Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in tsprad's LiveJournal:

[ << Previous 20 ]

Thursday, October 6th, 2005
7:40 am	The Light Finally Dawns I feel so stupid and thick-headed. Now that I've finally figured it out, I see that it's been obvious from the beginning, fifteen years ago or more. I sat and patiently and agreeably listened and accepted when Lorraine, Anne, Shirley, Janie, whoever told me how I had failed to meet their needs. Whenever I possibly could I admitted my inadequacies and tried to improve. But whenever I tried to gently steer the conversation around to my unmet needs the door slammed shut. Game Over, You Lose. So I'm not going to play the Family Therapy / Marital Therapy game any more unless I get my turn first. (Comment on this)
Sunday, September 11th, 2005
11:01 am	"...this once-great country, this once-could-do country." It's been a while since I bothered to post anything at all, since it so obviously makes no difference. But I happened upon an article in The Telegraph that really speaks to me. It's just an OpEd piece by the author of a book about the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, and it's obviously partly to promote his new book. He briefly summarizes the response to that catastrophe, but doesn't bother to say much about the response to Hurricane Katrina, assuming that we've all been reading the papers. He does describe some Hi-Tech preparations that Americans have made for expected disasters (earthquakes and volcanoes seem to be his specialty). But I've been reading about plans and preparations that were made for hurricanes and flooding in New Orleans two years ago, and were "re-discovered" a week after they were needed. He quotes extensively from a friend, a Scot living in Mississippi who had just come back from a business trip in Viet Nam: "You know - I saw these people reacting to the storm down here in such a slow, helpless way - they were like deer caught in the headlights, just bewildered and befuddled, on every level. And then I realised why this might be: It had something to with what I saw in Vietnam. "In Vietnam, the literacy rate is 98 per cent. They are poor there - but they are bright, they want to learn, they have passion, they have energy. Down here in Louisiana and Alabama and Mississippi - the level of literacy is less than 70 per cent. And such a lack of learning and intellectual energy has its effects. The way people here have reacted to Katrina may be due to many things - but in all candour I feel a huge measure of the problem is that there are so many people - be they locals, police, officials, bureaucrats, you name it - who are simply too uninspired - too unintelligent, to be less kind - to manage a real catastrophe like this. "This has been an intellectual failure more than anything. The Americans have the machines and the systems, but these days they don't seem to possess the imagination or the smarts to use them properly, when things get truly bad." I can't dispute this, but it leaves me wondering. Were we all so stupid back in 1998-99? No doubt there was plenty of stupidity then, witness the dot-com stock bubble (in February 2000, the company I was working for changed their name (and nothing else) from PageMart (as in K-Mart) to Weblink (as in Internet) and the stock went from $4.00 to nearly $20.00 and back down to 12.5 cents by the end of the year). But it sure seems to me that in these last six years or so the inmates have finally accumulated enough of a political majority to take control of the asylum. (Comment on this)
Tuesday, February 1st, 2005
10:14 am	Why Math Is Hard (to Teach) A few days ago Brad DeLong posted a list of links to his One Hundred Interesting Math Calculations and I reviewed some of them, just for amusement. This is a collection of puzzles and demonstrations that Prof. DeLong hopes will get his kids more interested in learning math, by demonstrating that it's applicable to the real world. Thinking about it later, I had an idea about one reason why teaching math to little kids is a special challenge. The most obvious characteristics that these problems have in common is that they depend heavily on simplifying assumptions and "guesstimates" of values that can't practically be measured. And that's also typical of most other ordinary, mundane applications of math. Now, when little kids start learning math in school, they're taught things like "nine times three is twenty-seven", not 26 or 28. It's either right or it's wrong, there's no partial credit for getting close. They're taught that in math it's critically important to get it exactly right. And the "story problems" in their math textbooks reinforce that idea because the numbers are carefully chosen to yield reassuringly exact answers, like 3-4-5 triangles. Then when a grown-up tries to show them how math can be useful in the real world, it's always with approximations, rough measurements, and gross simplifications. That's not really math, that's more like politics! The math we learned in school is pure and precise and guaranteed to be right. I was in the last cohort who went through engineering school with slide rules. Pocket calculators were the hot new thing in 1972 when I graduated. It was obvious that ubiquitous calculators would change engineering school dramatically, and when calculators soon became cheap and disposable, it seemed to me that they should have a similar dramatic on math instruction all the way down to kindergarten. I have seen some attempt to make school math more applicable to the real world, but not as much as I'd expect. I suppose math pedagogy is dominated by the "pure mathematics" faction, who argue that understanding the principles must come before getting useful results. If I were prince of the world, I'd try to shift the emphasis as young as possible from integers and counting to real numbers and measuring, and looking for techniques to determine just how good your answer really is, and how much it would change if you were wrong in any measurement or assumption. Tell the kids that the reason it's so important to get the arithmetic exactly right is that it's easy. There are so many other sources of error that are very difficult to improve, so you can't afford to let additional error creep in where it's easy to prevent. (Comment on this)
Sunday, January 23rd, 2005
11:05 pm	What Does "Freedom" Mean to You? There's an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times by Orlando Patterson, a professor of sociology at Harvard, that clarifies how people can advocate both "freedom" and the Patriot Acts. Freedom doesn't mean the same thing to those people as it does to me. In the 20th century two versions of freedom emerged in America. The modern liberal version emphasizes civil liberties, political participation and social justice. It is the version formally extolled by the federal government, debated by philosophers and taught in schools; it still informs the American judicial system. And it is the version most treasured by foreigners who struggle for freedom in their own countries. But most ordinary Americans view freedom in quite different terms. In their minds, freedom has been radically privatized. Its most striking feature is what is left out: politics, civic participation and the celebration of traditional rights, for instance. Freedom is largely a personal matter having to do with relations with others and success in the world. Freedom, in this conception, means doing what one wants and getting one's way. It is measured in terms of one's independence and autonomy, on the one hand, and one's influence and power, on the other. It is experienced most powerfully in mobility - both socioeconomic and geographic. "Doing what one wants and getting one's way", freedom from politics and civic participation. I'd say that's a fundamentally American conception of freedom, founded on isolationism and low population density. Listen to the ways that ordinary people in ordinary conversation use terms like "freedom" and "it's a free country". They don't generally mean free to participate in public political activity. What they generally mean is free to be left alone, and allowed to do whatever anti-social behavior they like. (Comment on this)
Thursday, January 6th, 2005
6:15 pm	Torture as Pornography A commenter by the handle of Sandwichman has some interesting things to say about torture in response to a MaxSpeak article about Alberto Gonzales. Unfortunately, you have to go through some Javascript and pop-up window silliness to see the comments, but in this case it might be worth it. (Comment on this)
Wednesday, January 5th, 2005
10:30 am	"Intellectual Property" Prof. Brad DeLong's father is an intellectual property attorney. He wrote a little piece about how the Internet facilitates the market for obscure, out-of-print books on his blog, then Brad copied it and added an alternative interpretation, and a discussion ensued on Brad's blog. One of the commenters posted a link to an interesting talk given at Microsoft by Cory Doctorow on "Digital Rights Management." (Comment on this)
Tuesday, January 4th, 2005
12:58 pm	Unprovable Beliefs "What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?" This was the question posed to scientists, futurists and other creative thinkers by John Brockman, a literary agent and publisher of The Edge, a Web site devoted to science. The site asks a new question at the end of each year. Here are excerpts from the responses, to be posted Tuesday at www.edge.org. From The New York Times. (Comment on this)
Monday, January 3rd, 2005
11:40 am	It's Not Just Me I'm finally recording a link to an article in Brad DeLong's blog from last year titled "Income Instability". It cites (very approvingly) a story in the Los Angeles Times and also an entry in Matt Yglesias' blog that's critical of an article in the Washington Post. Excellent comments on both blogs. Here's an example: John McCarthy of Forrester Research who says something very different--that "you have to take the leap of faith that the economy will evolve and there will be this innovation economy that comes." An inovation of what kind? That we will no longer need food and shelter? That nano-machines will live on our skin and weave our clothing for us? That we will find a way to reverse gravity so water will flow uphill and produce endless hydro electricity? What "unimaginable" jobs will we find to do to make us on this continent irreplacable when each country will do what it does best. We will concentrate on "intellectual property" because the others are too stupid and can't be educated to write sitcoms and video game code. Shall we make movies and video games for all the peasants of China? Shall we all go on road tours with rock bands and sell CDs in Indonesia? Oops, I guess not there for a while. Posted by: pragmatic_realist at December 31, 2004 02:44 PM (Comment on this)
Friday, December 31st, 2004
11:00 am	Presidential Qualities Another insightful comment from Brad DeLong's Blog: scroll about halfway down to this "Posted by: Knut Wicksell at December 29, 2004 09:00 AM" The President is an exceptionally shallow being. His incapacity for empathizing with the sufferings of others verges on the pathological. He and the people around him have got into their heads that any expression of sympathy for others is necessarily hypocritical, because that's how they operate. He is FDR's polar opposite. It's quite remarkable that so many decent people in this country support him on the basis of his 'values'. He lives in a different mental world from the rest of us. I doubt he knows what friendship means. That is exactly the impression I got of him when he was governor here in Texas -- a pathological incapacity for empathy. It seemed so obvious to me, but obviously half the people see him very differently. I guess I just lack the capacity to empathize with them. Hmmm... (Comment on this)
Monday, December 27th, 2004
8:45 am	"reality is what those in power choose it to be" I have to draw attention to a comment by "Alan" on Prof. Brad DeLong's Webblog. Sorry, Brad. If Election 2004 did not convince you -- and everyone with a brain morans -- that reality is what those in power choose it to be, not what it is, there is no help for you. This is truly a tough time for those in the reality-based community. The more you bring principled, credentialed, thoughtful and peer-reviewed critique to the Bush administration to bear, the more legions of gibbering four-feet-good-two-feet-bad Bush voters will rise up to vote against you and even their self-interest. The very fact that you are right and they are wrong is enough to get them to vote against you -- the elite stuffy intellectual professors that think they know better than them. Why do you think Paul Krugman's concise, on-the-mark explanations built with nothing but short words don't have any visible effect? That matches my own observations exactly. They hate us so much that they will vote, and argue[1], against their own obvious best interests rather than admit that smart, educated people might know more than they do. [1] "Argue" is perhaps not the best word here, but "gibber" and "lie" would be too easily misunderstood. (Comment on this)
Sunday, December 26th, 2004
9:58 pm	Crisis? What Crisis? Mendacity Crisis, I'd Say I need to record some links here, to a clear explanation of just exactly how Social Security is NOT having any sort of crisis, and is, in fact, in rather better shape than it has been historically. In fact, the only way that Social Security has anything to worry about is if the $1.5 Trillion in bonds that it holds were to somehow go into default. And since those bonds were issued by the United States Government, if they were ever to go into default, then Social Security would be the least of our worries. So anyone, anyone at all who talks about a "Social Security Crisis" without also mentioning the very, very much larger United States Government Fiscal Crisis, is lying. And Presidents have been impeached for lying about much smaller things than that. Thanks to Brad DeLong's blog for link, summary, and discussion. (Comment on this)
Sunday, December 19th, 2004
10:47 am	Ignorance -- Tell It Like It Is I happened upon this editorial about yet another "concerned parent" demanding the censoring of a high school reading assignment. As usual, it's J.D. Salinger's Catcher in the Rye. Sigh. The newspaper writer, Nancy Grape, gives us a gentle and rambling, if unfocused, essay about imagination and how times have changed. I don't really see her point, unless it's simply to soothe and calm the mob at the gate. To me, the point of the story is in two brief quotations: "According to the Press Herald, Minnon had never heard of the book before it turned up on her son's freshman reading list." and "But Minnon has chosen to take the issue beyond her choice for her son. She wants "The Catcher in the Rye" banned for the whole freshman class. And at that point, parental concern darkens into a different concept - censorship." The correct response to this sort of thing is dismissive. This book has been a classic of American literature for fifty years, and you've never heard of it? Not "never read it", but "never heard of it". And that appalling ignorance ignorance is what qualifies you to make educational policy recommendations? Ignorance is the opposite of education. Just what sort of educational policy can we expect if the most adamantly ignorant people dictate it? It seems to me that one of the lessons of the recent national elections is that it isn't going to get any worse if we just come right out and tell ignorant people that they are just not qualified to have an opinion. Ignorant people may outnumber knowledgeable people, and may therefore technically have more political power, but it certainly can't hurt to try to shame them into keeping their ignorant opinions to themselves. (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Tuesday, November 23rd, 2004
11:03 am	Same Old Story, the Election Just want to record these links: Sorry, Everybody where you can post your apology to the rest of the world, and Apologies Sccepted where you can see the world's responses. Let the world know that we're not all like that, only 59,054,087 of us. (Comment on this)
Monday, November 8th, 2004
11:56 pm	"Morality is Apparently the Major Concern of the People" Sobering thoughts on our political prospects for the next few years, from (of all writers) Robert X. Cringely. Scroll down to the paragraph that starts "Back to the election." It was the most horrific event I have ever seen, and I once covered a cholera epidemic in Bangladesh that killed 40,000 people. (Comment on this)
Wednesday, November 3rd, 2004
11:06 am	The Election From the comments on Crooked Timber: "Americans have stopped voting with their brains, and no one knew that so many Americans had such small hearts." Good line, Scott. And accurate, too. Many voters in exit polls claimed that their number one reason for voting for Bush was “moral values.” Not the war, not Bush’s lies, not the economy. I simply don’t know how to hope that these people will start listening to reason." I don't know how to hope. Current Mood: sadness (2 Comments |Comment on this)
Monday, November 1st, 2004
9:51 am	Something Scary for Hallowe'en An article in the Washington Post about the proliferation of nuclear weapons. (Comment on this)
Saturday, October 30th, 2004
10:59 pm	The Reappearance of Osama bin Forgotten The New York Daily News reports: Bin Laden popping up like a malignant jack-in-the-box four days before the balloting may bolster John Kerry's argument that Bush should have finished wiping out Al Qaeda before turning his attention to Iraq. But it also refocused the nation on terrorism, which polls show helps Bush. And it reminds voters of their horror on Sept. 11 and Bush's well-received response, as well as obliterating the recent flood of bad news for Bush. "We want people to think 'terrorism' for the last four days," said a Bush-Cheney campaign official. "And anything that raises the issue in people's minds is good for us." A senior GOP strategist added, "anything that makes people nervous about their personal safety helps Bush." He called it "a little gift," saying it helps the President but doesn't guarantee his reelection. Can someone explain this to me? Back in Sept '01 a small band of thugs with improvised weapons attacked the Home Offices of The World's Most Powerful (and most expensive) Military and killed 184 people. Three years later the leader of the loosely-organized crime syndicate that sent those thugs pops up on videotape to taunt the Commander-in-Chief of that World's Most Powerful Military by rubbing said Commander-in-Chief's nose in the fact that said leader remains at large, even on the eve of said C-in-C's re-election vote. And a Bush-Cheney campaign official describes this as "good for us"? A senior GOP strategist calls it "a little gift"? What could anyone possibly do that would not boost the chances of re-election? Current Mood: consternation (2 Comments |Comment on this)
Friday, October 29th, 2004
5:59 pm	Tells the Story I suppose this was planned as a spoof from the beginning. I'd never seen it before (no surprise there). Got the link from the Poor Man. Current Mood: chuckle (Comment on this)
Thursday, October 28th, 2004
10:34 pm	I Shouldn't Have Said That I take back what I said in the last post. I don't really want the election reviewed by the supreme courts of all 50 states. I want it decided by the War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague. This is the beginning. Current Mood: contrition? Not really (Comment on this)
10:10 pm	Remember the Last Time A month ago Scotusblog posted the full text of the Vanity Fair article about the Supreme Court's handling of the 2000 Presidential Election. I was made aware of it only today by Brad DeLong. I am still angry every time I see any article about politics in America that doesn't mention this, and I have been continuously for four years now. This was the harbinger of the end of Democracy in America. And I hope that this coming election is not decided until each of the 50 state Supreme Courts reviews their own. I don't care if it takes another four years. I just don't see how any one can acquiesce to anything that Bush asks for without reminding him that he was appointed President by one vote. Current Mood: angry, very angry (Comment on this)