Mon - January 12, 2003
Blogging on Panther
So my new blog lives here.
I had to change because iBlog wouldn't update my data from the previous 1.2.6 format to the 1.3.x format. So this blog will stay static, and new stuff will appear in the new place.
Fri - October 24, 2003
Tokens
Creo ,
the company I work for, mostly does prepress hardware and software. But Creo
also provides some software for a broader audience. Recently, Creo released a
pretty nifty utility called Tokens . Joel on Software has a nice
write-up
.
Posted: October 24, 2003 0:4 Mac Read More Email Comments
Tue - October 21, 2003
The Endowment Effect and the Gift
Economy
Greg Goelzhauser has
had a few interesting posts recently about his experience with a ticket to a
football game. Noting that he would never pay the "market" price for a good
ticket ($200), he is unwilling to part with a ticket he has fallen into
possession of. That is, he is unwilling to sell his ticket for $200, so he must
value it more that. However, before owning the ticket, he wouldn't even have
paid $100 for a ticket, so he must value it less than
$100.
For an economist, this is an example of "irrational" behavior: that something can be valued differently depending on whether or not you own it, a phenomenon called the "endowment effect". Cash value is supposed to be independent of ownership when a sufficiently fluid market exists, as in the case of football game tickets: if someone has a ticket they value less than the market value, they can increase their perceived value by selling the ticket. On the other hand, people who value a ticket more than they value the cash in their pocket can buy a ticket and increase their perceived value.
Rather than persist in calling people irrational (though at times they certainly are), I'd prefer to look for other forces which create value in ways that can't be arbitraged by a market: the value of community spirit, for example, or the value of a social network, or the value of one's personal reputation. These are all forces at work in the gift economy .
The strength of traditional economics has been the ability to quantify the various economic forces which shape most of our livelihoods. Irrational behavior such as that shown in the endowment effect is a thorn in the side of economics simply because it seems to be unquantifiable. Yet I see a positive side: with enough examples such as the football game ticket, we ought to be able to sort out exactly where that extra value is created which causes the endowment effect. I don't think people are irrational -- I think that there is real value created when you own an item like the football ticket -- but that value doesn't have an associated market -- it is value in the gift economy and not the exchange economy.
And with understanding of where the value resides, we can measure the value in the gift economy by looking at its interaction with the exchange economy. It may sound very silly to ask people how much a community is worth to someone. How much is your college community worth in dollars? How much is your professional circle worth in dollars? But measuring the magnitude of the endowment effect could give us a quantitative idea about the answers to those questions. In other words, if a football ticket increases in value by $100 when you own it, that must mean that there is something worth at least $100 that isn't for sale in any store.
For an economist, this is an example of "irrational" behavior: that something can be valued differently depending on whether or not you own it, a phenomenon called the "endowment effect". Cash value is supposed to be independent of ownership when a sufficiently fluid market exists, as in the case of football game tickets: if someone has a ticket they value less than the market value, they can increase their perceived value by selling the ticket. On the other hand, people who value a ticket more than they value the cash in their pocket can buy a ticket and increase their perceived value.
Rather than persist in calling people irrational (though at times they certainly are), I'd prefer to look for other forces which create value in ways that can't be arbitraged by a market: the value of community spirit, for example, or the value of a social network, or the value of one's personal reputation. These are all forces at work in the gift economy .
The strength of traditional economics has been the ability to quantify the various economic forces which shape most of our livelihoods. Irrational behavior such as that shown in the endowment effect is a thorn in the side of economics simply because it seems to be unquantifiable. Yet I see a positive side: with enough examples such as the football game ticket, we ought to be able to sort out exactly where that extra value is created which causes the endowment effect. I don't think people are irrational -- I think that there is real value created when you own an item like the football ticket -- but that value doesn't have an associated market -- it is value in the gift economy and not the exchange economy.
And with understanding of where the value resides, we can measure the value in the gift economy by looking at its interaction with the exchange economy. It may sound very silly to ask people how much a community is worth to someone. How much is your college community worth in dollars? How much is your professional circle worth in dollars? But measuring the magnitude of the endowment effect could give us a quantitative idea about the answers to those questions. In other words, if a football ticket increases in value by $100 when you own it, that must mean that there is something worth at least $100 that isn't for sale in any store.
Posted: October 21, 2003 23:26 Science Read More Email Comments
Sun - October 19, 2003
An iPod Question: Marks Within Songs
?
Tomo asks about whether the iPod has built-in
support for marking particular locations within a song.
Here's the use case: her hula group needs to practice different parts of a song repeatedly, and in whatever order feels most productive for the rehearsal. This means quickly switching to different points in a song: beginning of first verse, beginning of second verse, etc.
I know the iPod remote control can do a simple fast forward or reverse, but this doesn't seem nearly as slick as being able to do one click (or two or three perhaps) to get to exactly the place where you want to get.
I suppose one could split a particular track up into many songs, so the iPod thinks of a four-minute song as a dozen twenty second songs, but that seems like overkill. Anyone have a good suggestion?
Here's the use case: her hula group needs to practice different parts of a song repeatedly, and in whatever order feels most productive for the rehearsal. This means quickly switching to different points in a song: beginning of first verse, beginning of second verse, etc.
I know the iPod remote control can do a simple fast forward or reverse, but this doesn't seem nearly as slick as being able to do one click (or two or three perhaps) to get to exactly the place where you want to get.
I suppose one could split a particular track up into many songs, so the iPod thinks of a four-minute song as a dozen twenty second songs, but that seems like overkill. Anyone have a good suggestion?
Posted: October 19, 2003 15:6 Mac Read More Email Comments
Wed - October 15, 2003
Pin-Headed Religious Zealot and the Marriage
Amendment
I'm on a mailing list for folk who were once
overseas doing missionary work. Its mostly how-the-kids-are-doing chit chat,
but occasionally there is a thread on contemporary Christian issues.
I'm probably the most liberal person who subscribes to this list, which isn't too much of a surprise, given the generally conservative nature of the mission field, but occasionally the pin-headed zeal of some of the members puts me in a tizzy. Rather than flame the list, I'm responding here. Its just more productive this way.
Here's the quote from the list today:
One last thing, please call or contact your local congress person(s) to support the Marriage Ammendment. Since the courts and the liberals have been on this push to destroy both our Christian foundations and the family this is our only hope to stem the tide of this political onslaught on our God given freedoms. I must agree with the over 24 family related organizations that have come together in support of this legislation. We the people need to be heard, especially Christian people! We can no longer sit in our churches and wag our fingers and shake our heads at the athiest outside our walls. They want nothing more than to remove our religious freedoms. Please pray for our country, for our leaders and that God would have His hand in these matters. Remember, it is not the special interests and corrupt politicians that we stand against, but against all the powers of darkness that is spoken of in Scripture. This is a spiritual battle and we need to pray against this spiritual onslaught. Our country and our culture and our freedoms are at stake. So please, flood the switchboards of Washington or your local congresspersons office with support of the Federal Marriage Ammendment Act. This liberal madness must stop!
Step by step, lets help this lost soul understand why we loathe his views so much.
Since the courts and the liberals have been on this push to destroy both our Christian foundations and the family this is our only hope to stem the tide of this political onslaught on our God given freedoms.
Which freedom would that be? The freedom to force your views on other people? As far as I can tell, allowing civil unions between consenting adults doesn't take away anyone's God-given freedoms, and it certainly won't destroy anyone's family. If, indeed, someone's Christian faith is tested beyond its limits by a such a law, what a pitiful faith that must be! If someone's family could be destroyed by such a law, it must not be a family worth saving.
I must agree with the over 24 family related organizations that have come together in support of this legislation.
So what exactly is a family related organization? Would that be an organization of people who come from families? So the opponents of this legislation presumably don't come from families -- perhaps they are alien who were born in pods.
We the people need to be heard, especially Christian people!
Is this because the voices of Christian people count more than the voices of others? And why do you think that Christians would support this legislation anyway?
We can no longer sit in our churches and wag our fingers and shake our heads at the athiest outside our walls.
If that's what people did in my Church I'd get the heebee-geebees, but that's besides the point. There are plenty of us Christians inside the Church who think the Marriage Amendment is a terrible idea, and it is folly to think that Christian doctrine is clear on the matter.
They want nothing more than to remove our religious freedoms.
Like, for example, the freedom to sit in your church and wag your finger? Exactly which freedom are you talking about? Which freedom do you have now that would be taken away if the government were to allow Gay Marriage?
Please pray for our country, for our leaders and that God would have His hand in these matters.
We'll both do that.
Remember, it is not the special interests and corrupt politicians that we stand against, but against all the powers of darkness that is spoken of in Scripture.
So, by opposing the Marriage Amendment, I must be either a special interest, a corrupt politician, or one of the powers of darkness, is that it? Well, you brain-dead, self-righteous zealot, I take offense at that. You may have appointed yourself as the world authority on what is right and what is wrong, but reasonable people don't really care what you think. Much as you would like to believe it, Scripture offers me little in the way of support for this legislation.
Now certainly, I'll admit that you can find plenty of Scripture which tells you how to live, but nowhere does Scripture tell us that Governments should be instituted among men for the purpose of religious indoctrination. You may want to turn the United States into a theocracy along the lines of Saudi Arabia or Iran, but the average American doesn't. If anything, Scripture tells us we are not and should not be bound by the Laws of Men. In Romans 7 Paul urges us to not focus on the particulars of the Commandments, but instead to find a Holy direction for ourselves through faith. If Paul had read your message, he would respond "You silly dweeb! Stop trying to legislate your faith, and start trying to live it!"
This is a spiritual battle and we need to pray against this spiritual onslaught. Our country and our culture and our freedoms are at stake.
I pray for a spiritual onslaught, one that would free you from your tired prejudices, from your petty grievances and from your hateful self-centeredness. Actually, your freedoms are not at stake. At stake is the freedoms of those whom you would oppress.
So please, flood the switchboards of Washington or your local congresspersons office with support of the Federal Marriage Ammendment Act.
No doubt your congressperson has nothing better to do than deal with a flood of calls on this topic, what with the economy doing so well, the incredible Federal budget surpluses, the continuing successes of American foreign policy, the victory in the War against Terrorism, the fact that no one is poor anymore, everyone has adequate health care, starvation is no longer a problem, women can finally feel safe in their homes and of course the fact that no one gets pulled over any more for driving while black. Our elected officials need to have something to do in their copious spare time -- nothing could be more productive than a Constitutional Amendment about the word 'Marriage'
This liberal madness must stop!
I agree, but you keep writing and increasing my madness.
I'm probably the most liberal person who subscribes to this list, which isn't too much of a surprise, given the generally conservative nature of the mission field, but occasionally the pin-headed zeal of some of the members puts me in a tizzy. Rather than flame the list, I'm responding here. Its just more productive this way.
Here's the quote from the list today:
One last thing, please call or contact your local congress person(s) to support the Marriage Ammendment. Since the courts and the liberals have been on this push to destroy both our Christian foundations and the family this is our only hope to stem the tide of this political onslaught on our God given freedoms. I must agree with the over 24 family related organizations that have come together in support of this legislation. We the people need to be heard, especially Christian people! We can no longer sit in our churches and wag our fingers and shake our heads at the athiest outside our walls. They want nothing more than to remove our religious freedoms. Please pray for our country, for our leaders and that God would have His hand in these matters. Remember, it is not the special interests and corrupt politicians that we stand against, but against all the powers of darkness that is spoken of in Scripture. This is a spiritual battle and we need to pray against this spiritual onslaught. Our country and our culture and our freedoms are at stake. So please, flood the switchboards of Washington or your local congresspersons office with support of the Federal Marriage Ammendment Act. This liberal madness must stop!
Step by step, lets help this lost soul understand why we loathe his views so much.
Since the courts and the liberals have been on this push to destroy both our Christian foundations and the family this is our only hope to stem the tide of this political onslaught on our God given freedoms.
Which freedom would that be? The freedom to force your views on other people? As far as I can tell, allowing civil unions between consenting adults doesn't take away anyone's God-given freedoms, and it certainly won't destroy anyone's family. If, indeed, someone's Christian faith is tested beyond its limits by a such a law, what a pitiful faith that must be! If someone's family could be destroyed by such a law, it must not be a family worth saving.
I must agree with the over 24 family related organizations that have come together in support of this legislation.
So what exactly is a family related organization? Would that be an organization of people who come from families? So the opponents of this legislation presumably don't come from families -- perhaps they are alien who were born in pods.
We the people need to be heard, especially Christian people!
Is this because the voices of Christian people count more than the voices of others? And why do you think that Christians would support this legislation anyway?
We can no longer sit in our churches and wag our fingers and shake our heads at the athiest outside our walls.
If that's what people did in my Church I'd get the heebee-geebees, but that's besides the point. There are plenty of us Christians inside the Church who think the Marriage Amendment is a terrible idea, and it is folly to think that Christian doctrine is clear on the matter.
They want nothing more than to remove our religious freedoms.
Like, for example, the freedom to sit in your church and wag your finger? Exactly which freedom are you talking about? Which freedom do you have now that would be taken away if the government were to allow Gay Marriage?
Please pray for our country, for our leaders and that God would have His hand in these matters.
We'll both do that.
Remember, it is not the special interests and corrupt politicians that we stand against, but against all the powers of darkness that is spoken of in Scripture.
So, by opposing the Marriage Amendment, I must be either a special interest, a corrupt politician, or one of the powers of darkness, is that it? Well, you brain-dead, self-righteous zealot, I take offense at that. You may have appointed yourself as the world authority on what is right and what is wrong, but reasonable people don't really care what you think. Much as you would like to believe it, Scripture offers me little in the way of support for this legislation.
Now certainly, I'll admit that you can find plenty of Scripture which tells you how to live, but nowhere does Scripture tell us that Governments should be instituted among men for the purpose of religious indoctrination. You may want to turn the United States into a theocracy along the lines of Saudi Arabia or Iran, but the average American doesn't. If anything, Scripture tells us we are not and should not be bound by the Laws of Men. In Romans 7 Paul urges us to not focus on the particulars of the Commandments, but instead to find a Holy direction for ourselves through faith. If Paul had read your message, he would respond "You silly dweeb! Stop trying to legislate your faith, and start trying to live it!"
This is a spiritual battle and we need to pray against this spiritual onslaught. Our country and our culture and our freedoms are at stake.
I pray for a spiritual onslaught, one that would free you from your tired prejudices, from your petty grievances and from your hateful self-centeredness. Actually, your freedoms are not at stake. At stake is the freedoms of those whom you would oppress.
So please, flood the switchboards of Washington or your local congresspersons office with support of the Federal Marriage Ammendment Act.
No doubt your congressperson has nothing better to do than deal with a flood of calls on this topic, what with the economy doing so well, the incredible Federal budget surpluses, the continuing successes of American foreign policy, the victory in the War against Terrorism, the fact that no one is poor anymore, everyone has adequate health care, starvation is no longer a problem, women can finally feel safe in their homes and of course the fact that no one gets pulled over any more for driving while black. Our elected officials need to have something to do in their copious spare time -- nothing could be more productive than a Constitutional Amendment about the word 'Marriage'
This liberal madness must stop!
I agree, but you keep writing and increasing my madness.
Posted: October 15, 2003 0:52 Law Read More Email Comments
Tue - October 14, 2003
Ferron in Seattle
Ferron will appear at the
University of Washington May 29 2004. Get your tickets now: 206.323.0750. I
don't think its part of a big tour ( it's the only date for six months ) so it
might make for a very indulgent gig.
I saw Ferron in Boston on the Phantom Center tour in 1990 - 91, and she was fantastic. I remember, however, that plenty of the crowd was lukewarm about the electric guitar heavy sound of the Phantom Center band, as if it was a repudiation of the coziness of the Women's folk music sound from her earlier work. What, a woman's not allowed to explore?
I saw Ferron in Boston on the Phantom Center tour in 1990 - 91, and she was fantastic. I remember, however, that plenty of the crowd was lukewarm about the electric guitar heavy sound of the Phantom Center band, as if it was a repudiation of the coziness of the Women's folk music sound from her earlier work. What, a woman's not allowed to explore?
Posted: October 14, 2003 0:15 Music Read More Email Comments
Thu - October 9, 2003
Click it or Ticket
I'm disturbed by the phrase "Click it or ticket" --
the slogan for the recent buckle up campaign. It gets a lot of visibility here
in Washington, and I know it gets the same in Pennsylvania, because WPEN always
had Click it or ticket commercials during Phillies games this year, and I
suspect a similar campaign is ongoing in many
states.
I think the ad campaign is good policy -- what bothers me is the abuse taken by the English language. In my mind, anything phrased as "A or B" implies that A is the same kind of thing as B, even if they may be opposites, as in "feast or famine" (noun or noun) , "sink or swim" (verb or verb) , "red or green" (adjective or adjective).
In the case of "click it or ticket", that's a verb phrase or a noun: not exactly a pair of complementary choices. I simply can't hear this phrase without thinking about how wrong it sounds, which seems to defeat the point of the ads. Somewhere, some time ago, a marketing wonk decided that a catchy sound was worth whatever negative impact it might have on delivering the message. It may have euphony, but as far as grammar goes, its just phony to me.
I think the ad campaign is good policy -- what bothers me is the abuse taken by the English language. In my mind, anything phrased as "A or B" implies that A is the same kind of thing as B, even if they may be opposites, as in "feast or famine" (noun or noun) , "sink or swim" (verb or verb) , "red or green" (adjective or adjective).
In the case of "click it or ticket", that's a verb phrase or a noun: not exactly a pair of complementary choices. I simply can't hear this phrase without thinking about how wrong it sounds, which seems to defeat the point of the ads. Somewhere, some time ago, a marketing wonk decided that a catchy sound was worth whatever negative impact it might have on delivering the message. It may have euphony, but as far as grammar goes, its just phony to me.
Posted: October 9, 2003 21:21 Language Read More Email Comments
Japan October 2003
Tomo and Staffan have just returned from two weeks
in Japan. Here
are some pictures from the trip. Click on the thumbnails for a
higher-rez image.
Staffan starting really liking kanji, the chinese characters used in Japanese writing, and of course he learned a lot of Japanese.
In the pictures, you can see Staffan getting dressed up in kimono for some studio photos with his cousin Miki, playing soccer with the neighborhood kids, on a trip to the Edo museum and on an outing at Disney Sea(the theme park adjacent to Tokyo Disneyland), and visiting NHK (where Tomo's father works) with his friend Ray and his family.
Staffan starting really liking kanji, the chinese characters used in Japanese writing, and of course he learned a lot of Japanese.
In the pictures, you can see Staffan getting dressed up in kimono for some studio photos with his cousin Miki, playing soccer with the neighborhood kids, on a trip to the Edo museum and on an outing at Disney Sea(the theme park adjacent to Tokyo Disneyland), and visiting NHK (where Tomo's father works) with his friend Ray and his family.
Posted: October 9, 2003 20:57 Family Read More Email Comments
Fri - October 3, 2003
Politically Correct in 1793
Some time ago, the phrase "politically correct" was
hijacked to refer to a form of absurd censorship where, for example, someone who
was was losing their hair should not be called 'bald' -- because of the negative
connotations associated with that word -- but instead some other phrase like
'follically-challenged'. It is easy to make fun of such nonsense, and so use of
the term "politically correct" skyrocketed.
Ironically, it became a politically loaded term, because conservatives used the phrase to ridicule those who would object to discrimination or disenfranchisement, or simply point out the fact that some words were lacking in respect.
I remember the phrase 'politically correct' from about 1983, specifically in reference to shopping at a particular coffee shop rather than another near the campus of Yale University. At the time, 'politically correct' was used to indicate that our actions, sometimes insignificant ones, can have an impact on peoples lives. Although the coffee was the same, one coffee shop treated its employees better than the other, and so arose the notion that spending money in that shop was healthier for the community.
As applied to language, the meaning seemed obvious. Subtle uses of words do frame the way we think about issues and about people, and seemingly insignificant word choices can have a large impact when repeated over and over. My favorite example is the use of the word 'slave' to label a person. Take this passage from "American Constitutional Law" (Mason, Beaney and Stephenson):
"In 1834, Dred Scott, a Negro slave belonging to Dr. Emerson, a surgeon in the United States Army, was taken by his master to Illinois, where slavery was forbidden"
This passage nicely illustrates a misleading use of the word. Scott is identified as a slave in the same way that Emerson is identified as a surgeon, as if 'slave' were a profession, and that Scott deserved his chains as much as Emerson deserved his commission. A politically correct rewriting acknowledges that 'slave' is a word which dehumanizes the person to whom the label is attached, replacing the phrase "a Negro slave belonging to" with "a Negro enslaved by"
The passage also prompts a further question -- what about the word "Negro" ? Is skin color relevant to the Dred Scott case? If it were not, then the word "person" would do nicely. But the case occurred before the 13th Amendment, and, sadly, skin color was an issue in interpreting the laws of different states, and so substituting "person" removes a salient fact about the case. No doubt there is a more au courant term which could be used, but any other choice leaves us with the same unappealing fact that we must mention skin color because the law in 1857 (when the Dred Scott case was decided) makes it necessary to mention. It would be difficult to replace "Negro" with anything else, not because "Negro" is a connotation-free word (its not), but because there are no satisfactory replacements.
Which brings us back to the bald guy. The hijacked meaning of politically correct would lead you to believe that it is OK to refer to someone's baldness as long as you use a hate-free term for it. But the originally meaning of politically correct prompts us to ask why one needs to talk about baldness in the first place. If there is a need which is not disrespectful, by all means use the word 'bald' -- but if there is disparagement hiding behind the word, better just to not say anything.
In any case, today I was greatly heartened to happen upon the following quote from none less than Supreme Court Justice James Wilson, writing in majority opinion from Chisholm v. Georgia (1793):
"Sentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our common, even in our convivial, language. Is a toast asked? 'The United States,' instead of the 'People of the United States,' is the toast given. This is not politically correct."
Here, he is referring to the misconception that Government somehow has power over the citizens, when in fact it is the power of the citizenry which constitutes the Government, suggesting that raising a toast "to The United States" is a mis-targeted compliment that misleads us further upon each repetition. Instead, raising a toast "to the People of The United States" appropriately acknowledges and remonds us where the power of government originates. That's the meaning of 'politically correct' that resonates with me.
In researching this entry, I happened upon this citation from H. V. Morton's In the Steps of St. Paul (1936), which uses a darker meaning: that of avoiding language which would be politically sensitive:
"To use such words would have been equivalent to calling his audience 'slaves and robbers'. But 'Galatians', a term that was politically correct, embraced everyone under Roman rule, from the aristocrat in Antioch to the little slave girl in Iconium."
Oh, the irony!
Ironically, it became a politically loaded term, because conservatives used the phrase to ridicule those who would object to discrimination or disenfranchisement, or simply point out the fact that some words were lacking in respect.
I remember the phrase 'politically correct' from about 1983, specifically in reference to shopping at a particular coffee shop rather than another near the campus of Yale University. At the time, 'politically correct' was used to indicate that our actions, sometimes insignificant ones, can have an impact on peoples lives. Although the coffee was the same, one coffee shop treated its employees better than the other, and so arose the notion that spending money in that shop was healthier for the community.
As applied to language, the meaning seemed obvious. Subtle uses of words do frame the way we think about issues and about people, and seemingly insignificant word choices can have a large impact when repeated over and over. My favorite example is the use of the word 'slave' to label a person. Take this passage from "American Constitutional Law" (Mason, Beaney and Stephenson):
"In 1834, Dred Scott, a Negro slave belonging to Dr. Emerson, a surgeon in the United States Army, was taken by his master to Illinois, where slavery was forbidden"
This passage nicely illustrates a misleading use of the word. Scott is identified as a slave in the same way that Emerson is identified as a surgeon, as if 'slave' were a profession, and that Scott deserved his chains as much as Emerson deserved his commission. A politically correct rewriting acknowledges that 'slave' is a word which dehumanizes the person to whom the label is attached, replacing the phrase "a Negro slave belonging to" with "a Negro enslaved by"
The passage also prompts a further question -- what about the word "Negro" ? Is skin color relevant to the Dred Scott case? If it were not, then the word "person" would do nicely. But the case occurred before the 13th Amendment, and, sadly, skin color was an issue in interpreting the laws of different states, and so substituting "person" removes a salient fact about the case. No doubt there is a more au courant term which could be used, but any other choice leaves us with the same unappealing fact that we must mention skin color because the law in 1857 (when the Dred Scott case was decided) makes it necessary to mention. It would be difficult to replace "Negro" with anything else, not because "Negro" is a connotation-free word (its not), but because there are no satisfactory replacements.
Which brings us back to the bald guy. The hijacked meaning of politically correct would lead you to believe that it is OK to refer to someone's baldness as long as you use a hate-free term for it. But the originally meaning of politically correct prompts us to ask why one needs to talk about baldness in the first place. If there is a need which is not disrespectful, by all means use the word 'bald' -- but if there is disparagement hiding behind the word, better just to not say anything.
In any case, today I was greatly heartened to happen upon the following quote from none less than Supreme Court Justice James Wilson, writing in majority opinion from Chisholm v. Georgia (1793):
"Sentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our common, even in our convivial, language. Is a toast asked? 'The United States,' instead of the 'People of the United States,' is the toast given. This is not politically correct."
Here, he is referring to the misconception that Government somehow has power over the citizens, when in fact it is the power of the citizenry which constitutes the Government, suggesting that raising a toast "to The United States" is a mis-targeted compliment that misleads us further upon each repetition. Instead, raising a toast "to the People of The United States" appropriately acknowledges and remonds us where the power of government originates. That's the meaning of 'politically correct' that resonates with me.
In researching this entry, I happened upon this citation from H. V. Morton's In the Steps of St. Paul (1936), which uses a darker meaning: that of avoiding language which would be politically sensitive:
"To use such words would have been equivalent to calling his audience 'slaves and robbers'. But 'Galatians', a term that was politically correct, embraced everyone under Roman rule, from the aristocrat in Antioch to the little slave girl in Iconium."
Oh, the irony!
Posted: October 3, 2003 0:0 Language Read More Email Comments
Kung-Tunes
Kung-Tunes is a widget for
making your iTunes recently played items into html. Pointless and egotistical,
but here it
is.
Here's a tip if your song titles use a foreign character set: Kung-Tunes produces a UTF-8 encoded file, so you can add this:
meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF8
to the "header" pane of the "formats" dialog to help web browsers render the text correctly.
Here's a tip if your song titles use a foreign character set: Kung-Tunes produces a UTF-8 encoded file, so you can add this:
meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF8
to the "header" pane of the "formats" dialog to help web browsers render the text correctly.
Posted: October 3, 2003 0:0 Mac Read More Email Comments
Sat - September 20, 2003
God is a Mass Noun
For a reminder of what a mass noun is, wikipedia has a
summary: it is a noun which grammatically does not get counted, like "sand" or
"meat" or "furniture".
The First Commandment being "You shall have no other gods", it would seem silly to try to argue anything other than that "God" is a count noun and that true believers will believe that there is only one. But that would be making things too simple.
Luther writes in his Small Catechism that this commandment should be interpreted primarily as a commandment place nothing in our lives as a higher importance than God. So this leaves room for interpreting God not as a single countable entity, but instead as a non-countable entity. Indeed, The other things that we might be tempted to place above God -- wealth, fame, knowledge, etc. are themselves mass nouns, so Luther's interpretation of the first commandment actually demands that we view God in its capacity as a mass noun to make a proper comparison.
Taking this approach to God is instructive when trying to rationalize the Holy Trinity. Christians have long been ridiculed when trying to explain how one God can really be three Gods. Even the best of explanations are little more than enthusiastic handwaving: More indicative of the folly of the creed than anything. But if God is a mass noun, then the Trinity is its enumerator: just as one can count sand by enumerating the grains (grains of sand) , or count corn by enumerating kernels or ears or bushels, Christian mythology counts God as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
It also adds a new dimension to the institution of Ceremonial Deism. When I see "In God We Trust" written on a dollar bill, I don't interpret that as being an endorsement of monotheism, because "God" isn't singular or plural -- it is a mass noun.
The First Commandment being "You shall have no other gods", it would seem silly to try to argue anything other than that "God" is a count noun and that true believers will believe that there is only one. But that would be making things too simple.
Luther writes in his Small Catechism that this commandment should be interpreted primarily as a commandment place nothing in our lives as a higher importance than God. So this leaves room for interpreting God not as a single countable entity, but instead as a non-countable entity. Indeed, The other things that we might be tempted to place above God -- wealth, fame, knowledge, etc. are themselves mass nouns, so Luther's interpretation of the first commandment actually demands that we view God in its capacity as a mass noun to make a proper comparison.
Taking this approach to God is instructive when trying to rationalize the Holy Trinity. Christians have long been ridiculed when trying to explain how one God can really be three Gods. Even the best of explanations are little more than enthusiastic handwaving: More indicative of the folly of the creed than anything. But if God is a mass noun, then the Trinity is its enumerator: just as one can count sand by enumerating the grains (grains of sand) , or count corn by enumerating kernels or ears or bushels, Christian mythology counts God as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
It also adds a new dimension to the institution of Ceremonial Deism. When I see "In God We Trust" written on a dollar bill, I don't interpret that as being an endorsement of monotheism, because "God" isn't singular or plural -- it is a mass noun.
Posted: September 20, 2003 22:35 Language Read More Email Comments
One Lying Liar in Particular
Calpundit has a great
interview with Paul Krugman. In short, Bush has lied.
Bush is probably lying
right now. Bush will lie
again.
Posted: September 20, 2003 21:41 America Read More Email Comments
Sun - September 14, 2003
Brave Combo at Uncle Otto's
Octoberfest
We caught both the Friday night and Saturday
afternoon shows in Portland. It was Staffan's first time to see Brave Combo, so he was ecstatic. A
few pictures from the event here.
Posted: September 14, 2003 0:0 Music Read More Email Comments
Sun - August 17, 2003
Graven Images
There are a number of stories these days about
getting displays of the Ten Commandments removed from public property because of
Establishment Clause violations, like this
one from St. Petersburg, and this
one, from Alabama.
It's pretty hard to argue that such displays aren't infringements of First Amendment rights, as "You shall have no other gods before me" is pretty unambiguous as an endorsement of a particular religious point of view.
The best argument made by defenders of the Ten Commandments monuments is that such displays promote morality in the community, and that apart from any religious content, the government is justified in spending public money on the promotion of civil order. It's an argument that holds water until you think about it.
1) You would think that the Constitution would provide the basis for the kind of civil order that should be promoted (that's what its there for). Politicians and judges who try to subvert the Constitution are actually promoting civil disorder.
2) There is really no need to use the exact Biblical text if the only goal is to promote civil morality. Of course, proponents of the monuments would say that they wouldn't be the same if the texts read like "Hey, let's not kill each other". To me that sounds exactly the same, minus the religious arrogance.
3) Proponents are so fixated on these engraved-in-stone monuments that they would prefer to antagonize the public by displaying them on public property than using their energies to praise God. Thus, they are violating the Second Commandment: "You shall not make for yourself a graven image ... you shall not bow down to them and serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God". One might argue that the Second Commandment is simply a prohibition of idol worship, in the literal sense of bowing down before a pagan image. But this is a short-sighted viewpoint. The Second Commandment is a warning against placing any importance in physical objects. When Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore refuses to remove the commandments from his courtroom, he is not only being un-American, and not only abusing the power of the Judiciary, he is transgressing the very commandments he is trying to promulgate.
It's pretty hard to argue that such displays aren't infringements of First Amendment rights, as "You shall have no other gods before me" is pretty unambiguous as an endorsement of a particular religious point of view.
The best argument made by defenders of the Ten Commandments monuments is that such displays promote morality in the community, and that apart from any religious content, the government is justified in spending public money on the promotion of civil order. It's an argument that holds water until you think about it.
1) You would think that the Constitution would provide the basis for the kind of civil order that should be promoted (that's what its there for). Politicians and judges who try to subvert the Constitution are actually promoting civil disorder.
2) There is really no need to use the exact Biblical text if the only goal is to promote civil morality. Of course, proponents of the monuments would say that they wouldn't be the same if the texts read like "Hey, let's not kill each other". To me that sounds exactly the same, minus the religious arrogance.
3) Proponents are so fixated on these engraved-in-stone monuments that they would prefer to antagonize the public by displaying them on public property than using their energies to praise God. Thus, they are violating the Second Commandment: "You shall not make for yourself a graven image ... you shall not bow down to them and serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God". One might argue that the Second Commandment is simply a prohibition of idol worship, in the literal sense of bowing down before a pagan image. But this is a short-sighted viewpoint. The Second Commandment is a warning against placing any importance in physical objects. When Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore refuses to remove the commandments from his courtroom, he is not only being un-American, and not only abusing the power of the Judiciary, he is transgressing the very commandments he is trying to promulgate.
Posted: August 17, 2003 16:16 America Read More Email Comments
Sun - July 13, 2003
Hawaii photoalbum
Tomo has put together a photoalbum of our trip to
Hawaii.
One week in Oahu and one week in the Big Island
One week in Oahu and one week in the Big Island
Posted: July 13, 2003 22:37 Family Read More Email Comments
Sat - July 12, 2003
Shrub The Enforcer
Just when I thought that my comment that Bush's
foreign policy is based on the National Hockey League Enforcer's Guidebook had
lost its currency, Antipixel notes the
headline from
Bloomberg:
N. Korea Readies 200 Missiles to Strike Japan, Paper Says
and observes:
I believe our official response is supposed to be "Bring 'em on!"
N. Korea Readies 200 Missiles to Strike Japan, Paper Says
and observes:
I believe our official response is supposed to be "Bring 'em on!"
Posted: July 12, 2003 0:0 America Read More Email Comments
Mo Bettah Hawaiian
Orrin Hatch the Luser
Fin Ding Nemo
Honcho
Polka Hip
Comedy of Recognition
Apple Store Bellevue Square
Groceries
Self Promotion
The Heebeegeebees
Johnny Bright, Hero and Pioneer
The Eldred Act
I took my family to the Vet
Random Chicken
Bush v. Bush
Ouch!
The 3pm diet
"Cog" is a Must See
Happy Birthday Philly Phanatic
Calendar
Categories
Archives
XML/RSS Feed
Statistics
Total entries in this blog: 102
America: 26
Family: 11
Japan: 3
Language: 12
Law: 12
Mac: 7
Music: 12
People: 2
Science: 5
Sports: 4
Published On: October 25, 2003 0:28
America: 26
Family: 11
Japan: 3
Language: 12
Law: 12
Mac: 7
Music: 12
People: 2
Science: 5
Sports: 4
Published On: October 25, 2003 0:28