Today’s Rave: Smart-Guy Advantage

During Bush’s reign of error I would recall reading many informative and useful pieces by various staff of the New York Times. Not all the columnists necessarily make political recommendations in their articles, but a couple that do (most often Krugman, Friendman, and Kristof) struck me as being particularly useful. There are ideas being thrown around that are worth simply knowing about and considering.

Then I would recall that the chances of Bush reading it to be absolutely zero, or at least abysmally low, and even were he to read it, the chance he would use or absorb any of the contents were zero.

Of course, I’m not claiming that the New York Times columnists are particularly adepts at instituting policy recommendations. Their strongest ability is simply to promote awareness of an issue. But most of all they quite authoritatively use the lens of common sense (with the exception of Kristol and some Brooks).

I read a good article regarding moving hard and fast in regards to another stimulus package by Krugman. And suddenly it occurred to me that Obama probably read the same article, or if he didn’t, one of his people might bring it to his attention. Additionally, Obama may consider Krugman’s word carefully, since Obama would be likely to take things like education and Nobel Laureate status into consideration.

Refreshing, isn’t it? That’s the power of logical thinking. Oh, how I’ve missed it.

So whenever I read a good idea from any even remotely public source, I can be sure that it’s probably gotten to Obama’s ear one way or another.

Obama seemed to be dead-center in terms of political ideals, but if you think about the policies he wants to implement (universal healthcare, green energy) he would seem to actually be leaning quite a bit to the left. Unless, of course, he’s seeing those two things simply as what they are: two good ideas that are necessary to move this country forward, and they have no inherent political affiliation. That’s what we’d all like to hope, I’m sure. I imagine the real reasons like somewhere in between.

In any case, having a President who actually reads the newspaper (of course, he probably has a bunch of press staffers combing the news at all times, but that’s more for publicity control) is a real relief. I can be sure that Obama won’t exclude anyone simply because they don’t fit into his own political conception of what the world ought to be like.

I don’t know when pragmatism became so rare, but I’m oh so glad it’s back where it belongs: in government.

Today’s Rant: Writing – The Good, the Bad, and the Mediocre

I sometimes wonder if everything artistic is mostly, if not purely instinctual. How many famous artists (of any type) rigorously credit their enormous success or recognized genius to all the schooling they went through and classes they took? Very few, I’ll wager. The value of education as far as art is concerned, in my opinion, is really just introducing art students to various mediums and other artists who they can draw on for inspiration, and giving them hearty encouragement. Also, certain technical skills can also improved with practice, but really I think most of the time artists improve most rapidly on working with the skills that they have, rather than learning ones they don’t. There is also a high probability that they will be most known for working in something they are good at. But I digress.

I came up with this idea when I was watching an old Simpsons episode. It occurred to me that even teachable, logical practices might be purely instinctual for the talented individual, even in something as non-obvious as script writing. After Bart had been followed Principal Skinner around with his (Skinner’s) most allergenic substance, a peanut, Skinner finds out something Bart is allergic to by looking at his medical records. The camera pans down the list on the medical record, and the allergy that is check-marked is covered up by Skinner’s thumb. Skinner then says, “I have you now, Bart.” Then, later on, when Bart threatens Skinner with a peanut, Skinner then whips out a shrimp.

The point is that this is a relatively simple way to build tension: although Skinner now knows what it is, the audience doesn’t and so they are waiting to see what it is. By delaying to unveil it in more dramatic way, the revelation of Bart being allergic to shrimp is actually funny, as opposed to it being a rather humdrum fact, which of course it is. If Skinner had rattled it off in the office, you lose some potential impact, even in such a small joke as this. It might seems to you that I’m overanalyzing this small device, but think of it as an illustration of the principle even if it might seem a bit overwrought.

So to tie this in, I wonder if a good writer instinctively builds small instances of that sort of thing into a script automatically, and when someone reads their scripts, it will come off as better simply because it contains such small instances of better storytelling. While it’s true you can read about that particular writing device in some textbook, how many people with an innate understanding of how stories work simply write that sort of material because that’s how stories work? So I feel like there are decent writers to be had via education, but the only real superstars you get are the ones who instinctually “feel out” how stories are supposed to go because there is a genuineness about it that may be lacking in someone who has simply learned the technique and inserts it “where appropriate.”

I realize that writing is not the greatest example of this particular phenomenon, but I thought I would at least give credit to the scene that got me to think of it.

Peace.

Today’s Rant: Flag-Wavers vs. True Patriots

I was watching a Penn and Teller Bullshit! episode about world peace and nothing get my hackles raised as much as people who wield the flag like a battle axe.  I have covered this topic indirectly on a number of occasions, but I think I will elaborate on it slightly here. I say with all conviction that our founding fathers intended patriotism to include a heavy dose of rational thought. People that treat love of your country as a tenet of belief, a la religion, and who believe that even questioning your government casts doubt on the USA’s greatness and hence is unpatriotic, are idiots.

I will say it again. These people are very, very stupid.

The very essence of a democracy is the ability to change that which you don’t like. The very core of the founding of America is that we must critically examine our government, and take steps to correct it when it gets out of line. I will bet you dollars to donuts that half our founding fathers would be surprised there hasn’t been at least one armed insurrection to date (unless you count the Civil War).

What’s truly patriotic is to ask the government the hard questions, and to keep it in line. Not to wave the flag and tear up during the national anthem. Patriotic sentiment is fine, as long as you understand that democracy is a contract. A contract between the governed and the governors: you represent our interests, we play the game. You don’t represent our interests, we don’t. At least, in theory.

This particular episode of Bullshit! compares a bunch of end-the-war protesters to a bunch of right-wing “patriots” who think they are providing a counterargument by saying that they “support our troops.” These people are like children, unable to understand that it is possible to support one’s troops while simultaneously calling for the end of the way because they believe the war is a mistake. That is clearly already too much for these mindless drones to handle; they don’t even realize the inherent hypocrisy in calling for the continued and pointless death of our brave men in women in an occupation started on false pretenses supporting the troops.

Nothing makes me angrier than people who take a concept and use it as a bludgeoning device, attempting to use ignorance as strength. Bible-thumpers, flag-wavers, the list goes on. How can anyone with a halfway decent education see the world in such childishly black-and-white terms? Oh wait, they can’t.

See, I’ve only recently come to understand the true value of education. It has nothing to do with getting a decent job and everything to do with making you a better citizen. The better command of facts and critical thinking the average citizen has, the far more likely that we will take reasonable steps to move towards a more perfect union. The more morons the citizenry consist of, the more likely we can be tricked into voting against our own best interests, supporting a trumped-up war, and generally just mindlessly waving Ol’ Glory above their heads and bursting into tears about how great America is while it goes to hell in a handbasket all around us.

Education is so much more mandatory in a democracy than I realized. It’s not even a right, it’s a goddamn responsibility. This country was founded by the intellectuals; but then, I suppose by definition a streak of anti-intellectualism was built in from the beginning.

If I sound like a bastard, I am. You can’t be a skeptic and be a warm and fuzzy person at the same time. This is what I realized: if you want to be a skeptic, you have to be a bit of an asshole.

It’s worth it.

Speed Screed: Modernity

I remember taking a course called “Challenge of Modernity” in college. I can’t say I remember it with much fondness. It was mandatory, part of the whole “liberal arts” package.

It’s not that the books in the course were bad. Many of them were good, interesting books, some of them which I would consider genuinely important reading (or at least having some working knowledge of) for the well-rounded person, like On The Origin of Species. But I feel like they cobbled together this idea of modernity being a challenge out of thin air. If anything, things are simpler now than they used to be.

First of all, what the hell is modern? Here are the two relevant definitions that Merriam-Webster provides:

1 a: of, relating to, or characteristic of the present or the immediate past : contemporary

b: of, relating to, or characteristic of a period extending from a relevant remote past to the present time

2: involving recent techniques, methods, or ideas : up-to-date

So, as you can see, modern doesn’t mean much of anything. We’re no more modern on an absolute scale than we were twenty thousand years ago. To me, The Challenge of Modernity can be stated as the challenge of living in the present. Trust me, it’s not that hard. I live there roughly three-quarters of the time.

The class made it seem that there’s some sort of inherent identity crisis engendered by the toppling of things like slavery, misogyny, racism, and other dross we have been discarding as we turn away from the murky depths of superstition and face the blinding light of science. As I said before, what could be easier than living with no presuppositions about being better than other races or genders? I don’t have to through life smugly reaffirming my inherent superiority; not only is it an exercise in bigoted fatuousness, it’s a waste of energy besides. So when I read a book by Virginia Woolf or W.E.B. DuBois, tearing down this gender barrier or that race barrier, I basically just have to nod a thank you to them that that barrier is impeding society somewhat less thanks to their efforts. And get on with living. In the present.

I know this is somewhat disingenuous because I am a white male, so it’s easy for me to shrug on issues that don’t directly affect me. Nevertheless, the less poorly constructed garbage someone is surrounded by, the easier they should find it to get on with the business of living.

Oh, and I can be an atheist without being burned at the stake or bled to death in an iron maiden. What a challenge it is to live in the twenty-first century, eh? Were this medieval Europe I’d have been hanged already. What am I going to do with all this extra time to live I’ve been granted by living in “modern times?”
What a challenge.

Today’s Rave: The Teaching Company

In case you don’t know what The Teaching Company is, it’s a publisher of college lectures with extremely high standards. Essentially they take 1 in every 1000 top college professors and invite them to give an audition lecture, which is then rated by a group of customers. If they pass muster, they put together a lecture series which is put onto CD for you to purchase, generally I think for around $100 or so. The length varies but generally you’re looking at about 15 hours of lectures.

I can’t stress enough how awesome these professors are. I’ve recently been listening to a course on economics from them and Timothy Taylor is just dynamite. I’ve gone from total ignorance on the subject to a brand new way of looking at the way the world works and many, many insights into politics. You get all the fun of taking a course with a really, really great professor. For an education junkie like myself, it’s pure heaven.

They have a zillion different courses and they add new ones on a yearly basis, as well as update the ones they have periodically. I wish I was being paid to say this. But you can actually learn something during that irritating commute to work at what I would consider to be an extremely reasonable cost given the payoff. No, you won’t have some degree or certificate to show that you know anything more, but if you want to learn something just for the sake of it, there’s little question The Teaching Company satisfies that want extremely well.

Also, the most important thing about being a good professor in my opinion is simply passion about your subject. If you are fascinated by your area of study, chances are good that your students will be too. If you find something interesting and communicate why this is so, your students will be interested too. Granted, the ability to which you are able to convert your fascination and interest into your language, tone, and the way in which you teach is what separates the really great professors from the merely good, but I think loving what you teach is qualification number one. Number two is probably knowing what you’re talking about. You may find it interesting that I think expertise is not the most important quality for teaching, but I’d rather know somewhat less about a subject and be very interested in it than end up with encyclopedic knowledge of something but I don’t know why I should care about it.

At any rate, they have a few sample lectures and so forth that you can download, so check out the site and see if there’s something that interests you. I promise you won’t regret it.

www.theteachingcompany.com