You got to give for what you take
30 December 2005
Say my name
Eric cites LaShawn Barber, who in turn is reacting to this Kathleen Parker column, about blogger conduct:
I'd soften that just a little. There are people whose political positions would threaten their jobs if known at the office, or who feel that blogging under their full names would compromise not just their own privacy but their families'. I don't see why they should have to absent themselves entirely from the public debate. But what the anonymous bloggers who are honorable and civil understand is that they are under different constraints from the named. If you're anonymous, you get less leeway if your criticisms start to drift over the line from stern to insulting. You also get less credence if you're asking readers to accept your unsubstantiated account of something and have to do an extra-methodical job of laying out your case. Here's how Eric puts it:
BTW, that goes quadruple for gay bloggers, though I know Eric wasn't thinking specifically in those terms (and I'm approximately 110% certain that Ms. Barber wasn't thinking in those terms when she was writing that paragraph above). There are all kinds of good reasons not to post under your own name, but you're only inviting honest folks to laugh aloud at you if you sign yourself Jason the Raving Invert so you can stay closeted at your cushy I-banking job...and then freely take potshots at others and go on and on about what a daring truth-speaker you are.
Parker, for her part, is worried that a lot of blogs are all potshot and no truth-speaking because there's no one playing official referee:
I've frequently enjoyed Parker's columns since 9/11. She can be sharp and intelligent in a plainspoken, unfussy fashion. However, she also has a weakness for cutesy metaphors that aren't as clever or, more importantly, telling as she thinks. The Lord of the Flies reference has emotional appeal, but what it fails to convey is that unearned power doesn't have to arise from a free-for-all. I don't think that even the screechiest, most self-important bloggers believe mainstream journalism is populated by loose-running willful tricksters like Jayson Blair and Janet Cooke. They think it's populated by conscientious, by-the-book mandarins who nevertheless don't recognize their own biases and are often out of touch with the people whose interests they're claiming to serve. (And their writing can be just as adversarial as that of bloggers.)
My blog is too small-scale to be one of those that Parker is thinking of, but for my part, I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that reporters do a lot more work writing their stories that I do translating and linking to them. But I also know from ten years of adulthood that many Western journalists fall back on cheap, easy, and unilluminating clichés about Japan; that articles about gay topics will frequently cite two or three extreme, grabby opinions by activists as if they represented the full range of what gay people believe about very complex issues; and that pieces about working-class life tend to strike a tone that evokes an anthropologist who's just returned from doing field work on Pluto. I dare say that most journalism that gets knowledgeable readers exercised isn't really inaccurate on a sentence-by-sentence basis; it just gives a distorted overall picture by emphasizing some factors at the expense of others. Blogging, with its variety of commentators, can help to correct that. It hasn't solved the problem of rampant incivility in society, but then, neither has anything else anyone's tried.
But unrestrained power coupled with little to no accountability is a dangerous thing. As a blogger who's been the subject of nasty and false statements made by bloggers and in comment sections by anonymous cowards, I know what people are capable of saying when they get caught up in online anonymity. When you're not man or woman enough to stand behind your words using your own name, high ideals like accountability and responsibility are mere afterthoughts.
I'd soften that just a little. There are people whose political positions would threaten their jobs if known at the office, or who feel that blogging under their full names would compromise not just their own privacy but their families'. I don't see why they should have to absent themselves entirely from the public debate. But what the anonymous bloggers who are honorable and civil understand is that they are under different constraints from the named. If you're anonymous, you get less leeway if your criticisms start to drift over the line from stern to insulting. You also get less credence if you're asking readers to accept your unsubstantiated account of something and have to do an extra-methodical job of laying out your case. Here's how Eric puts it:
If only the world of opinion consisted of verifiable facts! But it doesn't. Even the distinction between fact and opinion can be tricky. Many people believe what they want to believe despite evidence to the contrary. This leads to assertions of being wrong, of lying, and of being stupid or evil. In general, people who are willing to acknowledge that they have said what they said and are willing to defend it in a sincere manner are less likely to resort to insulting ad hominem attacks, they are more accountable, and less like the kids in Lord of the Flies.
BTW, that goes quadruple for gay bloggers, though I know Eric wasn't thinking specifically in those terms (and I'm approximately 110% certain that Ms. Barber wasn't thinking in those terms when she was writing that paragraph above). There are all kinds of good reasons not to post under your own name, but you're only inviting honest folks to laugh aloud at you if you sign yourself Jason the Raving Invert so you can stay closeted at your cushy I-banking job...and then freely take potshots at others and go on and on about what a daring truth-speaker you are.
Parker, for her part, is worried that a lot of blogs are all potshot and no truth-speaking because there's no one playing official referee:
What Golding demonstrated--and what we're witnessing as the Blogosphere's offspring multiply--is that people tend to abuse power when it is unearned and will bring down others to enhance themselves. Likewise, many bloggers seek the destruction of others for their own self-aggrandizement. When a mainstream journalist stumbles, they pile on like so many savages, hoisting his or her head on a bloody stick as Golding's children did the fly-covered head of a butchered sow.
I've frequently enjoyed Parker's columns since 9/11. She can be sharp and intelligent in a plainspoken, unfussy fashion. However, she also has a weakness for cutesy metaphors that aren't as clever or, more importantly, telling as she thinks. The Lord of the Flies reference has emotional appeal, but what it fails to convey is that unearned power doesn't have to arise from a free-for-all. I don't think that even the screechiest, most self-important bloggers believe mainstream journalism is populated by loose-running willful tricksters like Jayson Blair and Janet Cooke. They think it's populated by conscientious, by-the-book mandarins who nevertheless don't recognize their own biases and are often out of touch with the people whose interests they're claiming to serve. (And their writing can be just as adversarial as that of bloggers.)
My blog is too small-scale to be one of those that Parker is thinking of, but for my part, I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that reporters do a lot more work writing their stories that I do translating and linking to them. But I also know from ten years of adulthood that many Western journalists fall back on cheap, easy, and unilluminating clichés about Japan; that articles about gay topics will frequently cite two or three extreme, grabby opinions by activists as if they represented the full range of what gay people believe about very complex issues; and that pieces about working-class life tend to strike a tone that evokes an anthropologist who's just returned from doing field work on Pluto. I dare say that most journalism that gets knowledgeable readers exercised isn't really inaccurate on a sentence-by-sentence basis; it just gives a distorted overall picture by emphasizing some factors at the expense of others. Blogging, with its variety of commentators, can help to correct that. It hasn't solved the problem of rampant incivility in society, but then, neither has anything else anyone's tried.
The Red Cross isn't looking so inefficient now
And here's the other post that got dropped.
*******
You knew this was coming, didn't you (via Gaijin Biker)?
Some UN agencies aren't making good on their promises of transparency in allocating funds. You know, I derive quite a bit of amusement from slagging off the UN. The pharisaism that pours reliably from its every agency makes criticizing it pretty much a guilt-free operation. But we're not talking here about whether cronyism was involved in the appointment of some dumbass who's job is to hector us about smoking. We're talking about the aftermath of a natural disaster that was, for the regions it affected, epochal. It was exactly the sort of multi-national, Third World emergency that the UN's humanitarian divisions are supposed to be ideally positioned to deal with. And what we get is around US$18 million spent on overhead.
*******
You knew this was coming, didn't you (via Gaijin Biker)?
Up to about a third of the $590 million U.N. fund spent for the Indian Ocean tsunami relief may have gone to pay for overhead. The Financial Times says its two-month investigation showed the money appears to have been spent on administration, staff and related costs. The $590 million was part of the United Nation's $1.1 billion disaster flash appeal.
...
The newspaper said details of that appeal it obtained from U.N. agencies such as the World Health Organization and the World Food Program showed 18 percent to 32 percent of the expenditure related to staff, administration and other costs.
Some UN agencies aren't making good on their promises of transparency in allocating funds. You know, I derive quite a bit of amusement from slagging off the UN. The pharisaism that pours reliably from its every agency makes criticizing it pretty much a guilt-free operation. But we're not talking here about whether cronyism was involved in the appointment of some dumbass who's job is to hector us about smoking. We're talking about the aftermath of a natural disaster that was, for the regions it affected, epochal. It was exactly the sort of multi-national, Third World emergency that the UN's humanitarian divisions are supposed to be ideally positioned to deal with. And what we get is around US$18 million spent on overhead.
Over 73 million served
Okay, Chris at Powerblogs says that the posts lost yesterday were still in the mailing list, so, even though I realize that not every word I've ever typed needs to be preserved for posterity, I'll repost them. Here's the first one.
*******
Since Simon went group blog, he doesn't post as much of his own commentary, which--no offense to his co-bloggers--is a shame. A few days ago he gave a good pummeling to a piece in the South China Morning Post (presumably in the print edition, since he doesn't provide a link). The headline is "Still an inspirational leader."
Guess who it's about.
Assuming you've put down your coffee--no, really, please--here's the first paragraph:
That Mao, he stayed refreshingly unhampered by attempts to pigeonhole him, he did. You gotta love him for that. Respect him, too. Assuming you're still alive, that is. Simon says:
To make an omelette, you apparently have to break a WHOLE LOT of eggs (just to bring in yet another loathsome mass murderer). The SCMP piece also quotes an ethnic studies professor at--where else?--Berkeley (Jeff, can't you do something about these people?):
I've heard some Iranians say that about Khomeini, too: "He brought in an oppressive government that made life hell for many of its citizens, but he stood up to the West and revived our pride in Persian culture." It's always struck me as taking the effort to make the best of adversity just a smidgen too far. The trade-off involved in giving even grudging respect to a leader who champions national pride while committing acts of world-class shamefulness is of dubitable ethical value. Anyway, "Mao sucked" is not an opinion that, in 2006, should have to be supported with all kinds of evidence as if it were controversial, but Simon does a patient, deadly job of it.
*******
Since Simon went group blog, he doesn't post as much of his own commentary, which--no offense to his co-bloggers--is a shame. A few days ago he gave a good pummeling to a piece in the South China Morning Post (presumably in the print edition, since he doesn't provide a link). The headline is "Still an inspirational leader."
Guess who it's about.
Assuming you've put down your coffee--no, really, please--here's the first paragraph:
Almost 30 years after the death of Mao Zedong, many are still trying to define the controversial leader. But, like China, Mao defies simple classification. And his name still evokes deep respect amonst many Chinese.
That Mao, he stayed refreshingly unhampered by attempts to pigeonhole him, he did. You gotta love him for that. Respect him, too. Assuming you're still alive, that is. Simon says:
The latest estimate is Mao was responsible for more than 73 million deaths. In case you're wondering, that's a record.
To make an omelette, you apparently have to break a WHOLE LOT of eggs (just to bring in yet another loathsome mass murderer). The SCMP piece also quotes an ethnic studies professor at--where else?--Berkeley (Jeff, can't you do something about these people?):
Ling-chi Wang, a professor of ethnic studies at the University of California at Berkeley, said that while Mao's wrongdoings cannot be discounted, he "made an important contribution to Chinese history, as a leader who instilled a great sense of self-reliance and pride in the people."
I've heard some Iranians say that about Khomeini, too: "He brought in an oppressive government that made life hell for many of its citizens, but he stood up to the West and revived our pride in Persian culture." It's always struck me as taking the effort to make the best of adversity just a smidgen too far. The trade-off involved in giving even grudging respect to a leader who champions national pride while committing acts of world-class shamefulness is of dubitable ethical value. Anyway, "Mao sucked" is not an opinion that, in 2006, should have to be supported with all kinds of evidence as if it were controversial, but Simon does a patient, deadly job of it.
29 December 2005
You missed me and you know it
Powerblogs had server problems, which means that the site was inaccessible for nearly twenty-four hours and that one or two comments have disappeared (sorry). Also, I've lost two relatively inconsequential posts that may or may not be restored. They were both links to good things at other blogs, so I'll just give them here without much commentary, which I'm not really of the mind to reproduce:
Simon posted a few days ago about a South China Morning Post article headlined "Still an inspirational leader." It's China we're talking about, so if you're now thinking, No, it couldn't be about..., well, yes, it is. The first paragraph of the article (which must have been in the print edition, since Simon doesn't link to it, goes like this:
After all, there's nothing more important than being free from labels, even at the expense of a few lives. Simon says:
Simon suspects that many of those people would fail to have respect for Mao if they were alive now.
The other post was by Gaijin Biker, who reports that the United Nations has--you'll want to be sitting down for this--been discovered to be guilty of bureaucratic waste. The story he cites is from UPI:
A natural disaster that affects multiple Third World countries is just the sort of thing that the UN is supposed to be more suited than any other entity to deal with.
Oh, and I guess I could also mention here that I got a very perky e-mail notifying me that somewhere called Red Orbit, which apparently covers tech stuff and is not a site Michael uses as an outlet for any closet communist tendencies, named White Peril as one of its blogs of the day. That's very kind, though kind of bewildering, since I hardly ever talk about tech stuff. The post that was linked as a sample was this one complaining about the process of getting Toshiba to replace my CD-ROM drive. I was thinking of writing another post complaining about the user-unfriendly iPod remote control, too. Otherwise, the only time technology is a topic here is when Japan is making a deal with the US military to develop cool stuff. But Red Orbit looks as if it may be a good aggregator, so there's the link again.
Simon posted a few days ago about a South China Morning Post article headlined "Still an inspirational leader." It's China we're talking about, so if you're now thinking, No, it couldn't be about..., well, yes, it is. The first paragraph of the article (which must have been in the print edition, since Simon doesn't link to it, goes like this:
Almost 30 years after the death of Mao Zedong, many are still trying to define the controversial leader. But, like China, Mao defies simple classification. And his name still evokes deep respect amonst many Chinese.
After all, there's nothing more important than being free from labels, even at the expense of a few lives. Simon says:
The latest estimate is Mao was responsible for more than 73 million deaths. In case you're wondering, that's a record.
Simon suspects that many of those people would fail to have respect for Mao if they were alive now.
The other post was by Gaijin Biker, who reports that the United Nations has--you'll want to be sitting down for this--been discovered to be guilty of bureaucratic waste. The story he cites is from UPI:
Up to about a third of the $590 million U.N. fund spent for the Indian Ocean tsunami relief may have gone to pay for overhead.
The Financial Times says its two-month investigation showed the money appears to have been spent on administration, staff and related costs. The $590 million was part of the United Nation's $1.1 billion disaster flash appeal.
...
The newspaper said details of that appeal it obtained from U.N. agencies such as the World Health Organization and the World Food Program showed 18 percent to 32 percent of the expenditure related to staff, administration and other costs.
A natural disaster that affects multiple Third World countries is just the sort of thing that the UN is supposed to be more suited than any other entity to deal with.
Oh, and I guess I could also mention here that I got a very perky e-mail notifying me that somewhere called Red Orbit, which apparently covers tech stuff and is not a site Michael uses as an outlet for any closet communist tendencies, named White Peril as one of its blogs of the day. That's very kind, though kind of bewildering, since I hardly ever talk about tech stuff. The post that was linked as a sample was this one complaining about the process of getting Toshiba to replace my CD-ROM drive. I was thinking of writing another post complaining about the user-unfriendly iPod remote control, too. Otherwise, the only time technology is a topic here is when Japan is making a deal with the US military to develop cool stuff. But Red Orbit looks as if it may be a good aggregator, so there's the link again.
22 December 2005
Have a nice day!
Christopher Hitchens does his James Thomson act on Christmas cheer (via Ann Althouse). OMG, that man is funny. I grew up in one of those literalist Christian sects that considered Christmas and Easter corrupt, the illegitimate grafting of pagan ritual onto Christianity as a cheap, expedient bid by nasty Papists to get converts. Passover, representing Christ's sacrifice for our sins, was the most important day of the year; and we believed that his autumn birthday was not meant for human observance.
Therefore, I have no problem celebrating Christmas as the Japanese do. Here, it's a couples' holiday. You spend the seven weeks after Hallowe'en listening to so much piped caroling, seeing so much tinsel and blinky lighting, and being exhorted to buy so many red-frosted cakes that by the solstice you're ready to shoot yourself. Christmas Eve finally arrives, and you and your honey go to a nice dinner and exchange presents. Then you forget all about it and go back to getting ready for the New Year.
In the States, where genuine religious conviction is part of the equation for many people, I can see why things get more contentious. I still think it would be nice, though, if people remembered to distinguish between censorship (the government kind) and the policies of private organizations. I think bans on crèches on public property and things like that are misguided; as long as other religions aren't barred from making displays of their religious symbols and, conversely, no one is penalized for not playing along with this or that celebration, I don't see what the big deal is.
When it comes to casual greetings, that goes quadruple. If I'm Merry Christmased, I Merry Christmas back. If I'm Happy Holidaysed, I Happy Holidays back. If I'm nothinged, I say, "Thank you. Goodbye!" Is this really difficult? I know all about the argument that Chanukah and Kwanzaa and the rest have been inflated in significance as a response to Christmas and that, therefore, it's only honest to treat Christmas outright as the Real Holiday of the season. But at the same time, for all the talk about how Easter is the most important day of the Christian calendar, it's the Christmas season in which public-sphere chatter (not to mention commercialization) reaches its frenzied peak and in which non-Christians are constantly being roped into merry-making...and are regarded as dried up cynics if they don't oblige. I find it hard to blame people for trying to find a way to endorse their Christian friends' general state of benevolence without seeming to endorse religious convictions they do not share.
Ah, you say, but the people pushing for denatured holiday greetings aren't the friendly Zoorastrians down the street but rather the PC-niks trying to erase any trace of spirituality from public life. Okay. Who cares? Even crabbed, obnoxious people can have a point sometimes. If someone's trying to get her first-grader's teacher fired for so much as mentioning Christmas, she should be opposed. But fulminating about blandly worded commercials or about store policies that instruct employees to say "Happy holidays" when they'd rather say "Merry Christmas"? Please. If we're going for plainspokenness in advertising, then "Christmas is the excuse for this particular sale, but really, we want your money even if you're Anton LaVey" should fill the bill. If we're going to let cashiers say what's in their hearts, how about replacing "We look forward to serving you again" with "Don't let the door hit your fat ass on the way out, bitch--assuming you can make it through with those three helpings of potato skins"?
Except at matey establishments with a lot of regulars, part of the art of working with the public is learning to be impersonally polite while giving the illusion of just-for-you friendliness. In a society as diverse as America's, yes, that often means using the most ideology-free greetings possible. Considering the general state of customer service today, you'd think people wouldn't be so eager to make a war out of efforts to be soothingly accommodating.
Added at 6:00: Oh, almost forgot:
Merry Christmas to you all!
If you don't find that sufficiently offensive, here, have a picture of three flagrant homosexuals:
Would have posted that here, but I forgot to bring my cable to the States with my digicam. Eric is on the left. Tom is on the right. If you know how the process of elimination works, you can find me.
Therefore, I have no problem celebrating Christmas as the Japanese do. Here, it's a couples' holiday. You spend the seven weeks after Hallowe'en listening to so much piped caroling, seeing so much tinsel and blinky lighting, and being exhorted to buy so many red-frosted cakes that by the solstice you're ready to shoot yourself. Christmas Eve finally arrives, and you and your honey go to a nice dinner and exchange presents. Then you forget all about it and go back to getting ready for the New Year.
In the States, where genuine religious conviction is part of the equation for many people, I can see why things get more contentious. I still think it would be nice, though, if people remembered to distinguish between censorship (the government kind) and the policies of private organizations. I think bans on crèches on public property and things like that are misguided; as long as other religions aren't barred from making displays of their religious symbols and, conversely, no one is penalized for not playing along with this or that celebration, I don't see what the big deal is.
When it comes to casual greetings, that goes quadruple. If I'm Merry Christmased, I Merry Christmas back. If I'm Happy Holidaysed, I Happy Holidays back. If I'm nothinged, I say, "Thank you. Goodbye!" Is this really difficult? I know all about the argument that Chanukah and Kwanzaa and the rest have been inflated in significance as a response to Christmas and that, therefore, it's only honest to treat Christmas outright as the Real Holiday of the season. But at the same time, for all the talk about how Easter is the most important day of the Christian calendar, it's the Christmas season in which public-sphere chatter (not to mention commercialization) reaches its frenzied peak and in which non-Christians are constantly being roped into merry-making...and are regarded as dried up cynics if they don't oblige. I find it hard to blame people for trying to find a way to endorse their Christian friends' general state of benevolence without seeming to endorse religious convictions they do not share.
Ah, you say, but the people pushing for denatured holiday greetings aren't the friendly Zoorastrians down the street but rather the PC-niks trying to erase any trace of spirituality from public life. Okay. Who cares? Even crabbed, obnoxious people can have a point sometimes. If someone's trying to get her first-grader's teacher fired for so much as mentioning Christmas, she should be opposed. But fulminating about blandly worded commercials or about store policies that instruct employees to say "Happy holidays" when they'd rather say "Merry Christmas"? Please. If we're going for plainspokenness in advertising, then "Christmas is the excuse for this particular sale, but really, we want your money even if you're Anton LaVey" should fill the bill. If we're going to let cashiers say what's in their hearts, how about replacing "We look forward to serving you again" with "Don't let the door hit your fat ass on the way out, bitch--assuming you can make it through with those three helpings of potato skins"?
Except at matey establishments with a lot of regulars, part of the art of working with the public is learning to be impersonally polite while giving the illusion of just-for-you friendliness. In a society as diverse as America's, yes, that often means using the most ideology-free greetings possible. Considering the general state of customer service today, you'd think people wouldn't be so eager to make a war out of efforts to be soothingly accommodating.
Added at 6:00: Oh, almost forgot:
If you don't find that sufficiently offensive, here, have a picture of three flagrant homosexuals:
Would have posted that here, but I forgot to bring my cable to the States with my digicam. Eric is on the left. Tom is on the right. If you know how the process of elimination works, you can find me.
My city was gone
The flight today was a real throwback. Narita was--surprise!--congested, so we circled a good twenty minutes before getting clearance to land. They'd warned us it was going to be turbulent, and it was. There weren't any scary drops or bone-jarring shakes; the plane just kind of swayed and swished its way down. It was like a water slide. A nauseating water slide. I could feel myself turning green (which at least coordinated with my light-purple sweater). The girl next to me threw up. I think it had been a good decade or so since I'd seen someone use a barf bag or been on a plane that had to circle before landing. Whether that's because I'm lucky or because technology and know-how have improved steadily, I don't know.
Our landing was not like the one described in the introduction to Robert Bruegmann's Sprawl, which I picked up to read on the flight (Virginia Postrel's been posting about it) and enjoyed immensely. Well, actually, I'm not the whole way through yet: the book isn't what you'd call dense, but if you're interested in the ways individual decision-making adds up to create society, there's a fact or stat in just about every paragraph that sends your imagination shooting off in several suggestive directions. Bruegmann had me by approximately paragraph two:
And, Bruegmann implies, that's okay. People make the trade-offs they need to maximize what's most important to them, and often that means they have to spend some non-negligible time commuting, and they have to do it by car. You would think that such a non-judgmental point of view wouldn't be so jarring, but after years of reading about how people need to be pistol-whipped by zoning boards and transport authorities into living on top of each other and not driving, it's nice to see. Bruegmann's historical overview of urban development, which indicates that "sprawl" is far from a new phenomenon, was fascinating, too.
Of course, this was all amusing to think about as the Narita Express barreled along toward central Tokyo; within a few minutes, I was moving through shoals of evening rush-hour commuters at Shibuya Station, then waiting in a long taxi line, then finally collapsing with a sigh on the bed in my third floor apartment. I love this life, but I recognize that most other people are not bookish, childless city types. Bruegmann seems to be doing a good job of arguing that the main reasons so many commentators want them to live as if they were are cultural rather than conservationist. I'm looking forward to finishing the book, assuming I ever get back to a normal sleep schedule. I'll be damned if I can tell you what time my body thinks it is right now.
Added on 24 December: Darn--I used to know a Peter Bergmann, so without thinking I changed the author of the book's name. It's fixed now.
Our landing was not like the one described in the introduction to Robert Bruegmann's Sprawl, which I picked up to read on the flight (Virginia Postrel's been posting about it) and enjoyed immensely. Well, actually, I'm not the whole way through yet: the book isn't what you'd call dense, but if you're interested in the ways individual decision-making adds up to create society, there's a fact or stat in just about every paragraph that sends your imagination shooting off in several suggestive directions. Bruegmann had me by approximately paragraph two:
When the plane banks sharply to the left about an hour and a half into the flight from Chicago, I know that we are starting our long descent into New York's LaGuardia airport. Looking down, I can see long, wooded ridges running diagnoaly from the southwest to the northeast, alternating with wide stream valleys between them. This part of Western New Jersey is beautiful from the air. In summer the deep green of the oaks and maples on the ridge tops forms a striking contrast with the lighter greens that make up the patchwork quilt of fields in the valleys. At first glance, this landscape of cropland, farmhouses, roads, and streams seems timeless, little changed over the centuries.
...
It is difficult, at least at first glance, to imagine what all the people living in these houses do, where they work, shop, and play since there are not office buildings, shopping centers, or movie theaters in sight. It is possible that some of them work from their home, relying heavily on the phone, Internet, and express delivery services to keep them connected to the urban world, and it is possible that others drive to jobs in small towns nearby. The substantial number of houses, however, suggests that the majority must commute some distance to work, perhaps to nearby corporate centers tucked discreetly into the rolling hills or, further afield, to large business centers along highways like the Route 1 strip near Princeton. Others probably make their way daily into downtown Trenton or Center City Philadelphia, twenty and forty miles to the southwest, respectively, or into downtown New Brunswick, Newark, or even Manhattan, thirty, forty, and sixty miles, respectively, to the northeast. In virtually every case, however, no matter how rural the view from the living room window, these residents are more closely tied economically and socially to the urban world than they are to the apparently rural one they can see out their windows.
And, Bruegmann implies, that's okay. People make the trade-offs they need to maximize what's most important to them, and often that means they have to spend some non-negligible time commuting, and they have to do it by car. You would think that such a non-judgmental point of view wouldn't be so jarring, but after years of reading about how people need to be pistol-whipped by zoning boards and transport authorities into living on top of each other and not driving, it's nice to see. Bruegmann's historical overview of urban development, which indicates that "sprawl" is far from a new phenomenon, was fascinating, too.
Of course, this was all amusing to think about as the Narita Express barreled along toward central Tokyo; within a few minutes, I was moving through shoals of evening rush-hour commuters at Shibuya Station, then waiting in a long taxi line, then finally collapsing with a sigh on the bed in my third floor apartment. I love this life, but I recognize that most other people are not bookish, childless city types. Bruegmann seems to be doing a good job of arguing that the main reasons so many commentators want them to live as if they were are cultural rather than conservationist. I'm looking forward to finishing the book, assuming I ever get back to a normal sleep schedule. I'll be damned if I can tell you what time my body thinks it is right now.
Added on 24 December: Darn--I used to know a Peter Bergmann, so without thinking I changed the author of the book's name. It's fixed now.
20 December 2005
I can't drive [beyond] 55
Great. MTA strike. Luckily, I'm in Midtown and don't have business at far-flung points in the city before I leave tomorrow; the strike may interfere with my lunch plans, but that's about it. For people with little income and a lot of odd jobs to do to support themselves, however, this really sucks.
My father's a steelworker--unionized, started in the early 70s just before competition from the Japanese and Big Steel's own slow reflexes made life hell for a lot of the plant workers. I'm sure MTA workers are "underappreciated and disrespected." Isn't everyone? But the benefits (and retirement age) MTA is asking for exist practically nowhere on land or sea anymore:
My father's a steelworker--unionized, started in the early 70s just before competition from the Japanese and Big Steel's own slow reflexes made life hell for a lot of the plant workers. I'm sure MTA workers are "underappreciated and disrespected." Isn't everyone? But the benefits (and retirement age) MTA is asking for exist practically nowhere on land or sea anymore:
"It's a pain in the neck," [a foreign currency analyst] said. "I'm very anti-union, especially this time of year. It's ridiculous. If you look what they're asking for, that's 50 years ago. Pensions don't work like that anymore. I'd kill for what they're asking for."
16 December 2005
Iraq election
And I can't go to bed without noting the elections in Iraq. Naturally, the Reuters headline is "After sweeping Iraq vote, power wrangles to start."
Good on them.
Turnout was at least 67 percent, Election Commission chief Hussein Hendawi told Reuters, much higher than the 58 percent seen in the January 30 vote for an interim assembly.
"This is a day of freedom for us," said Selima Khalif, an elderly woman voting in the poor southern province of Maysan.
"We are so happy. The most important thing we need is security. We want our children to get a better life."
Good on them.
Antipodean antipathy
Ross at Romeo Mike's has been covering something I haven't really seen in the news much here, though I'm not being as attentive as usual. I also haven't been reading my normal blogs much, which is why I'm just noticing it there, too. The post linked there is about the fifth night; you can keep scrolling on his front page for more about what happened on preceding days.
The overall story arc is depressingly familiar, including not just the rioting but the response from pampered celebs. The amusement of seeing Ross, usually a thoroughgoing gentleman, refer to Germaine Greer as "an out-of-touch attention-slag" doesn't help much. He's also attended to Cate Blanchett nicely:
He has a gajillion links to Australian news reports, all frighteningly worth reading. The heart of the problem is here:
The sun never sets on the PC empire. Best to those trying to defend themselves and their city.
The overall story arc is depressingly familiar, including not just the rioting but the response from pampered celebs. The amusement of seeing Ross, usually a thoroughgoing gentleman, refer to Germaine Greer as "an out-of-touch attention-slag" doesn't help much. He's also attended to Cate Blanchett nicely:
Oh groan, as if the situation wasn't bad enough, now celebrities are coming out kumbayaing. Cate bloody Blanchett stood on a beach next to Peter bloody Garrett announcing their new movement "Wave of Respect'. These people have no mercy.
Cate' b' said "racism is bad and we all just have to get along" and Peter said "racism is bad and surfers have to get along." No mention of Muslim thugs having to get along with anyone though.
Will somebody please save us - BLOODY. SHUT. CATE. UP!
He has a gajillion links to Australian news reports, all frighteningly worth reading. The heart of the problem is here:
The Police Commissioner says he won't comment on police operations. The point is that ethnic gangs know that the police won't / can't touch them, which only emboldens them. It's why gang crime has now reached the point that our city - this safe, happy city I grew up in and that generations of our families made sacrifices to build and pass on - is hostage to brutal, ballisitic thugs.
It's also why the rest of us are so frustrated and disillusioned with the system; certain minorities are given undeserved soft treatment and special consideration by authorities which aren't extended to everyone else.
It's like trying to fight tigers with one hand tied behind your back. And we're supposed to just put up with it?
A special mention and thank-you must go to Bob Carr, dilletante NSW Premier since 1995, who suddenly and unexpectedly jumped ship a few months ago like a Labor rat from the proverbial, moments before we could register what was heading toward his office fan; Orange Grove, cross-city tunnel, hospital crises, gang crime, what- else-are-we- in-for? Merry Christmas.
Here's a must-read plea from a policeman explaining how 'on the ground cops' have been emasculated in Sydney. It also explains why gang crime has been increasing.
The sun never sets on the PC empire. Best to those trying to defend themselves and their city.
9 December 2005
We had a little money once / They were pushing through a four-lane highway
I would just like to thank all you generous taxpayers for giving money to my Lehigh Valley hometown for expenditures vital to the continued viability of national transportation. This is from an e-newsletter from my congressman, Charlie Dent:
I grew up in the Borough of Emmaus blocks from the railroad crossings in question. I can assure you that neither of them is on an interstate, or even a particularly major PA state highway. It's hard to imagine anything more properly local than railroad crossings on two-lane residential streets in municipalities of under 15,000. The Catasauqua part, related as it is to transportation around the airport, could affect traffic patterns with a somewhat wider scope, but again, I don't think it has anything to do with I-78. The 15th District got a total of $56.1 million dollars from the highway bill this year.
Also in Emmaus, I presented a check for $440,000 from the Highway Bill that will upgrade signals at two railroad crossings in the borough. I also presented officials from the Borough of Catasauqua $880,000 from the Highway Bill to fund a long-needed extension of Second Street, replacing the dangerous intersections at Race and Lehigh streets. This project is vitally important to the transportation needs of the entire Lehigh Valley.
I grew up in the Borough of Emmaus blocks from the railroad crossings in question. I can assure you that neither of them is on an interstate, or even a particularly major PA state highway. It's hard to imagine anything more properly local than railroad crossings on two-lane residential streets in municipalities of under 15,000. The Catasauqua part, related as it is to transportation around the airport, could affect traffic patterns with a somewhat wider scope, but again, I don't think it has anything to do with I-78. The 15th District got a total of $56.1 million dollars from the highway bill this year.
8 December 2005
真珠湾
Yesterday was Pearl Harbor Day. Good to reflect on in these times.
Posted by Sean on
2005-12-08 13:10:12 | 0 Comments | 0 Trackbacks >>>>>>> Categories: japan, society
3 December 2005
Making nice
Bruce Bawer has an article up at Reason about PC genuflection toward Islamofascism in Europe. (I can't help wondering, given the way hardee-har-har humor has taken over at that place over the last few years, whether that subhead isn't a good-natured-but-dopey allusion to Bawer's sexuality.) Anyway, there are plenty of chilling passages to choose from, but I think this is my, uh, favorite:
Banning existing works is bad enough; as long as they aren't destroyed, they have to potential to survive until they can be safely appreciated. But when art is stillborn because of political pressure, that's an entirely different matter.
It's not, BTW, that I think the world needs more Piss Christs. Art that challenges religious preconceptions is as important as any other kind, but there are altogether too many people who think that blasphemy is, in and of itself, somehow boldly artistic and meaningful. (I'm thinking of blasphemy as it or the equivalent concept happens to be defined by whatever religion is being used for material.) It seems to me that just stomping on things requires minimal inspiration and, in a free society, minimal risk. It's often not even done with much technical or compositional flair. There's a difference, however, between not creating something because you realize the idea animating it was a puerile, empty one and not creating something because you're cowed by people playing the multi-culti card. That's very chilling.
Added on 4 December: Rondi Adamson notes a hopeful sign from Norway. It's not related to art, but it is related to multiculti distortions of how protections on speech should function:
The article she links is here.
She also has a post about women Islamofascists that, I'm guessing, will resonate with the womenfolk who read here (and the men who love them):
It's fine to say that women are, on average and as a component of motherhood, biologically more disposed toward being empaths and soft conflict resolution and stuff. But it robs them of their autonomy and dignity as adults to talk as if no woman could ever have a nasty thought in her head without being overmastered by some nefarious daddy/husband figure. Free moral agency implies the freedom to be an evil bitch.
For some Europeans in the expression business, government limits haven't been necessary: they've opted for self-censorship. After being "warned by Muslim friends" shortly after van Gogh's murder, Dutch movie director Albert Ter Heerdt decided to "postpone" a sequel to his "multicultural comedy" Shouf Shouf Habibi! And in January producer Gijs van de Westelaken canceled a screening of Submission at the Rotterdam Film Festival, whose theme was "censored films." (Instead, the audience saw two pictures sympathetic to suicide bombers.)
Banning existing works is bad enough; as long as they aren't destroyed, they have to potential to survive until they can be safely appreciated. But when art is stillborn because of political pressure, that's an entirely different matter.
It's not, BTW, that I think the world needs more Piss Christs. Art that challenges religious preconceptions is as important as any other kind, but there are altogether too many people who think that blasphemy is, in and of itself, somehow boldly artistic and meaningful. (I'm thinking of blasphemy as it or the equivalent concept happens to be defined by whatever religion is being used for material.) It seems to me that just stomping on things requires minimal inspiration and, in a free society, minimal risk. It's often not even done with much technical or compositional flair. There's a difference, however, between not creating something because you realize the idea animating it was a puerile, empty one and not creating something because you're cowed by people playing the multi-culti card. That's very chilling.
Added on 4 December: Rondi Adamson notes a hopeful sign from Norway. It's not related to art, but it is related to multiculti distortions of how protections on speech should function:
Norway has an "Equality Minister," which, normally, would be something I would mock. But at least this person is trying to do something useful: Pull state funding from mosques that encourage wife-beating. Yes, you read that correctly.
The article she links is here.
She also has a post about women Islamofascists that, I'm guessing, will resonate with the womenfolk who read here (and the men who love them):
A Belgian woman tried to detonate a bunch of explosives she had strapped to herself, in an attempt to kill American soldiers in Iraq. She failed at the latter, thank God, but did manage to kill herself. Good. One less of them.
Smarmily, CNN is reporting she was "brainwashed" by her Arab hubby. Really? Why is it when women do these hideous things we need to believe they were brainwashed by a man? Maybe she was just an awful person, with awful ideas, all on her own. Maybe that's why she liked her husband--because his ideology mirrored hers.
It's fine to say that women are, on average and as a component of motherhood, biologically more disposed toward being empaths and soft conflict resolution and stuff. But it robs them of their autonomy and dignity as adults to talk as if no woman could ever have a nasty thought in her head without being overmastered by some nefarious daddy/husband figure. Free moral agency implies the freedom to be an evil bitch.
Posted by Sean on
2005-12-03 06:58:01 | 2 Comments | 0 Trackbacks >>>>>>> Categories: aesthetics, society