Fri - November 21, 2003

Kill your TV



I want to quote something from Theodore Dalrymple (it's a pen name--his real name is Anthony Daniels), a British psychiatrist and social commentator. He spends much of his time treating prisoners in London and has closely observed the British underclass and its pathologies. You can read the full article in The Spectator (UK), but here's I think a particularly profound observation:

In the modern world, the availability, indeed ubiquity, of entertainment is the most potent cause of boredom. It causes boredom because the world cannot ever be as fast-moving or dramatic as audiovisual entertainment, and for most of the time interest has to be extracted from the world rather than merely absorbed from it passively. Hence the more people with vacant minds seek distraction by entertainment, the more bored they grow; and bored people create chaos in their lives because intense misery is preferable to ennui. I have long thought that much social pathology is an attempt to evade boredom by the propagation of violent crises; and, since television causes boredom, it thereby causes social pathology.

I recall reading a study done in South Africa, which had no television broadcasts until the 60's, that the introduction of TV coincided with a substantial increase in violent crime. This despite the fact that TV was heavily censored, so it is doubtful that the particular nature of the programming was to blame. People have of course speculated as to why television and violent behavior should be correlated, but I think that Dalrymple has isolated an overlooked factor which seems pretty compelling to me. Having gone cold turkey myself (when the cable company finally unplugged the live connection to my apartment which I wasn't paying for) I can say that it is a lot easier to get bored without the idiot box, especially when I'm alone. I've even had to resort to (gasp!) reading books, and writing the occasional blog. There really is something about TV that programs you to take in, and expect, a huge flux of information at an ever increasing rate. Like video games which move ever faster as we adapt ourselves to evaluate and react more quickly, TV (and film) has taken on the MTV style of jerky cameras, quick cuts, and dizzying edits. Amazingly we accept this and even manage to process it--a true miracle of the capacity of the human brain.

Then there is real life which so often hardly moves at all. For an educated person, there are of course alternatives. Work, which usually is in doors and requires no heavy lifting. Books or hobbies are others. The educated person has the ability to occupy themselves with interesting things, but what about the uneducated, or perhaps more precisely the willfully uneducated? When you know very little, you don't know what to do with yourself; your world is very small. How many violent crimes started out because "me and the boys were hanging out with nothing to do so we decided to ..."? The thrills of crime, particularly violent crime, satisfy that need to cure boredom. The frustration of boredom must be incendiary. Our entertainment--TV, video games, popular music, etc.--has conditioned us to observe at a uselessly fast rate, which might ironically be good for some, like the work-o-holic, but is disastrous for others. Lacking the ability to discipline themselves, the uneducated are constantly bored. They either drown themselves in ever more entertainment or create trouble. It is an interesting idea, and one that poses many challenges. If true, I don't know what the solution could be.

By the way, if you are interested in the rest of the article, Dalrymple goes on to discuss how the British underclass is absorbing much of the worst aspects of Americana (from the predominantly American TV shows), to the point of using American words instead of British (e.g. high school), without the corresponding positives of American culture. He believes that Americans compensate for their boredom by constantly striving for personal improvement and lets face it, making a buck, whereas the British, particularly the underclass, are socialist. They look to the government to provide and don't value individual achievement as much. Interesting cultural comparison. I wonder how well it might apply to our own underclass.

Posted at 09:55 PM     Read More  


Fri - November 14, 2003

More reader mail!



"Don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to support a serial molester when you condemn someone who engaged in consensual sexual activity?"

Response 1: Oh pshaw, I live in Berkeley; you'll have to try much harder to bait me than that! :-P.

Response 2: The fact that Clinton used the intern program like an escort service made him low rent; it was the perjury that got him impeached. Of course I never liked Clinton and disagreed with about 9 out of 10 things he did, but you can't impeach someone for that. You can when they commit perjury. We can't tolerate a president who will abjectly lie the way Bill Clinton did. For all the cynicism out there, most presidents don't (and that is true of both parties). I used to think that Nixon got a bum rap, but after watching Clinton in action I realize they both got what they deserved. Nixon lied; Clinton lied. Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment; Clinton was impeached. In the case of the latter, the skirt was incidental. And by the way, if you are a president in search of a mistress, choose one commensurate with your stature--an educated, classy woman of independent means, not some dimwitted, star-struck, chatty twenty-something intern with an IQ of a hand bag (who now designs hand bags).

And just a little more on the accusations against Ahnold. Since almost none of these women will give out their names, it is a bit hard to take them too seriously. Even if we do take them at their word, remember this happened at a place of work where people routinely disrobe and simulate copulation while a crew films it and a guy with a megaphone yells out instructions on how to it better. This isn't exactly the executive office at IBM. But seriously, Ahnold probably was an arrogant movie star who thought he could score with any girl he chose. Does that make him a great role model? No. Would I have preferred someone else over him? Yes, I believe I covered this topic. Given the choice between Ahnold and Gray Davis, who did I choose? Oh please...

Posted at 07:32 PM     Read More  


Fri - October 24, 2003

Clean up your mess



Apparently there is supposed to be a big protest tomorrow in downtown SF to "bring the troops home". I could say a lot about this but instead I'll quote an actual Iraqi on the subject (he wasn't a fan of the war): "You can't just come into a man's house, make a mess, and then just leave!" Seems to me that this guy is capable of a lot more logic than your average peace protester; maybe there's reason to hope for Iraq.

Posted at 09:00 PM     Read More  


Wed - October 15, 2003

Is we stoopid?



This whole thing with Rush and his drug problem has brought up something that always irks. From all the usual suspects we're hearing about how dumb his audience and how Rush fooled them with his shtick. I'm a Rush fan and I've listened to him on and off for years; I've got a PhD in astrophysics. Those of you from Rio Linda might be interested to know that they don't hand those out for being stupid. My wife is working on a PhD at a third rate institution called the University of California at Berkeley. Yep, she enjoys Rush too. Ditto for my mother in law--PhD in English (!). My dad was the one who introduced me to Rush. I'm not sure if he's still a listener, and he didn't agree all that much with Limbaugh, but he still enjoyed the show. He's a retired professor of greek history. Detecting a pattern here?

But here's the broader point: why is it that liberals believe that conservatives are all dimwits? This goes beyond the common feeling that people who disagree with us are stupid. Normal people realize this is just emotions talking. We all know someone who doesn't share our political views who we still recognize as intelligent, maybe even more intelligent than ourselves. Still, I think that liberals really believe they are smarter. And, I think that this belief is really a defense mechanism. If liberals thought that conservatives were their equals in intelligence, then they would be compelled to address conservative arguments foursquarely. They would have to prove their ideas with reason and evidence, which is really a losing proposition. Liberalism is fueled by imagination. It isn't about they way things are but the way things ought to be (my apologies Rush), looking at the world that might be and asking "why not?". Putting that vision to the test here in this world isn't likely to produce satisfactory results; utopia is elsewhere. Better to believe that conservatives are dumb than to address them seriously--that just drags you back into the unpleasant reality.

Posted at 10:12 PM     Read More  


Wed - October 8, 2003

We interrupt this blog...



For some gloating!

Na, na, na, na,
Na, na, na, na,
Hey, hey, Gray,
Goodbye!

Just had to do that.

Posted at 06:06 PM     Read More  


Tue - October 7, 2003

Terminated



All the news agencies are officially calling the recall passed and predicting Ahnold the winner. Unless there's some sort of miracle, you can put a fork in Grayout, because he's done. With 12% of the votes counted, 56% of voters have come out in favor of the recall and 54% for Ahnold. I don't know how that will hold up state wide, but I for one am really surprised. If the terminator can win an outright majority of votes, he will definitely be in the drivers seat when he takes up residence in Sacramento. Let's just hope he doesn't take too many left turns. I figured the recall was in good shape when early exit polling showed Ahnold with a 54% favorability rating to Davis paltry 20 something. Even Bustamante couldn't pull more than the mid 30's in favorability.

Switching to the proposition front, it looks like prop 54, the racial privacy initiative will go down in flames. I guess I'm not surprised because I think most people hadn't heard much about this one, or only heard negative things. I don't see it as a huge loss, because it wasn't likely to have the substantial effect that 209, which ended state sponsored affirmative action, did. I don't like losing this one, but it there wasn't a lot on the line.

On a brighter note, prop 69 looks like it is well on the way to passing. Given the strong support for the recall I guess it isn't all that surprising that a ballot initiative that would require the current governor's head to be repeatedly dunked in a flushing toilet by a burly movie star until he "cries like a woman" would pass by a substantial margin. Unfortunately it seems likely that this initiative will be overturned by the infamous 9th circuit on constitutional grounds. Lawyers claim that the particular language "cries like a woman" is discriminatory. The challenge came too late for supporters to change the offending phrase on the ballot to "cries like a cowardly, week willed person of any gender, race or creed", so we may not be treated to a Gray Davis swirly after all. Once again the it appears that tyrannical courts will thwart the democratic will of the people.

Posted at 09:24 PM     Read More  


Thu - October 2, 2003

Late hit



I haven't read the LA Times story detailing Ahnolds preferred methods for picking up chicks, so I'm just not going to bother commenting directly on the allegations. But here's what I want to know: Ahnold has been campaigning for governor for months, and the allegations go back many years, so why is this story coming out now? Let's just say it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to solve this mystery. I think that I can say with near certainty that one of two things is true. Either the Times had this story for months and withheld its release to do maximum damage, or the Democratic party had the story and coordinated with the Times to ensure that the Times couldn't run it until it could to maximum damage. It is the late hit strategy, and it has been repeatedly put to good effect (see George W. Bush and DWI, a very near miss).

How can I be so sure this is a late hit? That's easy. First, everyone has been predicting it, and because Bob Molhulland is an expert in its use. Second, I think that if Ahnolds accusers were for real, they would have been telling there story to anyone who would listen from day one. Wouldn't you? If you or your wife or whatever were groped by Ahnold and then you saw him on TV running for governor, wouldn't you be on the phone in like 5 minutes. This would be your one and only chance to get any real payback. It isn't like you are going to beat Ahnold up, and he has enough money and lawyers to make any lawsuit on your part a futile effort. Money and fame are mighty shields. One of the few times that a nobody can really nail a powerful person is when said person is running for office. On the campaign trail, they can't do anything really nasty against you because it would look bad, and there's a built in audience who will take you seriously (called members of the opposing party). I think it is a given then that under normal circumstances these kinds of allegations would have surfaced quite quickly. Why didn't they? Like I said before, either the Times or the Democratic party controlled the story. In verison a, the Times actually had all the ingredients for the story for some but withholds it until the end of the campaign when Ahnold won't have enough time to respond. Their motivation is simply partisan: the editors are liberal and they want to damage Republicans whenever possible. In version b, the Democratic party packages the story, lining up accusers willing to play the game, and then only releases it at a strategic moment. Here the motivations are the same, but they get a little cover. The paper can truthfully claim that they reported the story when the facts became known, but it isn't like they weren't in on the game. In either case, the Times has reduced itself to being nothing more than the Democratic party's whore.

Generally speaking, I am truly galled by the degree to which the media allows itself to knowingly be manipulated by the political class (of either party I might add) without revealing it to the consumer. The late hit is a perfect example. There's also the case of leaks. Some leaks come from the administration, some from those opposed to it. Whatever the source, the information is leaked for a political purpose. Why is it that when we hear about information from anonymous sources we never get any sort of disclaimer about what their motive is, or at least suspected to be. Why isn't it made clear that leaked information is intended to manipulate some process, to promote a particular agenda, or just to score points. Then there's the Clintons. Their operatives were so brazen that they even admitted controlling the release of negative stories to coincide with Friday evenings so that by Monday morning they could call it all old news. Reporters say that if it is news, they have to report it regardless of the motivations of the source. Fine, but we deserve to know why it is we are getting this information and why we are getting at a particular time. If the press or the TV news thinks that someone is playing games, they ought to say so outright. Back to Ahnold. If the Times did receive a packaged story from the Democrats, I can understand why they still ran it even though they know that the timing of its release is brazenly partisan. Why can't they just say so? Don't we readers have the right to know that the timing of this story was coordinated for political advantage. What I can't abide is that they didn't give us the inside story. If the story was a gift from the Democrats, it should have featured prominently in the reporting. They should have clearly said, important details of this story were only recently revealed to us by sources closely associated with the Democratic party and we (the Times, that is) believe that the timing of the release of this information is not incidental. They didn't of course. We all know that the media has now become even less trusted than purveyors of used cars. Maybe so few people trust the media because they know that this is the kind of information it is hiding from us.

Posted at 06:15 PM     Read More  

What's up with Rush?!?



About the whole ESPN tempest in a tea pot, all I have to say is that Rush's comments were neither racist nor beyond the pale. He said McNabb is overrated and the maybe (and he hedged here) the reason is because he's a black QB and some sportswriters are anxious to promote black quarterbacks. Rush didn't in say or imply that McNabb was less talented because he nor did he say or imply that race had anything to do with his performance on the field. He did say that McNabb may have been the beneficiary of some media affirmative action, but that is all. It is a debatable point, but like I said, not beyond the pale.

About the pills, I have a bad feeling about this one. I'm going to hold off commenting until tomorrow when we'll get a chance to hear from him directly, but his first response is ominous. What Rush said, basically, is that as far as he knows he is under no investigation and no authority has contacted him about any investigation. What he didn't say was that the allegations were false. Maybe that is just emphasis, but maybe he's being Clintonian (and I don't say that lightly). By emphasis I mean that to him the idea of being under criminal investigation is the most odious part of the allegation and therefore the one he wishes to refute first. We shall see...

Posted at 05:20 PM     Read More  


Tue - September 30, 2003

Total Recall



I think I'm obligated under some obscure California law to blog on the subject of the upcoming recall election. First off, I am of two minds on the whole concept. On the one hand, I basically agree that the recall is a bad idea, theoretically speaking. I think that the stability of regularly scheduled elections makes more sense than parliamentary systems where elections get called at odd intervals. We just had a chance to "recall" Davis and replace him with the perfectly respectable Bill Simon, but didn't. Now we're just playing by playground rules and calling a do over. And it is a stupid do over. It is obvious when the recall was instated that the major parties assumed it would never be used, or they wouldn't have designed an election which minimizes the control of the parties. Any fool $3500 and a few hundred signatures on a petition can run for governor, so we have 130 candidates most of them who aren't just any fools, but the creme de la creme of fools.

On the other hand, Gray Davis is about as loathsome a politician as they come. Think Bill Clinton with all the corruption and none of the charm. Davis has proven to be little more than a prostitute, selling his vote and support to the highest bidder. Stories abound of him informing constituencies of the exact price in campaign contributions that will be needed to get him to support some piece of legislation. The result: a government spending binge of mind boggling proportions and a major financial crisi--barely papered over for the time being with illegal bond sales and a tripling of the vehicle registration tax. Without cuts, tens of billions of dollars in new taxes each year will have to be collected. This in a state with a 10% income tax bracket that starts off at $38,000 dollars of taxable income! This is even worse than it sounds because incomes are higher in CA. Basically if you are middle class, you may well find yourself in the highest bracket.

Part of the whole problem goes back to Davis's gross mishandling of the power "crisis" of a few years back. Everyone knew that the cockamamie "deregulation" scheme where consumer prices were fixed but producer costs weren't, along with banning of all long term contracts, insured disaster. The consumer has to pay for the actual costs of what he is buying, and producers need to hedge with long term contracts and derivative to dampen short term fluctuations. Once problems arose, Davis managed to find the optimally worst solution: he signed long term contracts with energy producers (in Texes, ha!) when prices where at there peak! These costs weren't passed on to the consumer through higher rates which would at least promote conservation, but instead were eaten by the government to be paid by the taxpayer anyway. Genius. Needless to say, seeing Mr. Davis humiliated as the first recalled governor in California history and the first in the nation since something like 1918 will be a real pleasure.

So what about the other candidates. Sadly, the polls seem to suggest that Gary "Diff'rnt Strokes" Coleman isn't likely to win, nor will the porn star (the wife wouldn't even let me download her campaign literature). That leaves Ahnold and Tom McClintock. All indications are that Ahnold is soon going to be moving into the governors mansion, but only time will tell. What do I think of the terminator. Well, he's an improvement over Davis, that's for sure. Still, he claims to be a fiscal conservative and social liberal. For those of you not in the know, that means liberal. There's also the rule (sort of like Nixon going to China) that says it takes a Republican to raise taxes. I have a hard time seeing Ahnold go aggressively after all the stupid spending needed to balance the budget as constitutionally mandated in CA, which means my taxes are going up. Worse, they are going up with a Republican in office--they are supposed to be for lower taxes dammit!

That leaves McClintock. He's a dyed in the wool conservative with an actual plan to fix the states finances without raising taxes. If it were passed it would do great things for the economy which is languishing as anyone with money or jobs heads for the border. There's a reason why cities like Las Vegas are booming. Unfortunately, McClintock can't win. Actually, if Ahnold weren't in the race he probably could have (if the state party got behind him, which wouldn't have been a sure thing since it didn't support him in is run to be state treasurer). But Ahnold is in the race, he is the man, and this isn't a what if universe. I am going to vote for him because it is critical to defeat Davis and his former lackey (now turncoat) Cruz Bustamante (Bustamante? Is that some sort of Mexican Russ Meyer's film?). It would have been great to see a true conservative (the first since Reagan) to take a crack at running this state. I think such a man could be a tremendous success, but I'll settle for Ahnold, because he is better the option b and he might surprise me.

Posted at 06:08 PM     Read More  

©