Just Curious

what does it mean to be Plutoed?

2006-09-06T14:40:00.000-05:00

I was recently listening to the "On Word with John Ciardi" podcast from NPR. The late Mr. Ciardi pointed out that "the lion's share" properly means "all," not "a lot," in reference to this fable -- but confusion over the term's meaning was so pervasive that if you meant it to use "all," you would probably be corrected. This frustrated me, because I specifically like the sort of "all" that the fable implies. The lion creates a show of fairness by dividing the meat, but bends the rules to claim the whole carcass -- this is a practice that is so common that we could use an expression for it.

I wonder if we're in a similar situation with "Pluto." Now, I'm of the opinion that the International Astronomy Union made the right call to demote the little guy. But I also agree that the "dwarf planet" category is a little ridiculous, especially since it violates scientific laws of *linguistics* (see this article in the Trib -- though you could also make the argument that "dwarf" is being used in the same sense as "false" or "pseudo). Given all the press the IAU's decision has gotten, plus the generally pro-Pluto popular sentiment, it seems likely that we might see "Plutoed" being used as a verb in the sense it is here.

But perhaps we could make it even more specific. I would propose that "to be Plutoed" should mean to be demoted or belittled through the creation of a special category that seems to preserve one's status but is actually meaningless. (For example, adding "emeritus" to one's title.)

overheard in the Starbucks on Dempster

2006-08-21T18:46:00.000-05:00

"Try something spiritual. That might help."

overheard at Randolph and Michigan

2006-07-19T12:33:00.000-05:00

...about a week ago, but I've forgotten to post it.

Mother: "Honey, sometimes when mommy is driving she says things she wouldn't normally say."
Daughter: "Like cuss words?"
Mother: "Oh no, not cuss words, but names for people she wouldn't normally call them."
Daughter: "Like doo-doo head."
Mother: "Yes, like doo-doo head."

Big Brother India: coincidence or conspiracy?

2006-07-19T12:28:00.000-05:00

only joking... but funny that these headlines appeared at the same time on the BBC

India bloggers angry at net ban

India to get 'chaste' Big Brother

overheard outside Celtic Knot

2006-07-09T02:29:00.000-05:00

"I'm telling you, she's not a soldier, she's a scout. Do you understand?"

Perhaps someone trying to convince a relative that the Girl Scouts are not a paramilitary organization?

For some reason, this made me think of the game Stratego. As you may recall if you played this game and weren't captured by aliens, pieces of different ranks do battle (as in, say, the card game War). But you have no idea what rank all of your opponent's pieces happen to be until they are attacked (think of Battleship). The weakest piece is the Scout, sort of the equivalent of a pawn, whose main role is to sacrifice himself to reveal the rank of superior pieces. My favorites, though, were the "Miners." These pieces were also weak, just one rank above a Scout, but could defuse enemy bombs (which can kill any piece that attacks them). Great game on the whole.

but it's better than a video game, better than the movies*

2006-07-07T15:42:00.000-05:00

Slacktivist asks "when is a war not a war?" More specifically, does it matter that Congress has not actually declared war since 1942, and if so, how? I think it certainly does matter. Not all American military actions were declared wars in the past -- I think in particular of Andrew Jackson's forced resettlement of the Cherokee, which occurred in direct defiance of the Supreme Court. But at the same time, I don't think it can be argued that every undeclared war since WWII should be rejected on that ground alone. While I would argue for strong congressional oversight in any case, it's not clear how having been "at war" with Afghanistan or Iraq would help clarify our mission there now. I know that what I would prefer would be some sort of international police authority based in international law. It seems that thinking of these military interventions as police actions might have helped the American people develop more realistic expectations (you don't "win" a police action, just as we will never "win" the war on terrorism or the war in Iraq -- though it is still remotely possible that these conflicts will have positive outcomes).

But still, I can't help thinking back to Chris Hedges's book War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning. I can understand how the sort of war he describes might make sense in the Homeric world or the Middle Ages, when war was just an extension of the existing civil order. But in our world, it seems like the war metaphor just confuses things, even if the violence is deserving of the name.

--

*see these lyrics

overheard in a Potbelly's

2006-07-07T15:04:00.000-05:00

(man gestures at LaSalle street) "If this is a hamlet, I came from a crackerbox."

why aren't more people saying this? (subtext: isn't this how most people feel about anti-terrorism measures?)

2006-06-30T13:43:00.000-05:00

...probably because it's reasonable.

The always fair-minded Richard Clarke points out in this Times op-ed that neither side in the controversy of the Bush administration's secret bank-monitoring program really has much to say. Violation of our privacy? Financial transactions have long been monitored for criminal activity. Press accounts tipping off terrorists? What villain worth his twirly mustache wouldn't already assume that his calls, bank accounts, etc. are being monitored?

There's no question that after 9/11, we needed to rethink certain limitations on law enforcement, particularly regarding the sort of gathering and sharing of data that might have prevented the attacks. This is a discussion we still need to have. Most people rightly fear government "fishing expeditions" for data. Yet we all recognize the utility of searchable databases (if you use Google) and we voluntarily submit information to such databases all the time (again, if you use Google). If Congress held hearings on this sort of thing rather than symbolic nonsense, we might come up with some reasonable standards that protect useful programs (like this banks one) and bar dangerous ones (like wire-tapping).

But the real problem with the Bush administration is that it sees no need to consult us. It does not see the legal need, as its regular dismissal of Congress shows. But it also does not see the cultural need to have an open discussion of such issues in the press. Conservatives, by temperament and by political necessity, should be well-suited to lead such a discussion of how to balance privacy and national security. The ambivalent poll data surrounding programs like wire-tapping (I believe a fair statement of the average opinion would be, "It might be okay if it really does catch terrorists and doesn't hurt innocent people.") shows that this is a discussion the country wants to have. But the current GOP, sorry excuses as leaders and as conservatives, wouldn't even know how to start.

overheard in a Starbucks

2006-06-28T13:10:00.000-05:00

"I know you're not Jewish. I can smell them."

:: look of dismay ::

typo/clicko update

2006-06-26T13:58:00.000-05:00

Donna B., in comments below, has nominated "clicko" as a term for the kind of error described in this post. Google reveals that the word is already being used in similar senses here for mouse-based errors in general and here in reference to online games. Even though not all errors of the type described in earlier post are the result of mouse error, it's hard to imagine them happening without a mind conditioned by mice ("a mind conditioned by mice" -- that should scare all behavioral psychologists present -- or parents who have kids who watch the Disney channel).

Proposed definition:

clicko - n. - 1. any sort of computer error that results from human error in the use of a mouse. 2. specifically, this sort of error in an online game, sometimes with the implication that the player should be allowed a "do-over." 3. mistakes introduced into a document as a result of human error in the use of word-processing functions such as copy-paste, spell-checking, etc.

is it really so simple in Darfur?

2006-06-01T10:22:00.000-05:00

Of course not; this is Africa.

I've often felt hypocritical for not supporting our campus Darfur Action group, which aims to somehow end the genocide. But whenever I've talked to someone representing them, their plans for action seem either unrealistic or unhelpful. This article from this morning's Times worsens my suspicions of the Save Darfur movement. While I don't know if I buy the author's argument that the movement has actually made things worse, it makes me question whether groups pushing for humanitarian intervention should stick with the narrative of genocide. It seems to suggest inappropriate causes and solutions to situations like Sudan's... perhaps more later...

what is "celebrity colonialism"?

2006-05-31T12:26:00.000-05:00

The worst example might be Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's temporary annexation of Namibia as a "special" place for Ms. Jolie's labor.

The article linked above contrasts Brangelina's actions with those of European powers that formally controlled Africa for decades. But much of that formal control was only extended because of the actions of opportunistic individuals like Cecil Rhodes or King Leopold II of Belgium or, in fiction, Joseph Conrad's Mr. Kurtz. Actually, the best parallel is probably Henry Morton Stanley, whose books and newspaper stories probably made him as close to a movie star as one could get in Victorian times.

This is not to suggest that Pitt or Jolie have caused suffering at anywhere near this level -- their intentions toward Africa seem entirely benign. But the point is that if they can take over an entire nation at a whim to have their child, they could probably do anything else they want.

are internships worth it?

2006-05-30T14:28:00.000-05:00

for anyone?

Everyone I know under 25 will have read this article in the next 24 hours... but it's still worth posting. Even though I have had two rewarding unpaid internships and don't regret either one, all of the questions in this article are worth asking. My own question would be: what's the alternative? The "up from the mailroom" model seems outdated, assuming as it does that people will remain loyal to a single company. But the problems listed by this article may be worse. One thing I'd like to know -- what do other sorts of systems do other countries use for entry-level jobs?

wireless etiquette question

2006-05-09T08:13:00.000-05:00

If you pay to use wireless through a service like T-Mobile, do you have the right to use the facilities of a Borders or Starbucks (chairs, outlets, etc.) without buying anything to eat or drink? I can't think of any logical reason why not, but I'm not sure I could do it without feeling rude. Related question -- what if it's the Unicorn Café, where you can but a year's worth of wireless for $10? Or what about places that pay for wireless through an "internet tip jar"? If I put fifty cents in the jar, do I need to buy coffee to plug in?

what are typos? and what are they not?

2006-05-09T07:45:00.000-05:00

For a long time, I've been wondering if the word "typo" really means what we think it does. This question was prompted by making corrections to my thesis -- my advisers pointed out that I had numerous "typos," but when I thought about it, that wasn't really an accurate description of the kind of errors I was making. To me, "typographical error" would seem to indicate either misspellings introduced by bad keystrokes or things like extra spaces, tabs, etc. However, auto-spell check has virtually eliminated these kinds of errors, except for bugs like there/their/they're. So what are these errors I was making, and what do we call them?

The most frequent kind I've seen while scanning over the thesis once again has been errors of omission. Now I don't have any good way of proving this, since I so rarely write by hand anymore, but I think these kinds of errors are much more common when typing. This would seem to be in part a result of the speed at which one can compose while typing, but also a result of the ability to delete large chunks of text at once. Similar errors result from moving chunks of text. Many journalists can tell stories of copy editors who have moved up paragraphs in their stories but failed to check that people referred to in the graf have already been named. Similar problems happen with pronouns and antecedents.

The point of all this is that the errors described are not "typos" in the classic sense of the word. They could never have been produced on a typewriter; but more importantly, in a cognitive sense, they are not the result of composing on a keyboard. Rather, they are the result of writing on a computer, which has given us new capabilities to transform documents (which also happen to produce this group of errors). And as my experience with my thesis has sadly shown, these errors can be more serious than mere typos. Therefore, I propose that we come up with a new word for them, something more specific than "error" and more accurate than "typo."

Suggestion on form... I have notoriously bad handwriting, and sometimes I find in the middle of a word that the letters just aren't coming together as they should -- not a spelling error, just an inability to make a word look the way it should. I've jokingly called these "scriptos," and people seem to immediately understand what I'm talking about, so it seems like a decent neologism. Perhaps there is a word we can coin with the "-o" suffix that would fit the bill for our non-typos? I was thinking "compto," but that sounds somewhat awkward. Slightly better -- "clipto," which could refer both to the errors we generate via our ability to manipulate large amounts of text and to the evil Word paper clip, which symbolizes the errors generated by Word. BUT sounds a bit like "klepto"...

what effect should statistical probability have on moral choices (if any)?

2006-01-26T09:33:00.000-06:00

I was intrigued today by this letter to the Tribune today. Here are a few of the more interesting paragraphs:

All civilized legal and moral systems operate on the principle that people who carry out an action with predictable results must be held accountable, as if they had intended those results. Therefore the statistically predictable innocent deaths that U.S. military attacks routinely and inevitably produce must be regarded as intended, if we take seriously the concept of moral agency and responsibility.

A truly unpredictable death is different. If an enemy tank in combat was unexpectedly harboring a lost child when attacked, we wouldn’t regard the child’s death as intended, since children cannot be predicted to be in a battlefield tank.

But the U.S. attack on Iraq and Pakistan is far different—the essence of our war on these countries, just as in Vietnam, involves methods that are statistically guaranteed to produce tens of thousands of civilian casualties. The civilian casualty rate in Iraq has been statistically fairly stable (and, thus, predictable) throughout the U.S. invasion, as was true in Vietnam.

I generally agree with the idea that we should have some sort of accountability system for systems with statistically predictable flaws. Workers' safety is a good example. Rather than make every workplace accident a case of individual moral judgment, we make the problem abstract and say, "Well, there are going to be so many accidents a year, so let's set aside a certain amount of money to compensate for them." A similar ideas is behind insurance systems -- at least, when they work well. But you can also see where we could use more of this sort of statistical morality -- in malpractice cases, for instance. Our system would be much more fair to doctors and patients if we handled (most) medical error through some of statistical system rather than focusing on spectacular cases.

But it seems like a tough call when it comes to military decisions. On an individual level, almost no one would say it is right to kill civilians in the name of a military goal, no matter how great. Yet just as with medical error (or, perhaps the more relevant case, police policy), a certain number of civilian deaths can be predicted over the long run, no matter what the military policy. I'm skeptical that we can approve or deny military policies based on the fact that *any* civilians would be killed. On the other hand, I don't know if there's any good way of coming up with an "acceptable" rate of error, especially when it might give the military leverage to use tactics that seem immoral. Statistical thinking is helpful in so many situations, though... I wonder if there is a way to use it to think about military policy that does not invalidate war altogether (not that that's not on the table).

why is Condoleezza Rice so anti-Russian?

2006-01-12T15:25:00.000-06:00

Why, because she's a single woman with no children, of course...

http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/88/354/16724_Condoleezza.html

It's hard to believe this isn't a parody... but Zhirinovsky is a real guy, a Russian ultra-nationalist, and he's just kooky enough to say this sort of thing. In my freshman year of high school the topic was U.S. relations with Russia, and we would quote him all the time. He advocates a Russian re-conquest of Alaska, endoresed Pat Buchanan and markets his own brand of vodka with his face on the label. Yup, crazy!

should protesters be allowed at soldiers' funerals?

2006-01-12T09:26:00.000-06:00

If there are two things I know, it's that the First Amendment is right and Fred Phelps is crazy. Jimmy Greenfield of RedEye speaks to both points in his column today, but I question his ultimate conclusion that not allowing protesters at soldiers' funerals dilutes the right to free speech.

The principle of Greenfield's argument is correct -- we can't deny free speech to one group or individual merely because we disagree with what they say. The situations where government can regulate the actual content of speech are well circumscribed -- speech can be regulated when it clearly threatens the security of the nation or other people (yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc.) Then there's also libel law, which says that in some circumstances, speech must be true.

But it seems like a different principle should control protests at funerals -- our collective need to decide *where* and *how* free speech will occur. In some cases, free speech is a "natural" right and there is no need to decide in what forum it will occur. The ultimate example is yelling things out in a field by yourself, but a practical example would be something like book publishing. There are no national shortages of ink or printing presses, and no way that publishing millions of pamphlets in your basement could harm anyone as a physical act. However, there are some circumstances where the circumstances of speech clearly need to be regulated -- for instance, broadcasting on the AM and FM bands, which are viewed as public property.

Funerals (for soldiers or anyone else) don't quite fit either of these models, but I think there should be precedent enough in the law to ban people from protesting them. Greenfield says a law against protesting funerals would be akin to an amendment banning flag burning. I think it would be closer to cases where courts have found that placing burning crosses near the homes of African-Americans to be intimidation. In that case, the main reason why the speech is not protected is not the content (you can burn a cross out in an open field, if you like) but the location. I think you could make a similar argument here. I would add, though, that it makes the most sense to ban *any* protest or demonstration, as the unidentified "Illinois legislator" of Greenfield's column would do (it's Brandon Phelps, by the way, no relation to Fred). That would make it clear that the reason for the ban is the circumstances, not the speech.

Out of steam...

what if they threw a War on Christmas and nobody came?

2005-12-12T10:23:00.001-06:00

I'm not really interested in the "War on Christmas" debate -- many of the incidents publicized by the right-wing press are probably all examples of over-secularizing, but the idea that Christmas is about to be replaced by some humanist UN holiday is just paranoid. If anything, Stephen Colbert was probably right in his "exposé" on Coca-Cola replacing the Santa on their cans with polar bears -- the clearest "secularizing" force on Christmas is consumer culture, not the ACLU.

But this example from the Tribune intrigued me:

Every holiday season, Wheeling officials would try to purge the village's decorations of anything that could be perceived as religious, but still the complaints rolled in.

That Santa Claus figure was an official endorsement of Christianity. That tree swathed in blue lights amounted to government recognition of Hanukkah.

So this year, village leaders decided on a bold change of direction: Instead of keeping religion out, why not invite it in?

They would allow local houses of worship, along with all other organizations, to put their own decorations in front of Village Hall at 225 W. Dundee Rd. It was a risky plan----hate groups or political protesters could have insisted on being included--but in October a divided board of trustees approved the idea and girded for a possible ruckus.

All that followed, though, was silence.

"There were no hate groups, no religious groups," said James Lang, Wheeling's public relations director. "There was nobody."

In what amounts to a surprising lull in the battle to define the holidays as secular or sacred, not one person turned in an application to mount decorations. Village officials are left with mixed emotions: While they're glad the Ku Klux Klan didn't come to town, some are a bit deflated by the lack of response.

I'm not really sure what to make of this, but it seems to have the same sort of lesson as the Terri Sciavo poll numbers. My guess is that most Americans want to be left alone by the government *and* evangelicals. I have to say I'm sad that no one brought decorations to the Wheeling display though. In Evanston, more than a hundred groups with different agendas participate in the big parade at the Fourth of July. Granted, that's an inherently secular holiday celebrating freedom rather than a group of religious holidays that celebrate all sorts of different things. But I hope more people show up next time in Wheeling.

what do we call this error, and how to stop it?

2005-11-19T09:17:00.000-06:00

(I recognize that this is the first post in some time... well, these things happen.)

In today's Tribune: "But critics have complained about the powers it gives to police invade the privacy of citizens."

This one isn't the best examples of an error inserted by a copy editor -- this one might just be a typo. I'll make up a better example. Let's say the original copy was

"The independent counsel hopes to launch an investigation into the practice."

It would not be uncommon to see a copy editor accidentally change this to:

"The independent counsel hopes to an investigate the practice."

or, a more subtle error:

"The independent counsel hopes to investigate into the practice."

(Of course the ideal is "The indepdent counsel hopes to investigate the practice.")

There are probably better examples than the one I just gave, better in the sense that they show the sort of errors that precede from *good* (or at least well-intentioned) copyediting. Bad editors introduce errors of fact and grammar all the time, but a good editor trying to make things tighter will sometimes forget to tie up a loose end when shortening a phrase and make it go from verbose to just plain wrong.

We might be able to borrow some useful terminology from medicine. "Malpractice" is when doctors fail to do their duty toward science, ethics or the law (Mary, if you're reading this -- wasn't there a time when I said all knowledge could be sorted into those categories?). But there are also "complications," or to use a somewhat broader term, "iatrogenic disease," which is intended to include any health hazard that proceeds from the biomedical system. Is there a term, perhaps following the model of "iatrogenic," that we could use for the kind of errors sometimes introduced by *good* copyediting? Iatros is Greek for doctor... I doubt there's an equivalent for "editor" but we could even use something like "watcher."

As for how to prevent such errors -- well, some will argue that no good copy editor never makes them, but I see them in newspapers all the time. From my limited experience, I would recommend quickly reading every piece aloud to yourself before sending it on to the next tier of editors. I usually caught one or two small errors that way, and it made it easier on the *real* copy editors.

is Chris Kirkham okay?

2005-09-01T15:15:00.000-05:00

Many of the readers of this blog (can "many" really be used to describe them?) know Chris, who graduated from Medill this year and has worked all summer as an intern at the New Orleans Times-Picayune. No one was really able to reach Chris on his phone, but he e-mailed a few of us, so I figured I should reproduce this on the Web for those who might be worrying about him:

Hey everyone,

Thanks for your concern about my plight in the middle of this hurricane. Things were crazy this
morning but I'm OK. We don't have power, water, cell phone coverage, internet access or phone
access. We actually had to drive in to Baton Rouge from the Northshore just to file our stories,
because we had absolutely no contact with the downtown office. The place where I work, Slidell, was
just west of where the eye came through. We went there today and half the city was underwater. I
traveled around in a boat to go talk to people.

Craziness. Anyway, I have to go back to the middle of where the storm hit. Let anyone else who may
be interested know that I'm OK.

Talk to you soon when I have more time,

Chris

Hang in there Chris!

article on organ donation

2005-09-01T15:12:00.000-05:00

I wrote this article as part of my internship with the AMA. If you're interested in organ donation or bioethics in general, you might enjoy it. I'll be posting more soon.

where's Mulder when you need him?

2005-08-19T08:47:00.000-05:00

Could some amusing but harmless conspiracy theorist please explain why there have been so many plane crashes lately?

I thought it was the Rapture, but I was sorely mistaken.

how would Jed Bartlet have handled Iraq?

2005-08-18T14:54:00.000-05:00

At first, this just seems like a fanfic question. But an article on openDemocracy.com (one of my new favorite sites) seriously asked the question shortly before the war began. The author, Paul Hirst, proposes a number of creative solutions that never made it into the pre-war debate, including a list of NATO demands and establishing diplomatic ties with Iran as leverage against Iraq. I identify with those who call themselves "Jed Bartlet Democrats," tho I haven't watched enough of the show to try to make any coherent statements about how Bartlet's party philosophy is different from our own. But what strikes me about this article -- and what today's left activists need to remember -- is that the decision to use diplomacy means a lot more than just playing nice. It means using all of our resources to create leverage and making creative sacrifices to avoid the more tragic sacrifices we are making now.

what's the funniest college admission essay ever?

2005-08-16T16:01:00.000-05:00

You already know which one I'm talking about. Here's the opening paragraph:

I am a dynamic figure, often seen scaling walls and crushing ice. I have been known to remodel train stations on my lunch breaks, making them more efficient in the area of heat retention. I translate ethnic slurs for Cuban refugees, I write award-winning operas, I manage time efficiently. Occasionally, I tread water for three days in a row.

I spent a while looking for this today after someone mentioned it offhand... figured I should provide a link for those that care. Not only is clever, but pretty good writing too.

how do I fake being from Chicago?

2005-08-11T10:15:00.000-05:00

I like to think I'm doing it rather well, since I actually live in Evanston (tho I have a significant other in Lakeview... maybe it's kind of like citizenship?). Anyway, here is a useful guide to Chi-town vocab. Particularly enjoyable:

Da Bears: Said only by suburban people who want to feel like Chicagoans, referring to the Chicago Bears. Originates from a Saturday Night Live sketch.

Da Bulls: Said only by suburban people who want to feel like Chicagoans, referring to the world champion Chicago Bulls. Originates from another Saturday Night Live sketch.

Though I know this is probably not a purely Chicago thing, I'm tempted to add "Save big money at Menard's!", which has been stuck in my head ever since I moved here.

could U.S. interns give India an edge over China?

2005-08-10T15:25:00.000-05:00

Many people will have read this morning's story in the NYT on American business interns who spend the summer in India. The story briefly notes why such interns are going to India instead of China:

Many are in India to study globalization firsthand, Mr. Karnik said; that is often not possible in China because, unlike India, English is not widely spoken there.

Over time, could the relationships American MBAs build with Indian society make them prefer relationships with Indian businesses over Chinese ones, even if the latter are cheaper? Or would other economic factors almost always prevail?

where does progress come from?

2005-08-10T08:46:00.000-05:00

This came over my "quote of the day" this morning... have I ever mentioned how much I love this man?

Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to find easier ways to do something.
- Robert Heinlein

ain't it cool?

2005-08-08T13:32:00.000-05:00

Linking to Lessig in the last post prompted me to visit his Web site, where I see he is editing the second edition of one of his books through wikis. I'm usually pretty skeptical about writing created by groups, but as long as Lessig retains some sort of final control over the prose, I'm sure the information will be top-notch. Best of luck to him!

are books going the way of music and movies?

2005-08-08T12:58:00.000-05:00

A few decades ago, people were saying that the 21st century office would use no paper. But our offices now use more paper than every before, largely because of the proliferation of fax and copy machines (and, well, bureaucracy). People also said that books would be replaced with some sort of universal digital reader and that we would simply pay for the files. But more books are being sold than ever before (even if fewer people are actually reading them). While other concrete media, like CDs, films, and DVDs, are losing ground to file-sharing technology, the venerable old book sticks in there.

But not so for the new. While no one is dropping their books for portable media readers yet, the internet has expanded the market for lightly-used or "as new" books (as described in an article in this morning's Trib). It's a pretty good article, but it didn't point out that nearly all the terms of the debate are the same as those over file-sharing. The industry claims that authors aren't getting a fair deal. The consumers claim that the product is over-priced and that this is a more efficient way of doing business. This argument seemed especially familiar:

On the other hand, some say that when a book changes hands it could ultimately lead to new-book sales.

Said Powell, "Often a person becomes enamored of an author or a subject and starts looking for additional books by that author or on that subject. And their entry point is often a used book."

(Yes, that Powell.)

No matter how you feel about the subject, it seems like the complaints being uncovered by the "like new" market are worth considering. New books are too expensive. Publishing houses only push the books they know will sell (think summer blockbusters). Quality books have become more difficult to find (think indy media). What the "like new" problem shows is not that traditional media are threatened by new media technologies -- there is no new medium here at all. What's really happening is that a stifling market of over-consolidated corporations is being threatened by a reasonable market of independent distributors (and who knows, maybe publishers and authors will be next). As Lawrence Lessig might argue, the problem is not the new technologies, but a corporate order feeling the natural resistance that a fair market would accomodate.

what was Plan B in the Pacific Theater? (and would it have been worse?)

2005-08-04T16:37:00.000-05:00

Every person with the slightest interest in American history has had the discussion about The Bomb. It's hard to contribute anything new to either the debate over whether it was morally acceptable or the question of how the war would have proceeded without it. For years, the justification given for use of The Bomb was the huge number of lives (American and Japanese) that would have been lost in an invasion of Japan. However, a recent article from OpenDemocracy.com adds a new twist to the debate -- the American government was prepared to use massive amounts of chemical weapons against the Japanese in such an invasion.

The thought of this being a part of my own history frightens me. I know Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrific, but something about them seems inevitable -- not just because they are such a familiar part of the past, but something about the novelty of the bomb itself, the wonder and terror of Trinity. Though I am sure it has been lived and relived many times in the minds of the victims, the singular flash seems as if it must have been necessary to bring in the Cold War and all that followed.

The record of chemical warfare would not seem nearly as clean. The news would have trickled back to the U.S., probably resulting in a more ambiguous final few months of the war. The resentment over the internment of the Japanese in California might have become even worse once the images were recycled in the public mind. And it seems likely that the Japanese would at least to attempt to return fire, resulting in thousands of American chemical casualties. It might result in an entirely different history of "weapons of mass destruction."

But there are two questions in particular that stick in my mind. First, would the death toll have been higher if chemical weapons had been used instead of The Bomb? Keep in mind that this includes a large number of deaths from the conventional invasion as well. The article claims that the U.S. estimated 5 million deaths -- while Wikipedia says about 120,000 immediate deaths from the A-bombs, and twice that many over time. Even if the original estimate is conservative, it seems like the bombs would have been a more humane choice.

A more relevant question, though, is what does the plan to use chemical weapons say about the race factor in the use of the bomb? It seems unlikely that race and culture didn't play some role. If the war in Germany had lasted longer and Truman had contemplated bombing a major German city, you would think some of his advisers would object on the grounds of European cultural heritage. "We don't want to be rememberd as the civilization that destroyed one of the cultural capitals of the world, etc." At the least, you would think that this might have motivated Truman to consider a target of low value as a demonstration. But history never forced Roosevelt or Truman to make a choice about using atomic weapons against Germany.

However, using chemical weapons would have been a possibility. Yet unless there's something missing from this article, it would seem that the Americans never planned on it. There may be explanations here I'm avoiding, but I think this provides some essential insight into the decision to drop the bombs on Japan.

how do I appear to be well-read when I'm actually not?

2005-08-04T14:26:00.000-05:00

Well, you asked just the right guy -- this skill is a vital part of my Northwestern education.

No, seriously, I recently auditioned to be an SAT instructor and was asked to give a 5-minute presentation on a topic from a list of suggestions. I chose this one, and provided a handout for my "students." Since I put some time into it, I figured I would reprint it here:

Basic tips

• Use active listening: eye contact, nodding at title or author, use encouraging words and expressions.
• Repeat the author’s name, title, subject or other detail.
• Use empty adjectives to describe the author: profound, engaging, riveting, fascinating, well-written, haunting, intriguing, etc.
• Ask questions that assume that you’ve read the book: “How far are you?” “Do you like it so far?” “How do you think it compares with his earlier work?” “Have you got to the end yet?” “What part was your favorite?”
• Build on information you’ve received to develop further questions: “Why do you think that?”

Some rules to remember

• The main reason to appear to be well-read is to gain information from people who actually are and deal with people who are faking. Most people have never read (much less understood) the books they talk about. But you may have to appear to be well-read in order to discover their opinions and attitudes, or simply to keep them talking. But remember, actual reading is always best.
• Never admit to reading anything that you would actually enjoy. Strictly off-limits: adventure novels, science fiction, romances, humor books, sports books, food books, celebrity biographies. If someone does admit to reading any of these things, they are an honest person and you should talk to them whenever possible.
• Never mess with an expert – if someone clearly knows everything about an author or topic, create the impression that you’ve read one or two books on the topic, then keep them talking so you can reference them in the future. “Well, I was talking with Professor Smith about this book, and he said…”

If you’re cornered…

• You can say you haven’t gotten to the book because in the middle of a very large volume that no one ever intends to read. Ex.: “Well, I haven’t actually gotten very far in that one yet, because I’m right in the middle of Finnegan’s Wake, and you know how that goes.” Something hopelessly obscure will do as well.
• If you think you cannot fake knowledge of an entire topic, always be ready to bring up a book you have previously read, discussed or heard about. If it is vitally important to discuss the book at hand, say you’ve read a review of it. Never change the topic away from books.
• “It had a certain… je ne sais quoi.” This French phrase literally means, “I don’t know what.” You can use it completely honestly and score points with snobs for speaking French.
• “It reminded me of… hmm… the Greeks had a word for it, didn’t they?” Fear not, the Greeks had a word for everything, and no one remembers any of them.

sound familiar?

2005-08-04T14:15:00.000-05:00

From an op-ed article in this morning's Trib on Saudi Arabia:

The educational system is also out of touch with reality.

Oh no.

The school system has been skewed toward religious studies, thus reducing the time spent on other needed disciplines required to prepare young Saudis for the future.

Oh shit.

Saudis are graduating in record numbers from Saudi universities with degrees in religion and humanities--making them increasingly unemployable in times when science and technology are the name of the game.

Humanities? Unemployable? Well I'm Ph.uckeD.

what's coming over my Google ads?

2005-08-04T14:02:00.000-05:00

Strangely, a blog entirely dedicated to the idea that cold calls are an ineffective sales strategy. I wish I could be so focused!

http://nevercoldcall.typepad.com/

I'm guessing he's probably right, tho I have to say that as a journalist I respect cold-call skills. I don't know anything about sales, but we certainly couldn't do our work without a lot of time on the horn.

what were the scariest things to be born in 1995?

2005-08-04T13:41:00.000-05:00

Why those pesky creatures that inhabit the various versions of Windows. Their grandaddy was Microsoft Bob, the ultimate in user-fiendly design (note the lack of the r. Definition: user-fiendly -- a product that purports to make the user's life easier but actually assumes that the user is an idiot and needs to have his/her life managed by a computer. For examples, try to do anything in Microsoft Word.)

Anyway, it's worth remembering Bob and the varmits it bore. Here's an interesting little description of the beast.

why can't I all just get along? (or "how meta is that?")

2005-08-02T10:29:00.000-05:00

I am a person who is occasionally annoyed by the first-person plural. The editorial "we" doesn't bother me so much as when people use it in "polite" commands ("How about we all calm down now?"). But I sympathize with this fellow Singularist, who created a program that removes all first-person plural from the various -ist sites (Chicagoist, Gothamist, etc.) Singularist seems to get all the major forms (we, our, ours, ourselves, etc.) but misses them when they're in all caps, resulting in this amusing post from Chicagoist on the topic. The Chicagoist version:

Only a couple of days after launch, the Chicagoist Editorial Staff have been bombarded with demands from our über-hip friends demanding to know if we've seen Singularist. The answer, yes we have, and WE think, at least in Chicago, that it's pretty damn funny and inventive.

Launched on July 30th, Singularist is the singular effort of University of Southern California communications major Eric Richardson who, annoyed with our consistent "group commentary" and use of we - because we are members of a collective, hive-being - decided to script a site that would strip out the offending first-person plural, and make it all singular. Because he's from Los Angeles Singularist defaults to LAist, but you can read any of the other sites. Chicagoist is "cleansed" too.

And then the Singularist version:

Only a couple of days after launch, the Chicagoist Editorial Staff have been bombarded with demands from my Ã¼ber-hip friends demanding to know if I've seen Singularist. The answer, yes I have, and WE think, at least in Chicago, that it's pretty damn funny and inventive.

Launched on July 30th, Singularist is the singular effort of University of Southern California communications major Eric Richardson who, annoyed with my consistent "group commentary" and use of I - because I am members of a collective, hive-being - decided to script a site that would strip out the offending first-person plural, and make it all singular. Because he's from Los Angeles Singularist defaults to LAist, but you can read any of the other sites. Chicagoist is "cleansed" too.

Apparently it screws up umlauts as well. Down with über!

Also funny from Chicagoist's interview with Singularist creator:

Chicagoist: How often do you read Ist? Just LAist, or the others too?
Eric Richardson: i've posted various rants about LAist in the past
Eric Richardson: just LAist. i probably check the site once or twice a day.
Eric Richardson: i just didn't think it was fair to just target them when the code could do (almost) all the -ist sites
Eric Richardson: paris was going to be rough, so i left it out

Non non, mon ami! I'm sure someone could fix that up (not me, damn reflexives). Also:

Chicagoist: So, are you planning to spice up any other blogs? Like say translate Gawker into Elizabethan English?
Eric Richardson: the problem is that grammar's hard

Ain't it the truth? I'd love to design a program that would remove passive voice from academic papers, but that would be extremely difficult...

was Frist gaming the religious right?

2005-07-29T12:31:00.000-05:00

This morning's news carries the story that Bill Frist has decided to break with the president on the use of human embryonic stem cells in research, bringing the Senate closer to the 60 votes it would need to overcome a filibuster (tho Bush could still veto a bill). It doesn't surprise me that Frist wants this research to happen -- most doctors do. But it seems unlikely that this is a spontaneous decision on Frist's part. Like Bush's original stem cell decision, it seems like a calculated political move. In Frist's case, however, I think it also explains a lot of his recent actions with regards to the religious right.

It has been my position for some time that neither Bush nor much of the Republican leadership really believe what they say about stem cells. Bush's original rule was that federal funds could go to research using existing stem cell lines, but not new ones. He said that for the existing lines "the life or death decision has already been made." At the time, I argued that this statement showed that Bush did not really respect embryos as persons with rights, because one would never make such a statement about, say, corrupting a mass grave. If he were staying consistent with his principles, Bush would have either banned all stem-cell research or offered the alternative justification that such research encourages abortion (which is the reason why I personally think there should be strict guidelines for the research, as there are with organ donation and similar procedures).

Frist basically admits the contradiction in his position when he says: "I am pro-life. ... I believe human life begins at conception. ... I also believe that embryonic stem cell research should be encouraged and supported." (To be fair, Kerry made similarly vexing statements, but no one is chanting "flip flop flip flop" at Frist.) I'm guessing what Frist actually believes is that life begins *shortly after* conception, since the ethical problems posed by sacrificing a life for the sake of research are obvious (particularly for doctors). He explains the apparent change in his position by saying that the stem cell lines left available by Bush are not sufficient for research -- but this poses similar problems.

This is all besides the point though. The real question is why Frist decided to change his position now. The point about the number of lines seems like a sham -- people tend to have a fundamental passion for or against stem cell research, just as they do with abortion. Frist's statement is not cautionary -- it seems clear that he has always been sympathetic with the idea of using stem cells in experiments. So why come out in favor of them now.

My guess is that when the stem-cell debate re-emerged after the election, Frist wanted to be in favor of research, but knew he might lose support with the religious right. So, to gain credibility with them, he attempted to gain as much media attention as possible for his stances on two other issues of importance to the religious right -- the Terri Schiavo case and Bush's federal circuit court nominees (which, one could argue, was not considered a religious issue before Frist helped make it one). Now it would be hard to avoid attention on these issues for the Senate majority leader. But Frist deliberately went out of his way to draw attention to his stance on these topics by doing things like making a medical judgment based on a video tape and touting the "nuclear option" in the Senate. Perhaps Frist knew that he would need to vote in favor of stem cell research in the future, and wanted to raise sufficient political capital with the religious right so he could avoid being punished when he did.

That's just my theory. Any further speculation either way would be welcome.

who's so tired?

2005-07-28T16:06:00.000-05:00

Don't let the cuteness fool you. She was probably about to bite down on Lindsay's hand.

what reporter was lazy enough to do this?

2005-07-27T12:35:00.000-05:00

Okay, let's face it, most of us journos (and ex-journos) are lazier than we like to admit. But this item, cited by Romenesko, is really low:

EDEN — Dave Matthews isn’t Emma Burgin’s favorite band, so the Greensboro woman was surprised when her photo appeared in The Reidsville Review with a comment, attributed to her, saying that it was.

She was surprised because no one at the newspaper ever interviewed her.

Burgin’s photo, and photos of some other young people who have appeared in the newspaper, were copied from Thefacebook.com, a college social networking Web site.

Burgin is one of at least six people — none of whom live in Rockingham County — whose photos appeared in the newspaper’s daily man-on-the-street feature, “Two Cents Worth,” during May.

Someone should keep a blog (or just a page) recording all the Facebook controversies... Northwestern had one its own, of course.

who did curiosity kill?

2005-07-27T09:45:00.000-05:00

I'd rather not contemplate June's demise, thanks, but this photo makes clear that she shares some traits with her owner (the curiosity, not the crazy eyes).

did Bostonian liberalism cause priests' child abuse?

2005-07-26T13:26:00.000-05:00

Apparently Sen. Rick Santorum implied as much. Links and discussion at my friend Ellen's blog.

why are we sending Spicy Noggin into space?

2005-07-26T09:38:00.000-05:00

from the unfortunate spell-checking department...

http://www.livejournal.com/users/shimgray/66844.html

so what's hop-pening with these toads?

2005-07-26T08:52:00.000-05:00

Sorry about the pun; I can't resist.

So I don't see anything awful about this John Roberts guy so far, but the discussion over his nomination has made me start thinking of something that has bothered me since I first read about it. In a 2003 dissent, Roberts argued that because a certain species of toad only exists in California, it might not be governed by the Endangered Species Act. (See this article in the Miami Herald. Now I don't see this as a reason to oppose Roberts, since he's said there might be other justifications for the act and he said he thought it should be reviewed anyway. I'd worry if he displayed a general disregard for environmental legistlation, but this article suggests that's not going to be a problem. But I'm vexed by the specific argument in the toad case.

Even tho I'm sympathetic with the New Deal and its descendants, it's pretty clear that the federal government uses "interstate commerce" to justify all sorts of things the Foudners wouldn't have intended. So I could understand if some people, even members of the federal judiciary, thought that the *entire* Endangered Species Act is unconstitutional. But I believe precedent establishes that if you're justifying a law using the commerce clause, you can't use the "I kept it in one state" excuse to get out of it. The most recent example is the Supreme Court ruling on marijuana in California (the CNN story linked there cites the majority opinion, which says the thing being regulated must have a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce). One of the other interns here, a law student, mentioned a case from the New Deal era in which a farmer grew and ate his own crops in Ohio and felt he should be exempt from regulation (he lost).

The point is I don't think you can do piecemeal federalism. The Endangered Species Act is a lot like laws governing *actual* interstate commerce; to be effective, it has to regulate things that stay within one state, because they have an overall effect on everyone else. Besides, if the point of the "federalism revolution" is to empower states, this doesn't seem to do it. Let's say the California toad had been exempted from the act. California might want to protect it, but if it did, it would be forced to create an entire program just for this one create that happened to stay in-state most of the time. I could see the Supreme Court or Congress deciding that species regulation is best left to the states. But exempting a handful of species doesn't seem to help them do that.

But -- as this blog is about questions -- does anyone know of a *different* sort of justification for exempting species that stay within one state, one that would be compatible with commerce clause precedent? Or am I just hopping mad?

etes-vous une kid-kodak?

2005-07-26T08:43:00.000-05:00

sorry about the missing accent in the title line. I try to hit the "next blog" function on blogger once a day. Ran into a French-language blog in which someone was described as "une vraie kid-Kodak" or "a real Kodak kid." Ah, j'adore le francais (sorry no circumflex).

want to hear my lame flip-flop joke?

2005-07-26T01:11:00.000-05:00

Why are people making fun of the Northwestern lacrosse team for wearing flip-flops to the White House...

when its current occupant walked all over them to get there?

wakka wakka wakka!

Images shamelessly stolen from the White House and this site.

Note: a Google search for flip-flops turns up a shoes site first, but then about a page worth of sites documenting both Bush and Kerry's, um, nuances. If that meme is still current, I'm kind of surprised that a similar pun didn't make it into the Trib story that broke this thing (or maybe I'm just unobservant).

am I becoming one of those people...

2005-07-26T01:06:00.000-05:00

...whose Web site is filled with pictures of his cat?

yes
oh yes

These pictures of June are about a month old... she's roughly twice as big now. I would post more recent pics, but I'm trying to keep you in suspense.

do computers have symptoms?

2005-07-26T00:06:00.000-05:00

I was trying to explain a computer problem I've been having to my roommate. I was trying to explain why I thought it was a hardware malfunction and not the software, and I used the word "symptom." Neither of us were really sure if it made sense to apply to computers. Part of me thinks that the biomedical connotations are just too strong. On the other hand, there are few words that fit. I thought of "error" or "bug," but both of those seemed too essential for what I was talking about -- a sign that indicated something else.

I checked the Merriam Webster def of symptom, but that didn't help much... it emphasizes the biological, but doesn't limit it (tho I did discover that its etymology is related to that of "feather.")

Anyway, I think "symptom" would be useful because it helps one talk about phenomena related to the original cause which may or may not be problems in themselves. And the biological metaphor might not be so bad -- we already talk about computer viruses. But I'm convinced that computer scientists must have a settled term for this. Does anyone know what it is?

And can anyone fix my wi-fi?

where can I find out about George Bush's hemorrhoids (and Oliver Cromwell's head)?

2005-07-25T09:19:00.000-05:00

One of the other interns and I were discussing the height of the President this morning, so I decided to look it up. What I found was far more extensive -- a site with a medical history of not just Bush, but all the presidents, vice-presidents, English monarchs and astronauts. He doesn't seem to think Cromwell died of malaria (this matters for my thesis, I swear). Also provides an interesting anecdote about the Lord Protector's head:

When the monarchy was restored, Cromwell's body was dug up. It was hanged from a tree, then beheaded (it took eight blows). The head was displayed on a high pole of Westminster Hall for 25 years, until it was blown down in a gale. A guard saw it, recognized it, hid it under his cloak, and later sold it. It passed through several owners over the years, and was ultimately willed to Sidney Sussex College of Cambridge University. The college gave it a proper burial in 1960. A plaque at the college states the head is buried "near to this place," but the exact location is a guarded secret. [p. 173]. In the 1930s the head was examined, and the results published in the journal Biometrika.

Warts and all!

what does Ann Coulter think about John Roberts?

2005-07-22T15:25:00.000-05:00

Apparently he's not the *right* kind of guy...

Apparently, Roberts decided early on that he wanted to be on the Supreme Court and that the way to do that was not to express a personal opinion on anything to anybody ever. It's as if he is from some space alien sleeper cell. Maybe the space aliens are trying to help us, but I wish we knew that.

full column here

why did they attack England?

2005-07-22T09:51:00.000-05:00

One of my fellow interns passed this on to me...

Terrorists are Stupid
They chose to bomb England? These morons will be found out soon enough. The country is apparently chock full of sleuths: Sherlock Holmes, Agatha Christie, The woman from Murder She Wrote (isn't she British?), James Bond, and Mr. Belvedere (he discovered all of Wesley's schemes). They should have tried France, where Inspector Clousseau can't even find an oddly colored jungle cat.

From Barely Legal Blog

how do I make the intern read my blog?

2005-07-20T16:46:00.000-05:00

This may be a more relevant question than you think. Consider this -- for the past week or so, I have been trying to figure out a good way for our ethics office to keep track of blogs kept by doctors, bioethicists, health lawyers, and other sources. There are hundreds of these, and the people in charge will really only want to read a handful. And the choice has more or less fallen on me. This isn't due to any particular expertise, but basically because I am the youngest person in the office and, as a result, more familiar with resources like Bloglines.

When you think about it, this situation must be repeated time and again in American corporations. Because of stories like the fall of Trent Lott, Howard Dean's campagin, "Rathergate" and the Downing Street Memo, many professional people have now heard of blogs. But most of them have no desire to read them, or when they try, feel completely lost. So it falls on the younger staff members to create some way of getting the information to them (in our case, through a group Bloglines account I'm putting together). Note to Graham, if you're reading -- this might be a story.

So what sort of criteria does one use to quickly evaluate the utility of more than a hundred blogs? Here's what developed as I was poking around:

* if you haven't posted in the past month, you're probably not worth reading.
* personal anecdotes or announcements make your blog much less palatable to the bosses, who are slow to buy into this medium anyway. The same thing goes for animation, cute graphics, and other things that make Web sites annoying. However, the occasional photo might help.
* links, in themselves, are not that useful, particularly to people whose job it is to know the news anyway. Collecting links in a useful way is good, but the thing people need most is insightful commentary, which they can't always get from the newspaper.
* large blocks of text are a big turn-off, especially for people who have never encountered the medium before.
* a niche will get you noticed. Generic blogs by doctors eventually became so repetitive that I got tired of including them in our list. But a blog that focuses on a speciality or issue is a resource to people doing research in that area.
* as a rule of thumb: the more political, the less useful. Even if a blog contains great information on, say, stem cell reserach, it's hard for me to designate it as one of our official sources when it also includes long screeds against creeping socialism.
* obscenity poses a similar problem -- if every fifth post is a sex joke, it's difficult for me to send a blog around the office.
* using a generic blogging service (like Blogspot) versus having your own site doesn't seem to matter much, especially when we're reading over RSS.
* I didn't give a lot of consideration to a blog's current popularity among other bloggers, since I knew the higher-ups would never know or care.

Of course, these aren't guidelines I would use to judge *all* blogs (that would obviously be hypocritical, given some of the weird things I've posted here). The point is that if you want your blog to be picked up in the sort of search I just did (and which interns around the country are probably also doing), they might be some things to consider.

can an experiment make us learn less?

2005-07-20T16:33:00.000-05:00

Mary tends to do useful things like post poems, prose selections and quotes on her blog. Today, she put up a list of R. Buckminster Fuller quotes. I love Bucky as much as the next guy, but I had to take exception to one of his opinions. Here is the comment I posted on her site, which serves as a useful independent post, methinks (slightly modified):

I wish I could agree with this one:

"Every time man makes a new experiment he always learns more. He cannot learn less."

But I just don't think it's true. I think there are probably entire fields of studies whose assumptions generate experiments that shackle our imaginations. The first one that comes to mind is economics -- by assuming that humans are rational beings attempting to increase efficiency, there are probably many economic studies that are causing us to ignore data about how people actually behave. And I'd say there are analogues in the physical sciences too. Of course, there are also experiments that are just poorly designed. I think you could argue that we learn from these failures in the long run, as a species, but they limit us in the short term. So I'd like to say that I might agree with the intent of the statement, but not its content. I'd say that while science represents a fulfillment of human nature, our inherent experimental impulse is still primary. We shouldn't claim that the scientific process itself is inherently good. Instead, we should say that human curiosity is the primary good, and science is good to the extent that it furthers that curiosity (rather than stifling it).

why do the aliens speak English?

2005-07-19T16:38:00.000-05:00

The FAQ for Stargate: Atlantis admits the dirty secret of the "universal translator:"

Q: Why do the aliens speak English?
A: Practical reasons that come with television production. The time constraints of an hour-long episode mean that it would become a major hindrance to the story each week if the team had to spend the first 10 minutes of each episode learning to communicate with a new species.

I remember loving the "language" incidents in Star Trek -- the argument that Shakespeare is better in Klingon, the TNG episode with the language made out of metaphors (um, isn't that every language?), the DS9 episode in which the universal translator broke down -- good stuff. Of course, a better criticism of that world (which, I think, does not apply to Stargate) is why so many sentient species have achieved exactly the same level of technological development and why they are all genetically compatible. This was partially answered by the TNG episode that revealed the common genetic heritage of all sentient life (paging Dr. Rael), but we all know the real answer is television.

how did Londoners really react?

2005-07-18T16:39:00.000-05:00

ha, this post by Warren Ellis gives a good idea (you'll have to page down to actually see it)

(yes, that Warren Ellis, the one who Patrick Stewart so admires)

too bad he didn't see the tribute I posted about earlier...

how did the press cover the London bombings?

2005-07-14T11:53:00.000-05:00

This article from the Boston Phoenix, cited by Romenesko, provides a useful analysis. One thing the author seems to have overlooked is the "Anglophilia" element to much of the coverage. I think I counted four independent Churchill references in the Trib (tho the rhetoric of Bush, Blair or the Trib editorial board got nowhere close). Actually, if anyone can find a truly Churchillian response to the bombings, I'd like to see it.

Another question -- is there an equivalent to this Boston Phoenix story for 9/11? I know it would have to be a very large document, but I would love to see a long essay simply describing all the press reactions for the first 24 hours. The reactions after that are, as they say, history...

is there a Web page to convert English spellings?

2005-07-11T15:46:00.000-05:00

Since English is a global language and doesn't have very consistent orthography to begin with, a number of different systems of spellings have developed. The most famous have to be the differences between American and British (or Commonwealth) English. I found this useful list of the differences on wikipedia some time ago, and have always been amused by the Economist's list of Americanisms. But today it occurred to me that if there are Web pages that convert one language to another (sort of), there ought to be a site that does the same for American and British spellings.

I couldn't find one, tho there are a number of downloadable programs that claim to be able to do this. I had trouble getting most of them to work, and as a Mac person most of them are not useful to me anyway. If anyone knows of a site that does this, tho, I'd like to know.

It turns out that this might be rather difficult, tho probably less difficult that the problems facing BabelFish and similar translators. One programmer wrote of some of the difficulties here.

doctors have blogs?

2005-07-11T15:35:00.000-05:00

Indeed, they do. This may be old hat to those who are more blogocentric than I, but there is a small community of medical bloggers, which were covered in a recent artice in the Los Angeles Times. I might end up following a few of them for personal enjoyment. Also, one of the higher-ups at work was interested, so I put together a list. I don't really feel like making all these into links -- I figure you can copy-paste.

www.docnotes.net
www.corante.com/livingcode/
http://medpundit.blogspot.com
www.gruntdoc.com
http://blogborygmi.blogspot.com/
http://galenslog.typepad.com/galens_log/
http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/
http://www.echojournal.org/
http://www.codeblog.com/
http://www.medrants.com/index.php
http://shrinkette.blogspot.com/
http://doctormental.blogspot.com/
http://drcharles.blogspot.com/
http://emeritus.blogspot.com/
http://codeblueblog.blogs.com/
http://www.rangelmd.com
http://medicalmadhouse.blogspot.com/
http://www.wakingupcosts.net/
http://cut-to-cure.blogspot.com/
http://suepelletier.typepad.com/daily_capsules/
http://www.enochchoi.com/
http://sumerdoc.blogspot.com/
http://catallarchy.net/blog/
http://www.intueri.org/
http://hospiceblog.blogspot.com/
http://oracknows.blogspot.com/
http://thewelltimesperiod.blogspot.com/
http://grahamzon.com/
http://politedissent.com/
http://girlscientist.blogspot.com/
http://drtony.blogspot.com/
http://mudfud.blogspot.com/
http://spankysplace.blog-city.com/
http://chaplin.nu/
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/
http://medgadget.com/
http://redstatemoron.typepad.com/red_state_moron/
http://www.mppllc.com/pages/hbblog.html
http://www.medicalconnectivity.com/

who's the cutest cat?

2005-07-10T15:13:00.000-05:00

June
aka
Junebug
Ju-Ju Bee
Juno
June Carter Cat

could you use a mouse with no click button?

2005-07-08T15:35:00.000-05:00

on this site you could

one of the most common complaints about Apple computers is that the mice (and corresponding mice-like devices) only have one button. Steve Jobs, here's what's next...

want a list of some of the most important things ever conceived by Man?

2005-07-08T09:25:00.000-05:00

http://www.secondbreakfast.net/archives/001995.html

I made a little contribution... I was surprised to find it wasn't there yet.

BRITANNIA FUCK YEAH

Cheers,
An

can they raise the terror threat level just for mass transit?

2005-07-07T14:02:00.000-05:00

You may have asked this question, as I did, after hearing that the Department of Homeland Security raised the threat level to orange for mass transit following the London bombings. I don't think the color-coded system means a lot in the first place, but I did wonder if they were even following their own internal logic (a single threat level for the entire country, or at least a region).

They are -- the rules of the system say that the threat level can be raised for specific industries, and that would seem to include mass transit. However, it should be noted that the entire country, rails and all, stayed on yellow after the Madrid bombings, which (at present count) killed about five times as many people. You could argue that they know something we don't, but the DHS site says there is no specific threat at this time.

Tavistock Square

2005-07-07T09:17:00.000-05:00

I don't have anything coherent to say about the London bombings... but they're jarring me more than I might expect. Tavistock Square, where the bus exploded, was just up the street from where I stayed. I came into the city at King's Cross station and the Tube station I used every day was Russell Square. I have been to New York and Madrid, but only when I was younger and as a tourist... I remember the insides of buildings better than the streets. But I got to know my little bit of Bloomsbury rather well, and to think that this happened there... still don't know what to say.

please won't you neighbor me?

2005-07-05T14:31:00.000-05:00

From an article in today's Trib on how Biosphere is up for sale:

A sprawling new retirement community now neighbors the facility to the south, and developers would love to snag the Biosphere 2 property for residential use

At first I was shocked that the Tribune (tho a well-known spelling innovator) would use "neighbor" this way. But apparently it can be used as a verb, according to Merriam-Webster and the American Heritage. This struck me as a modern usage (kind of like "friend me" from the facebook world), but the OED records similar usages going back to the 16th century (plus a bunch of obsolete ones meaning something like "to behave in a neighborly way.") Whodathunkit?

why not have an index? (meme/complaint)

2005-06-30T09:08:00.000-05:00

At work I've been doing research on "therapeutic privilege," which is more or less when doctors withholds information from a competent person because they think it will harm them or render them unable to make decisions. So I've been looking through a host of bioethics books, mostly using the indices. When I ran across a book that didn't have one, I complained to the cubicle and many people agreed -- all nonfiction books should have an index. That led me to remember this passage:

The dyspeptic Thomas Carlyle consigned the publishers of any indexless book "to be damned ten miles beyond Hell, where the Devil could not get for stinging nettles." The cause of indexing enlisted the enthusiasm of the great law reformer Lord Campbell (1779-1861), who half seriously proposed that any author who published a book without an index should pay a fine and be deprived of the benefits of the Copyright Act.

from Daniel J. Boorstin, The Discoverers, 1983

:-)

dit dit da dit da dit (meme)

2005-06-29T12:46:00.000-05:00

I had always suspected this might be true:

http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/29/0550256&

how do I get to Africa?

2005-06-28T16:35:00.000-05:00

So we had a guest speaker at the AMA today who had recently returned from an education trip to Kenya and Tanzania. Naturally, I went. Not everyone who knows me understands that I have become more or less obsessed with Africa over the past few years. When I'm asked for my major, I'm more likely to say "history of medicine," which tends to be a more popular response than "history of colonialism." But I study the latter, too, and it's impossible to do that without considering Africa. As a result, I've become more interested in what the continet is like today -- its problems, yes, but also the many wonderful manifestations of African culture, which thrives as a part of the modern world.

The trouble is, I haven't been. Africa is a huge and varied place, and most of the people I know who can speak about it with any authority have visited a few different regions. I don't think I intend to become an Africa expert as such, but I think I need to visit there before I decide. But more importantly, I just really, really want to go and see this place I've been thinking about so much (the same thing that made me want to go to London).

So why haven't I gone so far? The easiest way would have been a study-abroad program. But I didn't want to go abroad my junior year because Lindsay was starting at the Art Institute. I can't do it my senior year because I'm working on my thesis. I might be able to apply for some sort of grant to do what I did in London -- a highly focused research trip. But I can't think of a legitimate topic, and I honestly don't think a trip like that would be realistic. I had a hard enough time getting things done in London, a place where I expect to return. If I were in an African country that I might never get to visit again, my desire to talk to people and see things would quickly overwhelm my research goals.

So what about after I graduate? Well, I'll need to be in Chicago for another year while Lindsay finishes school. Presumably I could apply for a Fulbright or something like that -- but I think what I really want first is a short-term trip that combines education and some sort of service. I think that would give me a more rounded experience and grounding for trips in the future. Actually, in an ideal world this trip would also include a bunch of people who I know want to know more about the continent or people close to me whom I want to convince of its significance.

I know that's kind of a crazy dream, but I don't think it's inconceivable. There must be foundations that put together these sort of trips for small groups. (Dr. Parsi went with Global Alliance for Africa, which is based in Chicago -- I'm going to check them out later.) Anyway, I just wanted to know if anyone had any ideas.

--

by the way, the name of our speaker was Kayhan Parsi -- he is supposed to have an op-ed article in the Trib soon, so look out.

what's the deal with this phrase?

2005-06-27T16:42:00.000-05:00

Ever since I read C. S. Lewis's "Abolition of Man," I've been more interested in the myths of public education. Here's one I hear a lot:

"Communism is a great idea in theory, but it never works."

I have heard this statement, or some slight variation on it, from at least a fistful of high school students. Granted, my sample is probably entirely connected with the Blue Valley School District... perhaps the statement coudld be tied back to some highly influential teacher at Blue Valley Northwest. But upon reflection, it seems like a rather strange thing for a high school history teacher to say. I would expect them to have a pretty strong objection to it -- I also have one of my own, as you'll see.

The main thing that surprises me about this statement is the standard by which communism is being judged. Presumably the main point of a high school history education is to help students function in their own society and get some sense of its values. Before Santi tells me that this doesn't happen anymore, I actually think there's still a pretty strong sense of it in civics classes in the like. For instance, I distinctly remember being tested on something like this statement: "Americans value equality of opportunity, not equality in fact."

Furthermore, since high schools can teach very little actual history, it would seem like this sort of statement wouldn't fit with their program. I would expect students to be saying things like "Communism is bad because it gives the state too much power" or "Communism is bad because it doesn't reward individual enterprise." So I wonder why so many students seem to have come to the unexpected conclusion that communism is a good idea on a theoretical level *and* feel that they have accumulated the evidence that it doesn't work.

The only answer I can think of is that high school education has (rather quickly) absorbed the "End of History" school of thought. That's why the "is" statements of the previous paragraph seem antiquated. The truth of market liberalism seems so self-evident at this point that educators see no reason to even consider (and reject) the theoretical basis of other kinds of government. In this scheme, communism (or, rather, anything that isn't market liberalism) seem more like alchemy than outdated political philosophies. "A great idea in theory, but it never works."

Tho I generally support market liberalism, this concerns me. I think we need a thriving political imagination, not just to adapt to future changes in circumstance, but even to keep our present system healthy. We have to know what it is in order to maintain it. The corrolary of the "communism" statement is that market liberalism might not be the greatest system, but it's the one that works. But if you look at history, that's just not true. Freedoms and markets had to be imagined and built. They were positive ideals, not the natural state, and we must work to maintain the benefits they provide and extend them to more people. The idea that markets are "just the way things are" will inevitably lead to corruption and cronyism. And I'm afraid that's where "The End of History" may have brought us.

posting here

2005-06-27T16:37:00.000-05:00

Hello all~

summer is always funny, schedule-wise. Right now I am an intern in the ethics group at the Americal Medical Association. Anyway, I work in an office, and at the end of the day there's usually a little bit of time where I'm not supposed to be doing anything and my desire to find extra work has sputtered out. This seems like a good time to blog. Therefore, you (two or three) might expect an occassional post from me now and then. This would be an infinite percentage increase over the past month or so.

so why was Comcast so shitty lately?

2005-04-18T15:26:00.000-05:00

Chicagoist provides an answer -- but had to go to the Washington Post and San Jose Mercury News to get it. I'll ask the same question Chicagoist does -- why aren't internet outages bigger news?

are we "digital natives"? (meme)

2005-04-18T14:56:00.000-05:00

Graham wonders if our generation could be called "digital natives." As my comments there show, I am somewhat skeptical. I feel about that label sort of how I feel about "bright" -- even if its denotation describes me, the conotation doesn't feel right.

what is the best approach to blog-work relations?

2005-04-18T14:11:00.000-05:00

An article in the NYT today is just one of the latest to draw attention to problems bloggers have encountered at work. It contrasts two approaches to the problem. The first is Mark Jen's, who was fired from Google because of something he wrote on a personal blog. Jen has been hired by a new company, Plaxo, and helped draft their policy on employees' blogs and other forms of personal communication. The idea is that if everyone knows the rules, it can be safe to blog about work.

A representative of the Electronic Frontier Foundation is portrayed as more skeptical. This group, which has done lots of good work on how new technology affects our civil liberties, has also published a guide to safely blogging about work. The principle disagreement is about anonymity -- Jen and compnay say it is impossible and unadvisable, while EFF links to tools to protect your identity (tho they don't advocate breaking the law, of course).

I'm not so sure these two approaches are actually incompatible... it does seem wise for corporations to have clear policies about blogs, and if they're friendly, all the better. But the anonymous disgruntled employee is often useful and entertaining, and I would rather they not be fired (even if their employer has a right to do so).

The question is whether there is a real middle ground. It's clear that blogs are becoming part of normal speech more quickly than anyone anticipated. One would hope that the normal rules of a free society -- not just laws, but norms and etiquette and values -- would extend into this sphere. So what is the best way to help do with blogs what we would do with other forms of free speech -- venting about the boss, suggesting ways to improve our community, organizing for change -- while also recognizing that the open nature of the Internet exacerbates the consequences of what we write?

where the hell am I?

2005-04-18T13:58:00.000-05:00

This question is asked in two senses. One, where did the blog entires go? Two, am I still in London?

Last question first-- no, I'm back in Evanston, which might not be obvious to those who do not live there. I was just in London for Spring Break, not for study abroad. However, this begs an answer to question one -- why haven't I been posting more?

Well, Internet access became dicey again later in the break, and I actually had to get to work on my research project (and enjoying myself!). However, I have lots of notes and photos and things that I intend to post eventually... probably still under the hed "London, Alone."

Of course, it has also been about three weeks since I got back... that time is explained by a trip to Kirksville, Mo. and general busy-ness. But back in the swing of things now!

London, Alone - Part 3 - "A Tour of London, with 100,000 People"

2005-03-20T11:36:00.000-06:00

pics here!

I got started a little late Saturday morning, and decided the trip to the library probably wouldn't be worth it. I'm going to Liverpool on Monday, and I can spend all day in the library Tuesday, so I should be all right. Meanwhile, I had a protest to get to. I stopped by the stationer to pick up a posterboard and a thick marker, and made my sign on the Tube. Here is a picture of me with it later in the day. I added the finishing touches on a bench in the Hyde Park Corner station. A tiny Lebanese-looking girl asked, "Are you going to the demo?" I thought about what she meant for a moment, then said yes, I was. We were both afraid we?d be late, but I had to finish my sign, so she and her crew moved along.

Outside the gates of Hyde Park, a group of volunteers from Socialist Worker newspaper were handing out signs with a picture of Bush and the words "#1 Terrorist." There were a few other popular pre-generated placards: "Against All Wars"; "Troops Out Now"; "End the Occupation." None of those were really for me, since I don't quite support any of those goals. My real sentiment was something like, "Now that we're in Iraq please don't screw things up too badly and I hope we can leave as soon as possible but I would also rather not create a civil war and by the way I support Israel's right to exist and I want the Palestinian Authority to clean up its act before Palestine becomes an independent country, more for the Palestinians' sake than the Israelis, and while we're on the subject I completely oppose any sort of violation of human rights or racism, and yet I think there might be extreme cases where torture and the death penalty are justified, but I'm not sure if I trust the state with the power to administer them oh and also regarding American hegemony I don't think we can really get around it in a world where economic power matters most but I think there's a right way and a wrong way -- your advice as the previous hegemon would be appreciated." Whew. But you can't fit all that on a placard.

You can fit some of it in a discussion, though, and this was the first chance I really got to have them. To get to the march's launching point, we had to walk across the north side of Hyde Park, which is quite a hike. The park was amazing, by the way -- I had hoped to get down there earlier in the day and explore a bit, but I didn't want to miss the demo. I'll likely go back to see the museums that are down there. Anyway, I had a few fellow travelers across the park. One was a veteran organizer from Brighton; looked like an old Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament type (there were there in force, by the way). He told me about his trip up and made fun of the bobbies lining the edge of the park. "Probably going to spray us with sewage or something," he said.

I wanted to keep talking to him, but we were interrupted by a socialist who objected to my sign. "Kerry! Kerry was just as bad!" He looked around, trying to draw a crowd from the people rushing to catch up with the rest of the marchers. "We should be protesting against this fellow! He should be tarred and feathered!" I had to stop for that -- I explained that my sign was kind of a joke, that I wanted to show the futility of the American voter. He told me I should have voted for a real opposition, though he didn't seem to know what he meant by that (besides, if I had cast a third-party vote, it probably would have been for the libertarians). We came to something of a consensus in the end -- I told him that I thought voting was just one form of political expression, probably the minimum form, and I didn't consider it a real reflection of my principles. He seemed to like that, but kept wanting to go on about how the Democrats had purposefully lost, or something along those lines. I told him I had to catch up with the marchers, which was true.

Things moved pretty slowly from there on out, but it was okay, because I had a good chance to take pictures. I had seen massive protests in the United States, though I've never been in one, so I can't tell what aspects of what I saw were uniquely British. I saw some of the same guerilla theater stuff you see in the States... always entertaining. The police line probably interested me the most. About a third of them weren't even police -- they were observers or "stewards" from some of the organizing groups. I think they were both there to watch the bobbies and to keep the crowd moving. When we stood still -- which was often, at first -- representatives from various groups worked the crowd, distributing literature. A few of them got caught up in discussions, often about who to vote for in the upcoming elections. There was a strong "Labour Against the War" contingent, some Liberal Democrats... I think most of the march represented the entire city's socialist vote, though. We'll see in (I think) May.

We soon approached our first target, the American Embassy. I held my sign so the people looking out the windows could see. The chanting began: "Bush, Blair, CIA: how many kids have you killed today?" "George Bush? TERRORIST! Tony Blair? TERRORIST!" And, occasionally: "Shaaa-ron? TERRORIST!" I asked one of the yell leaders if she knew "We Shall Overcome" and was promptly ignored. The only group I wanted to sing with was a church choir who seemed to have brought books of hymns for peace, but I'd lost them in Hyde Park.

"You can?t have a protest without embassies!" remarked an older fellow who had fallen in beside me. He noticed my sign and started asking me questions about American politics. I explained a little about the Democratic primary, speculated about how other candidates might have fared against Bush. He asked me if I thought Bush was really wearing a wire during the first debate -- I told him the White House could surely have developed a better technology. I did explain, though, that it was a good analogy, because I thought Bush wasn't the evil genius that radicals and anti-war protesters make him out to be. I told him I bought Al Gore's explanation of the man-- he's a coward who will never say no to anyone who helped him get elected. He seemed to like that line, thought it could be applied to Blair. I wasn't so sure. I also told him about the Jeff Guckert/Jeff Gannon story, which apparently hasn't broken over here.

As we approached Piccadilly Circus, he pointed out a few sites to me. "That's the Duke of Wellington's house," he said. "One Piccadilly Circus." He seemed as congenial as a tour guide. I thanked him, then fell off to the side to take some pictures -- things were really beginning to heat up. During another congested moment, I talked to a student from Portugal who was studying somewhere further north and had come down just for this. His opinions seemed somewhat conflicted, like mine. I had a feeling he was there for the girls -- he spent the rest of the walk with a few radical-chic types. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I left him as we entered Trafalgar Square.

The moment I saw Trafalgar is probably a good metaphor for my experience in London so far. When you associate a place with the past, with buildings and monuments, you start to think of it as empty. We had a nice little discussion about this in my Technology and Colonialism class... why colonial governments would always portray the monumental architecture of India or Africa or Southeast Asia as empty. One theory says they wanted them to become symbols of the government, not the people who lived there (though nationalist movements were quickly able to adopt them -- that's why Zimbabwe is called Zimbabwe).

Anyway, I couldn't help thinking of that discussion when I saw Trafalgar filled with people. The base of Nelson's Column was covered in posters. A black woman rode one of the bronze lions, swaying her arms to the music. A woman wearing sunglasses and a T-shirt that just said "peace" splashed around in one of the fountains, soaking her black skirt. The steps of the National Gallery were packed with bodies. There was some milling about, but most people focused on the speakers: a labor leader, a Green Party MP, a Muslim feminist, a rapper. I gave up with my sign at this point and walked around, taking more pictures. The Green Party was also nice enough to sell me some tea and a brownie (no, not special brownies). I stayed around long enough to take photos of the cleanup crew, then headed for the Tube.

For a first protest experience, it wasn't so bad. I agree those who say that this form of political expression is probably dying -- the fact that so many millions of people all over the world were unable to prevent the Iraq war is a sign of that. I think any sort of popular movement that emerges over the next few decades will need to be smarter than crowds yelling at the American Embassy. But I loved the sort of discussions that took place that day. Even though none of the speakers really disagreed with each other, they did focus on different issues, they had different priorities. And there was great discussion in the crowd about where Britain (and the world) ought to be going. I don't know if that happens at these sort of things in Chicago or New York or Berkeley, but I'm glad it happened here.

More things happened that day, but I?m just about written out. Hope you enjoy the pictures!

London, Alone - Pt. 2 - “Bloomsbury, Noodles”

2005-03-19T15:52:00.001-06:00

I suppose I hadn’t had enough of getting lost the first day, because I feel like that was my principal activity today too. Thouugh it turn out so bad after all. Much of the day was spent either asleep or on my wild cyber-goose chase, yet even in the few evening hours I feel like I took in a lot. Also, though I briefly visited the library and took a tube ride yesterday, this was the first day I actually feel accultured to them.

I got to the Wellcome Library around 3 p.m. I should say that the library was nothing like what I expected. I hadn’t seen any pictures of it on their Web site, so I expected a tiny, old building with a loving, protective staff. Of course, this doesn’t make any sense; the Wellcome Library is one of the best libraries for the history of medicine in the world. To earn that reputation, it would need to have at least as many volumes as Northwestern does on the subject, and that’s a lot. It turns out it is a rather modern building -- not even its own building, actually, but a few floors within the Wellcome Trust. It is pretty similar to most research libraries and rare book rooms -- hour-long waits for materials, pencils only, no coats and bags, signing forms to hold you liable for the slightest crease, a few territorial librarians and researchers. The woman at the desk nearly had to break up a catfight between two people over a computer.

I didn’t get to look at much today -- just one of the expedition’s research papers, something that is actually held in the rare books room at Rush University, though they wouldn’t let me see it. It was somewhat illuminating because in this report, Todd (the Canadian scientist) includes a history of the Congo Free State, his ideas about disease causation and recommendations for prophylaxis. In itself it is a great example of how early-20th-century doctors thought about disease. We’ll see how useful it is for me in the long run.

After Wellcome closed at 5:30 I found my wireless, which occupied me for at least an hour (I had to finish up some work on the magazine article). After that I walked around Bloomsbury, just south of my hostel. This area is most famous for being the trotting ground and Virginia Woolf and friends. It’s also where you’ll find University College London and the British Museum. I accidentally found both earlier in the day, when I was trying to get to Euston Station. UCL didn’t look too different from an American college campus. The most distinctie features were the hundreds of posters advertising the massive anti-war protest going on tomorrow in Hyde Park. Don’t think I’m going to miss that; I’m stopping by an office supply shop (a “stationer”) tomorrow to get a poster board and Sharpie (“Don’t Blame Me-- I Voted For Kerry!”).

The part of Bloomsbury I explored was something of a mixture of upscale bars and restaurants with cheap student food and bookshops -- sort of like a very condensed Evanston, actually. I was searching for Wagamama which, legend has it, brought the “noodle shop” to the West, or at least to Britain. It was tucked in its own little nook off Bloosbury Street -- would never have found it if I wasn’t looking. It’s clear that everyone knew where it was, though -- I got there around 9 p.m., and the place was pretty packed. Some of that is due to the setup. In a plain, white room there’s about ten long benches, filled with people on either side. I felt sort of awkward eating there alone; they wouldn’t seat anyone across from me. They said it was all right, though -- it’s clear that they have a premium on speed. They give you a menu the moment you walk in the door, and the waiters place their orders by radio. I had the “wagamama ramen,” which I’m afraid wasn’t everything I’ve ever dreamed of in a noodle dish. I really should have gotten something with rice, but my main criterion was price -- I only had about eight pounds on me, because I had spent most of my cash that day on buying a Travelcard for the tube.

I got out of Wagamama around 10 p.m., but wasn’t tired at all, so I decided to take the tube to Picadilly Circus. In the old travel book Mary lent me, Here’s England, the author describes entering the Circus and not realizing she was in the heart of London. I doubt that would be possible today; the four corners surrounding the tube station and the statue of Eros are covered in bright video advertisements, Times Square-style. I wandered down a few streets, saw the ads for many of the major shows in town. I discovered, to my horror, that there is a T.G. I. Friday’s in town. I hope they don’t have to wear flair. You know, an amusing story would be to interview a person who works (or frequents) ten different iconic chain stores that have set up shop in London. At least they don’t have Wal-Mart yet.

I’d had about enough of Picadilly, so I headed home around midnight. Got lost once again... but tomorrow I think I’ll at least be able to find my way to my sort-of home.

I’d like to include some “observations on London/ers” for today, but I need to sleep. Perhaps tomorrow.

Oh, and I finally got my luggage, so... photos!

Tomorrow: protests through Hyde Park, Trafalgar Square... also maybe a bit of Chelsea.

London, Alone - Pt. 1.75 - “Access, Cont’d”

2005-03-19T15:50:00.000-06:00

Okay, this isn’t really being written on day 1.75, but it is meant to represent the point I was at earlier today.

One of the reasons we travel is order to feel different. A voyage is like a piece of fiction -- it’s not worth it unless the main character has changed by the end. Until this evening, I was only aware of the fact that I was in London. I didn’t really feel. The main reason was that I was worried. At about noon, this worry was divided into about four parts. My luggage hadn’t been delivered, and I got the sense my clothes were starting to stink. I had slept in that morning -- forgiveable, since I had gotten about three hours of sleep in as many days, but still annoying. As a result, I only spent a few hours in the library, even though I had intended to be there from nine to five. I was able to get oriented and put in a load of requests for materials, but I was still feeling one of my background fears for this entire trip -- that my research won’t turn out to be as promising as I thought. I doubt that will be the case -- I already found a few good things today -- but that may not make the fear go away.

The main irritant of today, though, was that I still hadn’t sent in my final paper and that article for the Weinberg alumni magazine. I feel that there really were extenuating circumstances, but I still felt guilty. Additionally, it meant that I spent the early afternoon searching for wirless internet. I had considered just retyping both items on one of the pay-for internet terminals at the hostel, but this seemed inordinately expensive and time-consuming. This wasn’t too awful, since it helped me orient a bit better. Also, my principal target, the Euston Station area, was not so far from the Wellcome Library. Alas, I failed in the end. Euston Station’s wireless only allows free access to the terminal’s site and a few others. The only alternative I could find nearby was Starbucks, which I was told had a T-Mobile hotspot. Ha, maybe in America, maybe, but I was not going to Starbucks in England. (Though they are ubiquitous, in some areas more than in the U.S. I’ll do a count next time I’m out.)

In the afternoon I was able to buy forty minutes’ access for a pound at the Virgin Megastore. This sounds exspensive if you consider that the exchange rate is a little over two dollars to the pound, but it was much less pricy than anywhere else I looked. The trouble was that when I got into the area, my adapter was incompatible with their outlets. It was sort of like trying to use a three-prong device in a two-prong plug. I even unplugged one of their “arcade tables.” (These were really neat, by the way... old two-player sit-down video game units, except they’ve attached some nice seats and everyone eats on them. You can still play the games, though -- I would have if I weren’t freaking out about the exchange rate.)

Oh, and Boy George was there. I couldn’t really see him, but... weird.

I finally found relatively inexpensive access at a place called Caffe Vero. As I would eventually discover, this is a sort of pseudo-Starbucks, a chain that claims to have London’s “best Italian coffee outside Milan.” It actually was pretty good. I suppose I can forgive the chaininess because the fact that they’re all over the city means it won’t be too hard to find one. If I had actually done some planning for this trip, though, I would have thought about where to find free (or “price-of-coffee”) wireless access. If my need hadn’t been so urgent, I might have worked harder to find free access here, but the only good way I can think of doing that is... the internet. Besides, I snuck a look at a Lonely Planet guide which said most places are pay-for. My own guide, though admirable in other respects, only mentioned one internet café, which looked like every other internet café. And what I needed was wireless, not rows of terminals.

Thus, word for the wise, don’t forget internet access! Now, the real entry.

London, Alone: Pt. 1.5 - Access Update

2005-03-18T14:16:00.000-06:00

So I should explain, outside of the "pure" context of an entry, my access situation. I've bought a week wireless pass for internet at a cafe chain here... cheaper than my hostel, and wireless, which is what I really need. There should be a post every day from here on out, but what I just posted was actually yesterday's, so there should be two tomorrow. I'll also be checking my e-mail once a day. I can call the U.S. if need be, but I don't have a lot of time... e-mail me if you need a phone call, and I'll see what I can do. Cheers!

London, Alone: Pt. 1 - "In Transit"

2005-03-18T13:05:00.001-06:00

I left in a ridiculous state of unpreparedness. At the time of my departure I had left one of my final papers unwritten, a job application incomplete, and the sink full of dishes. We'll see how many of those problems I can solve from London. Part of it was the fault of my shoddy computer battery... should have gotten my long-awaited replacement before I left, but there was no time.

I was so unprepared that I forgot to pack another pair of pants. One would think this would be a more essential thing to worry about than which novel to read on the plane (Orwell won -- Down and Out in Paris and London), but I'd been thinking about that all day instead of how to cover my ass. Fortunately, I had been meaning to get some new slacks anyway, so I bought a not-too-expensive pair at the airport. I really should have waited to go to SoHo and get something more "posh," but the fear of trouserlessness drove me to dull consumerism. And the value of the dollar was plummeting anyway.

So after a series of delays and a dash through the -- dare I say "beautiful?" -- Atlanta airport, I am on a plane to Gatwick Airport in London. (Digression: I love airports, train stations... like Gaiman's Delirium, I love any place that isn't really a place. This is one of the reasons why I enjoyed Spielberg's "The Terminal" more than I should have. I am actually typing this two days after the fact, and I should note that despite my sick affection, I did not find Gatwick to be beautiful in any way. Maybe it was because my luggage was lost. More on that later.)

For weeks I had been saying I couldn't believe it was real. I know the exact moment that changed -- when I saw the series of maps on the in-flight monitor that detailed my route. The American maps labelled the Blue Ridge Mountains; Rome, Georgia; Norfolk, Virginia; the sort of places whose reality I couldn't dust off if I tried. If they could be reduced to little white dots, I coudl believe that he most important city in the world could be one too. For a moment, at least.

"The most important city in the world"? Maybe not, but I can't shake the sense that everything important happened there. It's a historian's bias, but when people speak of liberty, of science, of commerce, of modernity, of "civilization" (good or bad) any of those things, I think of London, and not Washington or New York or Tokyo or Rome or whatever city I'm supposed to think of. Maybe it's because I feel like I know a little of its dark side, from these years studying the massive plunder that was planned in sites I'll be casually walking through in a few days. But I don't let those judgments get me down. The British Empire made our world -- that's one of the reasons it interest me, one of the reasons I'm here.

Of course, Engalnd made my world in a different way, one I didn't think of until I got on the plane and started listening to the Beatles. There is so much culture that I consider mine first and British second -- Wallace and Gromit, Monty Python, Douglas Adams, Elvis Costello, Radiohead -- that it's strange to think of going to the place where it was made. Maybe that's how the rest of the world feels when they come to America.

As the previous three grafs indicate, there will be far too much to see in just 11 days, especially when you consider that I'm actually here to work and I'm supposed to make day-trips to Liverpool and Oxford. Right now the most definite item on my itinerary is probably meeting Prof. Glassman for a beer. But, that said, here is my plan for the next 11 days.

I have to work -- that's the reason I'm here. On the first or second day (depending on jet-lag), I will try to work out a time schedule for getting through this particular archive at the Wellcome Library. I should try to take home as much of it as possible in the form of xeroxes, photographs or microfilm -- there's no way I'll be able to read everything here.

Fortunately, I am incapable of *really* working more than eight hours a day, and I should be able to explore every night. I'm not sure if I will make a concerted effort to meet people in my hostel; it would probably make me feel safer inside and out. But I don't hunt in packs at home, so it will be something of a relief not to have to do it abroad. I have always traveled in large groups before (yes, my family counts as a large group). Now I will almost be doing it the way I'm supposed to, without any possiblity of help or protection. I say "almost" because the real meaning of "alone" to me is "with Lindsay" ... without her I am a little less than myself, a little less than alone.

It's probably no surprise that my itinerary on free days will be decidedly personal. the big tourist sites are not a priority in themselves -- I only care if they've been recommended by a friend. So the Tower and Westminster and the Tates are all on the list, but so are bookstores and noodle shops, the Old Operating Theater and the "Jack the Ripper" walking tour. And maybe even a few of the places Orwell frequented, ha.

For now, it's time to stop anticipating and nap. When I awake, I'll be in Albion.

who will be in this anthology? (idea)

2005-02-12T20:03:00.000-06:00

That stylish and handsome Scotsman Andrew Gray (see, more compliments!) posts some of Stalin's poetry.

Someone should put together an anthology of dictators' "literary" work... I'm not sure if there are enough candidates. Maybe widen it to "politicians." The next one that springs to mind is Julius Caesar, but his writing is too widely-circulated to print again. It would also be best to avoid biographies, even if they're good. Any ideas? I remember something John Kerry said about writing a poem on a plane, not that he ever got the chance to be dictator.

(Just because I included that link, I have to include this one too.

will the "Jeff Gannon" story be as big as Dan Rather's?

2005-02-12T18:44:00.000-06:00

I don't have the time, energy, or resources to summarize this story here... it's been moving in the blogosphere for about a week now and was just picked up by the New York Times. It's a short article -- read it, it's important.

This story, combined with that of payola pundits like Armstrong Williams, may be equally important as the Dan Rther dust-up. But will it be covered that way in newspapers and on TV? Some factors to consider.

1) The actual importance of the story. Dan Rather and CBS were wrong about a major story, but even if the story were true, it wouldn't have changed much in the election. Bush supporters understood that he wasn't a war hero, that he was lazy and got preferential treatment through his early life. This all fit in with the "born-again" story of Bush's life. This, on the other hand, is a story of actual corruption in the U.S. government, now. Which seems more important to me. I think it is obviously more important if you are only looking at the "media bias" angle. This story should get at least as much play as the post-election stories on Rather's resignation and the fallout at CBS.

2) The sex. Slacktivist discusses implications of the accusation that Gannon posted homoerotic pictures of himself online and might have worked as a male escort. Slacktivist argues that this angle is a "side-show"... I wonder how important it will be if/when this story hits TV. The NYT doesn't mention it, but they're far from representative.

3) The bloggers. From a old-media-versus-new perspective, this is the same story that was being told with Dan Rather. A bunch of bloggers got together and exposed people in power. Will that help or hurt the story in the mainstream press? Some conservatives argued that in addition to "liberal bias," the mainstream press was slow to cover the Dan Rather accusations because they made traditional media look bad. Will that make them want to bury this story? Or will they play it up because it fits the narrative that the Rather story established?

4) The "liberal media" question. Fox reporters are already blaming the liberal media for this story, even though it has hardly gotten any play yet. (Btw, interesting to hear "the liberal bloggers." I thought "Rathergate" established that bloggers were conservative revolutionaries?) But it seems more likely the recent "internatlization" of the liberal media critique would lead news orgs to play down the story. On the other hand, if they frame it as a lefty version of the Rather story ("Just six months after bloggers forced Dan Rather blah blah blah"), it might avoid the "liberal media" accusation altogether.

5) The investigation. As the NYT piece makes clear, the Democrats have launched an investigation, which reporters will have to cover whether they think the root story is important or not.

6) The (lack of) celebrity. The characters of this story will have to be established in the public mind. "Dan Rather screwed up" doesn't. On the other hand, the media will probably play up the connection to the Valerie Plame case (it was mentioned in the lead of the NYT piece), which might draw more eyeballs.

7) The security angle. One way to frame this story is "how did this guy get past the Secret Service." Of course, that question is a sham -- he got past because the administration wanted him there. In fact, that question shows that the corruption in this case must have been pretty serious. But since any story on national security will get more play, this might be one of the angles that shows up and pushes the story further.

I can't think of any more factors at the moment... it will be interesting to see how this plays out, tho. I'm guessing it will be one of the top stories of next week... the more interesting question is how it will be framed, and if it will be big enough to get anyone fired.

what do we call the war? (meme)

2005-02-09T21:53:00.000-06:00

That magnificent Scotsman Andrew Gray has some speculation. Google news reveals the following:

"iraq conflict" - 885
"iraqi conflict" - 142
"conflict in iraq" - 1,110
"iraq war" - 23,500
"iraqi war" - 455
"war in iraq" - 18,400 (18,000 when discounting "civil war in iraq")
"war on iraq" - 929 (although those are almost all talking about 2003)

To that we should probably add:

"war on terrorism" - 7,500
"war on terror" - 1,100
"global war on terror" - 767
"GWOT" - 25

To many Americans, these terms are synonymous. Talking about Iraq will make them think "war on terror" and vice versa. So I think they need to be thrown into the mix, whether or not they're accurate. Of course, lots of these references won't have anything to do with Iraq, plus using Google as evidence in arguments is fraught with difficulties anyway.

I would like to put a historical spin on this question, though: what will the Iraq war (and the Afghanistan war, for that matter) be called 50 years from now? What variables would affect the name we (or our children) choose?

Also, someone remind me to post my essay defending the term "9/11."

should cities provide wireless internet access?

2005-02-08T15:15:00.000-06:00

I think about this every time I try to work on my computer on the El. Apparently CTA actually is going to install some sort of cell-phone service, which Chicagoist rightly slams (I don't just rehash Chicagoist posts, I swear).

Many people view government-provided wireless as inevitable, and some cities have already gotten in on the act. But telecommunications companies have cited the plans as anti-competitive or even illegal. The latest case has been in Philadelphia, where laws were amended to provide for municipal wireless service.

My first reaction was "cool!" But the wireless companies have a point -- everyone likes pizza, but the government doesn't open pizza parlors on every corner. So why wireless?

Well, there are a few obvious answers. Government should provide wireless where it already encourages internet use -- the library. Hot spots in parks and on public transportation are also clear choices, since private companies would have no reason to compete there. But I am skeptical that the "one big hot spot" idea would actually be useful. Presumably the proponents of these policies want to bridge "the digital divide." But the expensive part of wireless access isn't the signal -- it's the hardware. If the government has limited resources to spend on this sort of thing -- and what city doesn't? -- it might be more effective to improve internet access in libraries and fund programs that donate computers to the poor. City governments could also sponsor hot spots in poor neighborhoods, perhaps as part of an urban development program. It would be a great negotiating tool with companies like Verizon -- sure, we'll let you put cell phone towers here, but you have to provide free wireless to this poor community.

I'm still quite uncertain about this, tho... will anyone (perhaps a Philadelphian) make the case for all-city wireless?

when is it right to copyright public art? (meme)

2005-02-08T15:12:00.000-06:00

This one has an answer, as far as I'm concerned: never. Chicagoist, following a Reader story, cites harassment of photographers at Millenium Park and urges people to post photos of "the bean."

what does it mean to "sneed"? (meme)

2005-02-08T15:04:00.000-06:00

It's not to be something that all people need.

According to this post at Chicagoist, "to be behind the times." (Tho I had never heard of the "Burger King/Burger Delight" controversy they cite, which I suppose makes me worse than the Sneed herself. You would think this mental space would have already been occupied by Jackie Harvey, but his name doesn't verb as well.

wondering where that comma goes, guv'nah? (meme)

2005-02-07T20:46:00.000-06:00

this Wikipedia entry is a useful and thorough guide to differences between American and British English. It helped me settle a copy-editing question, and I must therefore promote it.

This is also a good chance to promote The Economist's style guide, particularly the section on Americanisms.

"Gubernatorial is an ugly word that can almost always be avoided."
"Make a deep study or a study in depth, but not an in-depth study."
"Try not to verb nouns of adjective them."

Also, take the style quiz. I got nine out of twelve the first time-- missed a hyphen rule, a plurality rule, and a rule about "last" vs. "latest." Not an awful score, but it doesn't bode well for my future as a copy-editor, growl.

Jaquandor on silly search engine requests (meme)

2005-02-05T13:38:00.000-06:00

http://byzantiumshores.blogspot.com/2005/02/search-engine-follies.html

who else wants to see this (meme/personal)

2005-02-05T13:19:00.001-06:00

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0502050175feb05,1,6119844.story?coll=chi-news-hed

Lindsay and I have been waiting for this artist to come to Chicago for a while... come with us if you dare. I am so taking my camera.

are you a god? (meme)

2005-02-05T13:19:00.000-06:00

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_self-proclaimed_deities

"Ray, if someone asks if you're a god, you say YES."

--Ghostbusters

how should one hyphenate this phrase?

2005-02-05T13:16:00.000-06:00

with no hyphens:

"late nineteenth and early twentieth century thinkers"

MLA, AP stylebook and, presumably, the normal rules of grammar would say that you have to at least hyphenate centuries-- they're compound adjectives. So "twentieth-century thinkers." It is also common to use this construction: "mid- to late-twentieth century" in newspapers and academic writing. So I think there should also be a hyphen *and* a space at the end of "nineteenth." Should "late" and "early" be hyphenated to the numbers? Probably-- they're describing the part of the century, not the thinkers. So that would seem to result in

"late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century thinkers"

which looks atrocious. On the other hand, since most of these thinkers probably worked in *both* periods, maybe it should *all* be hyphenated

"late-nineteenth-and-early-twentieth-century thinkers"

but that also looks atrocious. This may be one one of those situations that is so egregious that we ought to abandon hyphens entirely (a la "peanut butter and jelly sandwich"). That or we should just write "thinkers in the late nineteenth and eary twenieth centuries." Harumph.

how can video games be used in education?

2005-02-05T10:51:00.000-06:00

Okay, okay, this is a hackneyed question, and we've been playing Oregon Trail and Carmen Sandiego and Where's Mario for years. But an interview with Will Wright in The Onion made me start thinking about it again. (There is a similarly interesting interview with Howard Scott Warshaw. It's nice to see that The Onion has added a video games section.)

Wright is the mind behind games like SimCity, SimEarth and, of course, The Sims. I never got into that last one, but I spent much of my childhood playing nearly every Sim game that existed at the time. In hindsight, I realize that most of the concepts in no way resembled my ideas of what a game would include-- I would have never thought that running an ant colony or a skyscraper would be interesting. But as a result of playing these games,I actually learned a lot about them.

After reading the interview with Wright, I now realize this might have been one of the games' purposes. He says that most of his ideas for games are based on some natural or social process that intrigues him, that he wants to teach other people about. This is the reason I became a journalist and why I want to be a teacher... it is also a reason why I am interested in metaphors. Wright's remark reminded me of something Adam Hochschild said when he was here -- he said an important park of being a good journalist or nonfiction author was allowing yourself to become obsessed with a subject, then figuring out *why* you were obsessed, then using that feeling to construct a narrative. It sounds like Wright does a similar thing with games.

Anyway, I would argue that "simulation" games like SimAnt and SimTower teach us much more than "trivia" games like Carmen Sandiego. (Where does Oregon Trail lie? It's not open-ended enough to be a sim or even an RPG...) The games would seem to promote a nontraditional philosophy of education, though, maybe something closer to Montessori. It's much harder to stick to any sort of lesson plan. After all, you don't *have* to learn about urban planning principles when you play SimCity-- you can just destroy New York again and again and again. Still, I feel like students would learn more -- or at least learn how to learn more -- if we had played SimCity instead of, say, Algeblaster.

Another interesting question is how these games can be used to teach history. This doesn't seem like an obvious application -- social and natural processes are easily adapted to models, whereas history is notoriously difficult to model, and it is particularly important than things went one way and not the hundreds of other possible ones. Yet one of the problems with contemporary history education is we don't emphasize contingency, the idea that history could have gone a different way. (People always bring up Harry Turtledove when I talk about this, but I'd prefer a more sophisticated approach.) There are a few examples, like this BBC simultion of the Battle of Hastings, which would be good for individual lessons. But what could approach the dynamism of the Sim games?

There have always been games like Civilization, one of my personal favorites. But I have never thought that Civ (or even games with a smaller historical frame, like Caesar) were good historical models. Civ, for example, overemphasizes the importance of technology. It doesn't do a very good job of teaching contingency, as there are fairly simple strategies for winning and, unlike the Sim games, winning is defined (even if there are a few different ways of doing it). A better example from the Sid Meier line might be Railroad Tycoon-- now that I am studying the history of railroads a bit, it seems right on. Another good one is Aerobiz, which is like Railroad Tycoon for the skies. But the problem with all these games is that they put you in the role of god, the general, the ruler, the CEO. This isn't a good way to think about history, especially social history.

A better model might be the RPG (role-playing game). Another game I played a lot as a kid was Uncharted Waters: New Horizons. This game was set during the 16th century-- the "Age of Exploration." You could be an explorer, pirate or merchant. While you had a lot of control over what your ship or character was doing at any given moment, you still had to react to real historical events like the Spanish Armada. Most of what you learned from the game wasn't names and dates, though, but what it might have actually been like to be a 16th-century navigator. So maybe that's a better model for teaching what history would have been like for normal people.

I've about thought myself out on this one... perhapse more later...

interesting flash animation (meme)

2005-02-04T16:39:00.000-06:00

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/supercoolpicillusion.html

Other than just being fun, this could be a useful form for other media. One of the Poynter online people suggests it could be used to adjust the level of detail in a news story. I wonder if it could be adapted to other art forms.

what does "the soul" do in the Buffyverse?

2005-02-03T14:54:00.000-06:00

Here's proof that new blog is not entirely serious. Not that there aren't plenty of people who try to take Buffy the Vampire Slayer (and Angel) seriously. I think that's all right -- I was *really* upset about the death of a major character in season 6 -- as long as people realize it doesn't have to be taken seriously, and probably shouldn't be most of the time.

But I do have a question that might be serious to those who love the show and its universe. Joss Whedon fits into a group of writers who I've started thinking of as "the new gnostics." This label seems appropriate because all these writers, who usually lack a clear religious identity, seem to return to the topics of God, good and evil, heaven and earth, again and again. Through most of literary history this wouldn't be so notable -- these used to be standard topics -- but "the new gnostics" are distinct because 1) they are mostly ignored by a "legitimate" literary community that has mostly ignored these topics, 2) they tend to use nontraditional forms or work in nontraditional genres and 3) their visions, while bearing some resemblence to gnosticism or romanticism, seem strikingly original. My running list would be Whedon, Terry Prachett, Neil Gaiman (both his novels and Sandman), Phillip Pullman and James Morrow. Ray Bradbury might be an avuncular figure. Orson Scott Card could be included depending on how important you consider his Mormonism. And I'm sure the list could go on (though I would *not* include Dan Brown, hmph).

So what are the gnostic features of Whedon's Buffy? They are similar to many of those presented by many of the authors: absolute authority, even when instituted in the name of good, tends to corrupt absolutely; God is hopelessly distant, but religion still matters; entry-level angels and demons have more in common with each other than their employers; there is some sort of heaven and some sort of hell, but the government of either is about as well organized as the Earth's; sin may exist, but unrelenting guilt is a weapon of primal evil; gender often plays a role -- particularly in Buffy, where our heroine often fights against the restraints of the Old (Mostly) Boys Club of the Watchers' Council.

You would think that a show with such interesting ideas about every other aspect of religion would come up with a new way of thinking about the soul. But unfortunately, the soul in the Buffyverse is little more than a prop. Some background: the first time the soul is important on the show is when we meet Angel, "the vampire with a soul." From his storyline we learn that 1) vampires are demons inhabiting human bodies and minds, 2) vampires have no souls but 3) these souls continue to exist somewhere and can be restored through extraordinary magic (like a gypsy curse). What are the qualities of this soul? Clearly not personality or intelligence, which vampires retain after the soul leaves (that is, they retain the memories and superficial traits of their bodies... whether it is really "them" is another legitimate question about the show). But we do find out that the soul is what gives someone a conscience. When Angel regains his soul in the 19th century, he goes mad for decades and is left with a permanent "broody" character.

So we know that a "soul" in the Buffyverse is something like a conscience. We also know that human beings can survive without one -- one episode of Angel features a possessed boy who had no soul before the demon took him, and suggests that a person without a soul is some kind of abomination. But there are a few problems with this. The first is demons themselves. There are all sorts of varieties of demons in the Buffyverse. Some of them are quite polite, and a few are heroic. But it would seem that according to the rules of this world, they can't have souls. This is further complicated by the question of Anya, a character from the latter half of Buffy. Anya is a vengeance demon who usually takes human form and leaves her demon "essence" outside her body somewhere. The "essence" is destroyed, so Anya is stuck in the body of a teenager. So does this mean Anya has a soul? While she is not the nicest person in the world, she seems to have some sort of conscience, certainly more than soulless boy in "Angel."

(season 6 & 7 spoiler follows... beware)

The final problem is Spike, the once-vicioius vampire whose violent habits have been curtailed by a government chip in his brain. Throughout season six, the scripts constantly suggest that Spike and Anya are in the same metaphysical condition -- they both feel evil is natural but impossible in their situation, and they are troubled by "pangs of good." These feelings are usually motivated by love toward another character -- Anya for Xander, Spike for Buffy. Both of these romances end rather violenty, and it might be that we should infer that a soul is necessary for true love. Spike certainly thinks so, because he travels all the way around the world to get one. Yet Spike's transformation once he is "soulified" is not nearly as traumatic as Angel's. Sure, Spike is crazy for a while, but we don't even know if it's his soul or The First talking (The First Evil, which cannot take corporeal form but can appear as any deceased person -- she works on Angel too). And he certainly doesn't show the radical change in personality that Angel does when he becomes evil. So are we meant to understand that Angel and Spike simply have different personalities? And what's the deal with soulified Spike saving the world in the end? And why, if he met such a righteous end, does it make sense for Spike to come back as a ghost?

I'm not sure if any of this matters outside fanboyland, but I guess to sum up, I would have a few questions for Joss Whedon about the soul: what exactly is it, and what does it do? Was "the soul" just a prop on Buffy/Angel, or does he actually want to make statements about it, as he did with good and evil, family, loyalty, gender, etc.? Finally, was the ambiguity around the soul *intentional*, or are they are still thwacking their heads about the plot inconsistencies. Let's hope Joss has better things to do than think about this stuff. :-)

what does it mean to be rural?

2005-02-03T04:43:00.000-06:00

The obvious answer would be "of or relating to the country, country people or life, or agriculture" (Merriam Webster). You could flesh this out with legal definitions (outside an incorporated city) or statistics (living in an area with population density less than x). Wikipedia's definition touches on a few different aspects.

But the reason I asked this question is that I want to know if there is a rural "way of life." An American political pundit would certainly say yes, and that "way of life" is related to the idea of being a "red state." County-by-county analyses would seem to support this -- Kerry and Bush won only a slight difference in population, but the counties Bush won take up five times as much land as Kerry's.

But still, what does rural mean, in this context? Those who believe in the red state myth would tell us that it means hard work, being close to the land, something like that. But it seems that especially in the 21st century United States, increasing unemployment would be one of the salient features of being "rural." I suppose you could make some sort of argument about being closer to the land (a hunting culture, for instance). Yet the idea of a unified "rural" space still bugs me, mostly for historical reasons. For most of human history, being "rural" meant that you were a peasant, sharecropper, serf or slave. I suppose the United States is the exception again here, since we like to think of ourselves as a nation of freeholders. This still seems to be skirting around the problem, though.

I suppose what I want to know is to what extent 21st century American rural life resembles either its earlier American version or rural life in other cultures. Maybe I need to turn to a sociologist, but I would like to know more about how rural life is actually lived -- not just one person's story about their farm, but structures of communities all across the country. In this sort of analysis, Wal-Mart should play just a much a role as the old farm (if it still exists, which seems doubtful). Local media and politics would be considered alongside "local traditions." I think that what we would find is that the actual way that rural life is lived hardly resembles any past definition of the word. But if this is true, what is the feature of rural areas that made Bush so attractive to them. And if it has nothing to do with population density or a relationship with the land, might it be that the "rural vs. urban" distinction in 2000 and 2004 is not as telling as we think?

If anyone has some books that could help with this, I'd appreciate it.

starting again

2005-02-03T03:57:00.000-06:00

Welcome to the new Just Curious. My old blog, which existed at Graham's nores domain, was overcome with spam comments. This space, while less independent, seems more stable.

This is intended to be something a little more than a personal blog, but it's not going to be anything "important." I have no intention of posting every day. It is unlikely that any of my posts will reveal anything about my personal life. However, I think that my infrequent posts should be somewhat useful, maybe a little more to people who already know me.

The main purpose of the blog is to ask questions (hence the name). If I have a question that 1) I can't answer worth a damn or 2) seems like a question whose answer would be useful or 3) both, I'll post it here, and count on the limitless power of the internet (cough) to answer it. At the least, I hope to draw some interesting speculation.

This blog will also take over the "idea bank" page that existed (or still exists, depending on the date) on my Northwestern site. The bank itself was a good idea (thanks to Julia for the name) but it makes more sense in the blog format.

I will also use this blog to do what most blogs do -- push memes. If there is a piece of data, online or off, that I think people should be aware of, I will acknowledge it here.

Finally, this will be a space for short writing that doesn't belong anywhere else, cries for help, notes in bottles, public threats, miscellaneous announcements, and possibly even poetry.