the grave to seek revenge on everyone involved.
“Gulliver”, “Jack Black meets Jonathan Swift?”, The Economist, 2010-06-05
Consumer debt doesn’t follow the script
Or, in a demonstration of individual rationality, doesn’t follow the script where consumers sacrifice themselves and go even deeper in debt to spark further economic recovery:
While some pundits out there might have you believe that the US economic recovery remains solidly on track, Friday’s May jobs report threw a spanner into those notions, and the latest reading on consumer credit offers little evidence that the crucial consumer intends to share with Uncle Sam the burden of bolstering the economy.
The Federal Reserve’s report on April consumer credit today shows total credit outstanding rose a little less than $1 billion, following a revised $5.4 billion drop in March; March credit was originally reported up $2 billion.
Within the details, the item that jumps out most is the decrease in revolving credit, which fell at a 12% annual rate and declined for the 19th straight month. Revolving credit outstanding has fallen 14%, or roughly $138 billion, since autumn of 2008. Non-revolving is roughly flat since late ‘08.
It would help if the pundits would settle on one of the two diametrically opposed roles that consumers are “supposed to” assume. At an individual level, consumers are being lashed for their profligate spending and borrowing habits, and excoriated for their unprecedented levels of personal debt. This is bad, the pundits say (and I don’t disagree): individuals and families should not be taking on so much debt and efforts to reduce outstanding debt are praised. However, consumers as a group are expected to spend, spend, spend in order to help pull the retail sector back into healthy growth.
So if they do the right thing as individuals, they’re doing the wrong thing for the economy as a whole? Perhaps the emphasis on consumer-led recovery is mistaken, especially given the levels of debt that consumers have already taken on.
May 17, 2010
He comes not to praise Canadian universities, but to bury them
The Guardian summarizes an article by Robert Martin:
A mighty steam organ of an article, adorned with the title University Legal Education in Canada is Corrupt Beyond Repair, blasts forth in the October 2009 issue of the scholarly journal Interchange. It’s the handiwork of Robert Martin, professor of law, emeritus, at the University of Western Ontario.
Martin warms up with a little tune about university students: “Each fall, a horde of illiterate, ignorant cretins enters Canada’s universities. A few years later, they all move on, just as illiterate, just as ignorant and rather more cretinous, but now armed with bits of paper, which most of them are probably not able to read, called degrees.”
Then, in deeper tones, Martin sounds off about universities: “Canadian universities are closed and fearful institutions, which actively enforce uniformity on their members.”
[. . .]
Martin brings everything to a rousing conclusion that, one way or another, pretty much explains everything:
“There are two phrases that can be used to describe every law faculty in Canada. The phrases are: ‘feminist seminary’ and ‘psychotic kindergarten’.”
I guess it’s safer to say things like this after your active teaching career is behind you . . .
May 9, 2010
“Canada sucks” says Heather Mallick
Seeking to aid the poor folks in Britain currently struggling under the unaccustomed weight of a “hung parliament”, Heather Mallick advises them to avoid having anything to do with Canadian precedent:
Right now, Canada sucks, and all because we have a hung Parliament and no one’s done anything about it for years. We are ruled by Stephen Harper, a hard-right hick with a grudge who after serial elections cannot get a clear mandate from the voters.
When you have a hung Parliament, you try to form coalitions. We have formed none. We remain hanging, like a dry-aged haunch of venison out back of the garage. Our MPs hurl figurative faeces at each other in the House of Commons and then go to monkey sleep under their minute Parliamentary desks, dreaming of democracy.
Apparently, I was having delusions when the Liberals and NDP tried to team up with the support of the Bloc . . . didn’t happen. Sorry for any confusion I may have caused. I stand corrected.
Excellent campaigning. If only our hateful pseudo-human prime minister would meet a nice granny in Kamloops and hurt her feelings. Actually, Harper would knee her in the groin and block her hip replacement, he’s that personal in his hates.
Canada has a Conservative minority government right now that does have a core belief. It’s that Canadians deserve a good stomping, all of them. Conservatives can’t stand people, particularly if they’re female, or second-generation Canadian, or educated, or principled, or not from Alberta, which is the home of the hard-right belly-bulging middle-aged Tory male. Watch them at the G8, ostensibly fighting for women’s health internationally while blocking abortions for raped Congolese.
Harper cannot get a real majority. If the centre-right Liberals and the centre-left New Democrats would form a coalition, Harper would be toast and we’d get started on what we need: national day care, TGV trains, an economic strategy, a green strategy, oh a strategy for anything, a plan is all we seek.
Some lovely drive-by characterizations there. Of course, most Brits know little about Canada (and many of them know things that aren’t true), so this little diatribe isn’t likely to cause anyone to change their mind on any issue of substance. And just as well . . .
May 5, 2010
Facebook obliterates the entire notion of “privacy settings”
As someone noted the other day, when it comes to Facebook and their constant twiddling with privacy settings, you can just copy-and-paste the last outraged story you did and change the date. That being said, the latest Facebook changes are pretty bad:
“Connections.” It’s an innocent-sounding word. But it’s at the heart of some of the worst of Facebook’s recent changes.
Facebook first announced Connections a few weeks ago, and EFF quickly wrote at length about the problems they created. Basically, Facebook has transformed substantial personal information — including your hometown, education, work history, interests, and activities — into “Connections.” This allows far more people than ever before to see this information, regardless of whether you want them to.
Since then, our email inbox has been flooded with confused questions and reports about these changes. We’ve learned lots more about everyone’s concerns and experiences. Drawing from this, here are six things you need to know about Connections:
- Facebook will not let you share any of this information without using Connections. [. . .]
- Facebook will not respect your old privacy settings in this transition. [. . .]
- Facebook has removed your ability to restrict its use of this information. [. . .]
- Facebook will continue to store and use your Connections even after you delete them. [. . .]
- Facebook sometimes creates a Connection when you “Like” something. [. . .]
- Facebook sometimes creates a Connection when you post to your wall. [. . .]
Overall, you’d have to assume that nobody in the Facebook architecture group has ever needed or even wanted to keep certain information private. Every change they make seems to make it harder and harder to restrict where your personal information will be accessible, and it’s not as though there haven’t been complaints: Facebook just carries on as if nobody cared.
I’ve still got a Facebook account, although I find I’m using it less and less (ironically, many of you reading this will have come here because of a link from Facebook . . .). Lack of ability to fine-tune the privacy settings is certainly one of the reasons I don’t use Facebook as much as I once did.
May 4, 2010
Introducing the Greaves Underdog Strategy
Occasional commenter Chris Greaves sent me this link, saying
Read down towards the bottom:
“Duffy told the Mail she wasn’t impressed. “Sorry is a very easy word, isn’t it,” she was quoted as saying, adding that she would not be casting her vote for Brown — or anyone else — in the election.”
Herein lie the seeds for the Greaves Underdog Strategy:
* If you are the underdog, insult as many bigoted voters as you can reach; it inoculates them against voting, thereby reducing the overdog’s lead.
Gordon Brown is right on track . . .
May 3, 2010
“Remember when reporters had guts?”
Frequent commenter “Lickmuffin” sent this interesting link, suggesting:
This is sort of related to your “White House threatens to yank the ovaries out of those who would criticize The One” post [. . .] same tactics, really. And considering how reporters have become such wusses — perhaps they’ve all been hit with the German girlification spray — I believe it is accurate to say that all of them, especially the “males”, fear for their ovaries.
The White House post is here and the “girlification” post is here, in case you didn’t see them before.
Michael Malone is wondering where all the real reporters went, and remembers what it was like when he started in the field:
Remember when reporters had guts?
In the late Seventies, when I was just out of college, and even before I began my career as a journalist, I worked in public relations at Hewlett-Packard Co.
[. . .]
Simon broke insider stories, published internal strategy memos and pre-introduced secret projects, all with seeming abandon . . . leaving corporate PR departments, like us at HP, scrambling to do damage control and plug the leaks.
As the kid in HP corporate PR department, I both feared Simon for the damage he could do with his breaking stories — my turf was a hugely successful calculator business — and was in awe of his reporting skills. I also wasn’t allowed to talk much with him when he came into our offices for fear I would slip up and accidentally give my counterpart another news hook.It wasn’t until years later, when I was a reporter myself (and talked with Mark) that I came to realize that all Simon was doing was just good hard reporting.
So, what does this trip down memory lane have to do with modern reporters?
This week, Chen’s house was raided by officers from California’s Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team (REACT), a special task force of police officers and federal agents created to combat computer-related crimes — and which just happens to have Apple on its steering committee. The cops took all of Chen’s computer equipment. Meanwhile, the San Mateo County District Attorney is considering whether to bring charges against Chen. It all hinges around whether California’s journalist shield law covers bloggers. Well, speaking as someone who was an investigative reporter for one of the nation’s top ten newspapers: of course it does.
This is appalling. As Instapundit uber-blogger Glenn Reynolds has rightly noted, this is basically “gangland politics” with one side getting to use to the police as its muscle. He’s also correct in noting that neither the police nor Apple would never have tried this against, say, the San Jose Mercury-News (I know because I worked there).
I’m still not clear if Apple played the role of Mafia don and ordered up a hit on Chen (to be performed by their soldiers in the REACT mob), or if someone with authority over REACT used them to attempt to curry favour with “Don” Jobs. Either way, it’s a very disturbing development.
Either way, it will function to continue and even accellerate the subservience of the media to (certain) corporate and political interests, which is not good for the public, the media, or even the temporarily favoured entities.
May 1, 2010
April 21, 2010
Is the Tea Party movement racist?
An interesting article at the Wall Street Journal on how a charge of “racism” works, even when there’s no actual racist action involved:
Blogger Conor Friedsdorf notes that there is a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose quality to the Blow approach [. . .]
Or, for that matter, to any nonpolitical institution that aspires to become more inclusive. Imagine Kelly O’Donnell questioning a black man in a largely white company or university or country club or suburb the way she interrogated Darryl Postell. She would come off as clueless and prejudiced — as, come to think of it, she does. (Kudos to NBC for airing this revealing though embarrassing footage.)
The political left claims to love racial diversity, but it bitterly opposes such diversity on the political right. This is an obvious matter of political self-interest: Since 1964, blacks have voted overwhelmingly Democratic. If Republicans were able to attract black votes, the result would be catastrophic for the Democratic Party.
[. . .]
These charges of racism are partly based on circular reasoning. Among Blow’s evidence that the tea-party movement is racist is “a New York Times/CBS News poll released on Wednesday [that] found that only 1 percent of Tea Party supporters are black and only 1 percent are Hispanic.” Other polls have put the black proportion as high as 5% (and, as Tom Maguire notes, Blow misreports his own paper’s Hispanic figure, which is actually 3%). But with blacks constituting some 12% of the population, there’s no question that the tea-party movement is whiter than the nation as a whole.
Yet to posit racism as an explanation is to ignore far more obvious and less invidious causes for the disparity.
H/T to LibertyIdeals for the link.
April 15, 2010
“Wolf! Wolf! Wolf! Oh, never mind . . .”
Marni Soupcoff points out that the World Health Organization should have been far more forthcoming after their intial “the sky is falling” announcements caused panic last year over H1N1:
Admit your mistakes before others exaggerate them. That’s the oft-quoted wry advice of writer and retired surgeon Dr. Andrew V. Mason. Perhaps the World Health Organization (WHO) was trying to follow it this week by convening a three-day meeting of outside experts to review the organization’s handling of the recent swine flu outbreak. The problem is, despite claiming to want to know what went wrong as much as what went right, the WHO seems unwilling to even entertain the possibility that it created a counterproductive panic by labelling H1N1 a pandemic of the highest order (“level 6”).
Swine flu, as you’ve probably realized by now, has turned out to be a mild, not particularly deadly virus — it’s certainly far less deadly than the regular seasonal flu that most of us consider a mundane part of everyday life. If one were feeling charitable toward the WHO, one could point out that it didn’t know back in the spring of last year — when it shouted “level 6!” from the rooftops — that H1N1 would prove to be such a relatively innocuous bug. But it’s precisely because it didn’t know that the WHO should have been more cautious with its labelling. You don’t shout “fire” in a crowded theatre just because it smells like the popcorn might be a little on the burnt side. It’s not worth the chaos and alarm you might cause. (Or in this case, the run on vaccines and the resorting to quacks and sketchy “home” remedies.)
Between the unrestrained use of the term “pandemic” and the noted ability of the mass media to hype real and imagined risks, it’s almost surprising we didn’t have doomsday-style cults spring up over H1N1.
April 12, 2010
QotD: A new award
Nothing punctures a swollen ego so neatly as public mockery. Anti- awards like the Rotten Tomatoes and Golden Raspberry Awards for awful films, for example, perform a useful service. They keep celebrities humble and they give ordinary folks vicarious power to punish the inferior efforts of vain and stupid people who have come to believe they are special.
There should be just such an award for journalists who mangle the rules of composition. I am thinking in particular of opinion writers who are so determined to chivvy the reader into accepting a conclusion for which no evidence is available that they attempt to disguise their lack of acumen with really rotten imagery, similes, metaphors and symbolism.
I would call this anti-award the “Dowdy” in “honour” of Maureen Dowd, who would be named its inaugural recipient for creating the Worst Simile of the Year, a simile that binds together her April 11 New York Times column about the Catholic Church pedophile scandals, “Worlds Without Women.”
Barbara Kay, “Saudi Arabia is not a men’s club”, National Post, 2010-04-12
April 6, 2010
Recommended to your attention
A link from the latest Reason Online mailing led to this article, which is quite worth reading, if only for the pro-Canadian/anti-Soviet-Canuckistan comments:
The Hate-America-First outfit Heritage Foundation says the U.S. of A. may be a tad freer when it comes to economics than trans-fat-free Denmark, land of free speech for Islamo-dumbkopfs, but is less free than Canada, a country whose greatest export remains a former pitchman for Molson Export and one of
both ofthe stars of the original Star Trek series
And some of the amusing comments:
¢: I’ll assume they say Canada’s freer because it’s much, much whiter. White supremacists always rank Hong Kong at the top of things.
Ken Shultz: I don’t have the stats handy, but I think the notion of Canada being remarkably “white” is a bit of a misconception . . . especially if by “white” you mean some sort of uniform ethnicity.
From aboriginals and metis to the francophones in Quebec, and from the ethnic Chinese in Vancouver to the “Newfies”, I think Canada’s a lot more diverse than most Americans give them credit for.
It’s almost an American conceit, I guess, that when we look at the rest of the world, we don’t think it’s diverse unless more than 10% of the population is of African ancestry? [. . .]
dr duncan druhl: If you lived near Francophones, Francophiles, or just the French in general, trust me, you’d buy that they are a very distinct group. The ones in Canada are strange because they can’t stand the French because the France-French look down their nose at them for their strange dialect, which is probably as close to common street French from the 16th and 17th century as we’ll likely find anywhere.
creech: Canadians are too modest to start bragging about this. Canadian tax rates are such that the boss is starting to jigger intercompany pricing to move profit from the U.S. to Canada. Used to be the other way around.
Force shits upon Reason’s back: Canadians are too modest
Have you ever met a Canadian? They have many fine traits; modesty is not among them.
March 30, 2010
Self-esteem versus self-respect
Theodore Dalrymple on the crucial differences between self-esteem and self-respect:
With the coyness of someone revealing a bizarre sexual taste, my patients would often say to me, “Doctor, I think I’m suffering from low self-esteem.” This, they believed, was at the root of their problem, whatever it was, for there is hardly any undesirable behavior or experience that has not been attributed, in the press and on the air, in books and in private conversations, to low self-esteem, from eating too much to mass murder.
[. . .]
When people speak of their low self-esteem, they imply two things: first, that it is a physiological fact, rather like low hemoglobin, and second, that they have a right to more of it. What they seek, if you like, is a transfusion of self-esteem, given (curiously enough) by others; and once they have it, the quality of their lives will improve as the night succeeds the day. For the record, I never had a patient who complained of having too much self-esteem, and who therefore asked for a reduction. Self-esteem, it appears, is like money or health: you can’t have too much of it.
Self-esteemists, if I may so call those who are concerned with the levels of their own self-esteem, believe that it is something to which they have a right. If they don’t have self-esteem in sufficient quantity to bring about a perfectly happy life, their fundamental rights are being violated. They feel aggrieved and let down by others rather than by themselves; they ascribe their lack of rightful self-esteem to the carping, and unjustified, criticism of parents, teachers, spouses, and colleagues.
The other side of the coin is rather different:
Self-respect is another quality entirely. Where self-esteem is entirely egotistical, requiring that the world should pay court to oneself whatever oneself happens to be like or do, and demands nothing of the person who wants it, self-respect is a social virtue, a discipline, that requires an awareness of and sensitivity to the feelings of others. It requires an ability and willingness to put oneself in someone else’s place; it requires dignity and fortitude, and not always taking the line of least resistance.
[. . .]
Self-respect requires fortitude, one of the cardinal virtues; self-esteem encourages emotional incontinence that, while not actually itself a cardinal sin, is certainly a vice, and a very unattractive one. Self-respect and self-esteem are as different as depth and shallowness.
March 16, 2010
QotD: The iPhone vision of the mobile internet
The iPhone vision of the mobile Internet’s future omits controversy, sex, and freedom, but includes strict limits on who can know what and who can say what. It’s a sterile Disney-fied walled garden surrounded by sharp-toothed lawyers. The people who create the apps serve at the landlord’s pleasure and fear his anger.
I hate it.
I hate it even though the iPhone hardware and software are great, because freedom’s not just another word for anything, nor is it an optional ingredient.
The big thing about the Web isn’t the technology, it’s that it’s the first-ever platform without a vendor (credit for first pointing this out goes to Dave Winer). From that follows almost everything that matters, and it matters a lot now, to a huge number of people. It’s the only kind of platform I want to help build.
Apple apparently thinks you can have the benefits of the Internet while at the same time controlling what programs can be run and what parts of the stack can be accessed and what developers can say to each other.
I think they’re wrong and see this job as a chance to help prove it.
The tragedy is that Apple builds some great open platforms; I’ve been a happy buyer of their computing systems for some years now and, despite my current irritation, will probably go on using them.
Tim Bray, “Now a No-Evil Zone”, ongoing, 2010-03-15
