Thursday, February 28, 2013
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
In terms of contrast with a hypothetical pair extremely-candid candidates, (rather than the equivocators that actual politicians have to be) Obama and Romney's biggest errors (in my opinion) are these:
1. Obama failed to acknowledge that despite the "terror" label in his initial post-attack speech, he still took his time, in most other contexts, in labeling it a terrorist attack. The Daily Show had even highlighted this reluctance of Obama's. It's not a biggie in my opinion because it's really just a label either way -- I'm reminded of how a number of conservatives insisted that the Fort Hood shootings be called a terrorist attack, and one clever counterpoint from some commenter was along the lines of "Okay, so now it's a terrorist attack. Exactly what do we do differently?"
2. Obama's "5 million jobs" number is really cherry-picking from a particular portion of time; it's rather like how global-warming denialists liked to say "Global warming stopped in 1998" because 1998 had been the hottest year on record, ignoring the obvious trend up to that year and after it. I forgive it because it's not a "lie" lie and he needs to be able to say something to prevent Romney from winning ("hundreds of thousands of jobs" doesn't cut it). But I'm surprised Romney hasn't countered it, just as I'm surprised he didn't have a counter to Obama's point about the Benghazi attack.
3. Romney wins for the most blatant, straightforward "lie" lie. You don't have to contrast a hypothetical hyper-honest Romney to see that he's saying something he ought to know is false. The lie in question?
"I know he keeps saying, `You want to take Detroit bankrupt.' Well, the president took Detroit bankrupt. You took General Motors bankrupt. You took Chrysler bankrupt. So when you say that I wanted to take the auto industry bankrupt, you actually did. And I think it's important to know that that was a process that was necessary to get those companies back on their feet, so they could start hiring more people. That was precisely what I recommended and ultimately what happened."
The key term here is "take". The truth is that no one has ever accused Romney of wanting to "take Detroit bankrupt". That would make no sense, because Romney explicitly did not want the government to "take" Detroit at all. The actual accusation was that Romney wanted to let Detroit go bankrupt. Where did that wording come from? Well, from the infamously liberal New York Times, and the headline of an editorial, "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt", which puts crazy words into Romney's mouth about not bailing out the car companies by a single penny. (The author of the piece in question was some governor named Mitt Romney.)
So where does Romney get off saying that "ultimately what happened" was "precisely what [he] reccommended"? It wasn't, and it would be nice (or at least refreshing) for him to actually own his prior semi-libertarian stance. But he can't do something like that, and I'm starting to develop a hypothesis (I actually just thought of it while composing this) as to why.
I think Romney's attitude towards his own prior positions is like that of most Christians towards the Bible. To some, this may sound strange, because don't Christians treat the Bible as God's perfect unchanging word, whereas Mittens blows with the wind? Well, my view is that both Christians (in a very large, centuries-and-continents-spanning way) have blown with the wind rather like Romney has. They (at least Protestants) claim that the Bible comes first, informing them of their views.
In principle, a Martian could derive the views of modern Christians by reading Scripture cover-to-cover. In practice, ha-ha-ha. You've got all the areas in which the text contradicts itself (hey, sound like any Republican presidential candidates you know?). You've got the explicit overrullings of previous instructions, such as the repeal of kosher, but that's the least of your worries. Most signifigantly, there's the apprent endorsement of practices with which modern Christians strongly disagree. Two notable examples would be slavery and polygamy. A weak example is abortion, which does not get condemned the way conservative Christians would condemn it. In any case, even a partial derivation of the Christian Right's philosophy is impossible.
So what do Christians say? Well, some of them admit that things have changed -- not that God has changed, but that the Bible is simply a less-than-perfect documentation of ancient folks' beliefs. But most of them don't take that mostly-honest route. Instead, they simply superimpose moral views which have modern consensus, like "Slavery is wrong", onto the text. Of course, a loose enough reading will allow for any interpretation necessary. So voila! Where the atheist's syllogism is "Slavery is wrong, the Bible tolerates it, therefore the Bible is wrong", the Christian simply takes different premises to be more fundamental: "Slavery is wrong, the Bible is never wrong, therefore the Bible doesn't tolerate slavery." Repeat for genocide, subjugation of women, and polygamy.
So what does all that have to do with Mitt Romney? Well, one of his lies from the first debate was "pre-existing conditions are covered under [his] health care plan". There's no real sense in which they are, rather like how there's no real sense in which the Bible says no to polygamy and yes to monogamy. But as of 2012, laws mandating coverage for pre-existing conditions are popular, and polygamy is passe. Thus, ergo, therefore... the Bible frowns on polygamy, and Romneycare deals with pre-existing conditions. Quod erot demonstratum.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
The single event that prompts this thought is Mitt Romney's now-infamous response to the attack that killed four Americans in a US Embassy in Cairo. Brief background: A (rotten-looking, as it happens) anti-Muslim film was previewed in the Internet, and in response to it, Muslim protestors started gathering around US embassies in Libya and Egypt. One of the embassies dismissed most staff early as a precaution, and released what may be called anti-anti-Muslim statements intended to lower tensions. Sometime after this, both embassies were violently attacked and four people died at the Cairo one, including a US Ambassador. Secretary of State Clinton made a standard but well-done statement of shock and condolences. Then Romney did something no one predicted: he accused the Obama administration of “sympathizing” with the attackers.
So what’s the deal there? It seems that the non-apologetic statements, made by the embassy (not cleared by the White House), before the attacks, are being confused for apologetic and terrorist-supportive statements, made by Obama, after the attacks. Easy mistake, anyone could make it.. yeccch, it’s not even easy to be sarcastic about this now.
So, really, what’s the deal here? New York Magazine may have the best analysis: Romney’s central talking point about Obama’s foreign policy has been the “apologizing for America” thing (about which I had been planning to write another post, but everything’s changed now), and he made the mistake of thinking that point could be applied willy-nilly any time the White House used the usual diplomacy, even after an incident of violence. Of course, the “apology tour” thing lies on the road that everytually leads to Frothingville, Neoconia, a village whose inhabitants never visit the creepy old castle in which lives Count Obama, Kenyan Muslim atheist elitist vampire. At this point, Romney's best hope may be to don yet another role from his ever-changing wardrobe: Van Helsing.
All in all, I can’t help but wonder, what do these people expect Obama to do with regards to America's relationship with the Muslim world? It’s as if they want him to be a living Jack Chick tract, thumping his chest, shoving Jesus and American flags down the world’s throat. His predecessor gets a pass for never showing explicit anti-Muslim tendencies in response to 9/11 because his name was, well, “George Bush”. But a “Barack Obama” had better burn a couple Korans if he wants any respect from the frothers. I’m very morbidly curious how the Romney team would respond to Obama burning a Koran -- surely they couldn’t couldn’t criticize it without both looking hypocritical and losing the few wingnuts whose votes they still have?
Regardless of all that, there is one small point on which I find myself disagreeing with the response to Romney by both the White House and other folks, which is to criticize him for "politicizing the attack". This is a wrongheaded spin in a couple ways.
First of all, nearly everything everyone says is in fact political to someone, especially in contexts like this one. Condemning an attack is political, saying nothing about religion is political, saying Islam is Bad or Islam is Good or Islam is the Pause that Refreshes is political. And there's nothing wrong with reponding to someone's words, whatever those words are, with "political" talk. Hey, if in fact Obama had said anything at all like what Romney accuses him of, then Romney would have every right to "go political" on him. (Of course in that case it would be Obama and not Romney whose feet were on the fire; the political analysis would be that Obama had practically handed Romney the election.)
Secondly, labeling Romney's words as "politicizing the attack" sound like a resignation to a world in which this sort of bile is politics as usual -- as if what Romney had said were something like "This attack goes to show that Obama's foreign policies fail to keep us safe". That would be one bit of Romneyish inanity, justifiably forgotten in a week. It's an act of a different caliber, to accuse the President of actually saying that murdering Americans because some other Americans insulted your faith is reasonable behavior. Shame on Mitt.
Friday, May 18, 2012
… the answer for the classical version is that the intuitive answer, "Might as well stay", is wrong.
* I have a private view that part of what is going on with people's refusal to switch is a reluctance to "let go of" a car. Switching from a door that hides a car to one that does not feels like losing a car in a way that sticking with a vacant door, when switching would have won, does not. People then justify this desire-based intuition by arguing about probabilities; they're really talking about what things feel like, almost thinking in terms of Murphy's law ("With my luck, switching means I'll lose every time!"). Supporting this claim is the fact that nearly everyone chooses to stay while still arguing that it's fifty-fifty.
Interestingly, we can model people's loss aversion by creating a version of the game in which, if the contestant switches away from the car, she actually loses an entire car of her own. (Say she starts out with 100 cars, so she has something to lose.) In this case, the expected value from switching-versus-staying really is identical. If you always switch, then every three games, you win an average of two cars but lose one car, but if you always stay, you simply win one car per three games — a net of one car either way, plus the "staying" option is less nerve-wracking.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Having recently watched the DVD of the final Harry Potter film, I just noticed some rather awful writing on the back of the penultimate DVD's box. Its summary begins: "Harry, Ron and Hermione set out on their perilous mission to track down and destroy the secret to Voldemort's immortality and destruction — the Horcruxes." It's bad enough if you understand what Horcruxes are, but this sentence makes things especially confusing for those who don't. Why's that?
Well, it's true that Horcruxes are "the secret to Voldemort's immortality" and also that they are "the secret to his destruction", but in completely different senses of being "the secret to" the thing in question. The former sense is one of providing an explanation for why something is the way it is. The second is about assisting someone in bringing about a certain end (and it's a less common use of the word).
As it is, one is forced to interpret these qualities (immortality and destruction) as sharing this "secret" in the same way, which results in nonsense. Is the summary saying that Horcruxes are the secret to how Voldemort "acquired immortality", and also how he (later on?) "acquired destruction"? Great, that means the bad guy is out of the way! Or, wait, is it supposed to mean that Horcruxes are the secret means by which the heroes hope to bring about Voldemort's destruction, and also the means by which they hope to bring about his immortality? Make up your minds, silly wizards!
Anyway, there's a simple fix someone could have applied if they'd noticed this — just add a word like "key" which means the same thing as "secret" in this instance. Also, for the heck of it, I'd remove the repetition of "destroy" and "destruction". Here's my new, improved first sentence:
Harry, Ron and Hermione set out on their perilous mission to find and destroy the secrets of Voldemort's immortality and the keys to defeating him— his Horcruxes.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
There exist Christians who lambaste one another for praying incorrectly, and there are those who tolerate pretty much the entire gamut of praying-related attitudes — except, perhaps, the smiling affirmation of not praying at all. One finds contempt especially for the notion that prayer is no different than what it would be if God didn't exist, ie, prayer is not any kind of connection to God nor anything that God remotely cares about, it's just a kind of talking to oneself or (when spoken publicly) to other human beings. (This notion, interestingly, is almost synonymous with atheism, rather like how the disbelief in an omnimax god can be synonymous with atheism. In both cases, God can be defined in other ways, but usually is not.)
Come to think of it, it's rather like conventional attitudes about food. People get into tense debates over what they and others should and shouldn't eat (on grounds of taste, nutrition, and culture), while still other people accept the existence of every imaginable diet — but there's a definite consensus that everyone ought to eat something, if they want to be a healthy, complete person. And people can feel stressed that they’re not eating right, but I don’t think it’s as frequent. A key difference is that our understanding of food largely reflects the evidence (especially the conclusion that it is necessary for survival). And unlike with prayer, one can adjust one’s diet in accordance with the experts without finding nearly as much disagreement among them. (Well, maybe the same amount of disagreement, but perhaps that’s owing to the sheer diversity of food.)
I don't really think there's any solution to the problem except to advocate the attidute I described earlier: Prayer simply doesn't matter. Isn't that wonderful? (And supposing God does exist, wouldn't that make so much more sense, as other atheists have pointed out?)
Saturday, March 12, 2011
The thing that most interests and depresses me about that is not O'Reilly's obvious ignorance, or his god-of-the-gaps argument. It's the lack of curiosity betrayed by that statement. And not just curiosity about the cause of tides, but curiosity about what scientists think causes tides. I'm talking about Bill O'Reilly's mental model of the scientists' mental model of tides. Did he have one? I doubt it. He wasn't remotely interested in contemplating the scientists as full human beings.
A real human being whose work deals with tides might naturally become curious about their cause. Yet not O'Reilly's model of a geophysicist, who is instead interested in nothing but furthering The Atheist Agenda. When an O'Reilly-geophysicist sees a mystery, she sees nothing more than a gap to keep God out of. Or, perhaps, she worriedly sees a gap God could fill, and does her best to ignore it altogether, denying the elephant in the ocean.
Yes, I'm accusing God-of-the-Gaps O'Reilly of a kind of inverse projection. I think there's an extent to which he sees people whose gut answer is not God as having a gut answer (and a sole answer) of "Not God!" (Heck, I may myself be projecting, given that I'm stereotyping O'Reilly's stereotype, but I won't let that stop me.)
Now I'll use myself as the Gallant to Bill's Goofus. Many times in my life, I've encountered (or re-considered) a seemingly strange idea in Christianity — the Trinity, the eucharist, prayer. In each case, I've experienced an impulse of curiosity about just how Christians conceptualize these things. What is it like to be a Christian looking at yet another double-blind study that prayer failed to pass? What's it like to be a young Catholic receiving first Communion — are you worried you'll taste flesh and blood and spit it out? And though I may instinctively consider the trinity nonsense, I don't assume that Christians fail to think about it at all. In fact, I know that they debate its nature almost as vociferously today as did the attendees of the first Council of Nicaea.
Of course, in some cases, I may be projecting my own curiosity. So far as I can tell, there's a wide range of attitudes, while some theists wrestle with this stuff, others don't really bother pondering their faith's tenets or examining its puzzles, so much as associating positive feelings with them ("All I know is that the trinity is a blessed mystery."). However, for every organized religion, there is a tradition of theology, because that's the sort of thing people like to do; we just didn't use that impulse of ours to full effect until developing science.
To phrase all this in a straight-up moral, it's this: Don't assume that because an idea is (seemingly) baloney, it's an actual black box in the mind of its adherents. Your model of the raw details of some idea, like evolution or communism or libertarianism, is likely rather different from that of its adherents (or opponents). Just as it can be good to assume good faith despite that not being a human universal, so too should we assume curiosity if the person's name isn't Bill O'Reilly.
Anyway, when he was told via Internet that the main cause of tides is the moon, he asked "How'd the moon get there? What put it there?" A pretty straightforward admission that his initial question was purely rhetorical (not that it wasn't already obvious); he doesn't give a damn about the ocean or the moon, the poor soul.
This is another hazard of incuriosity — sometimes your "rhetorical" questions turn out to have answers which you didn't bother to look up because you assumed they didn't exist. (Like if I were to assume that Christians have no answer to the Problem of Evil. Turns out they do, just not good ones.) What he really meant was to pose the First Cause argument; he just screwed up on his placement of the Inexplicability Boundary, about as much as if he'd asked if scientists can possibly explain the origin of Fox News. Every time he said scientists "couldn't explain" the origins of the sun or stars, it was another knife in my gut. He doesn't care! He doesn't care about the truth of anything! Was he ever even a child?
Now, O'Reilly's ignorance may be an extreme example, because just about everyone knows the moon causes tides (though people often confuse tides with waves, but that's another story). It makes my point for precisely that reason, though — so that just about everyone can understand.
A much more common instance of what I'm talking about would be many a creationist's take on evolution. The question "Why are there still monkeys?" is asked by people who actually want to know the answer even less often than is the question "How are you?" Again, the assumption on their part is that scientists flinch from the hard stuff instead of wrestling it to the ground. By extension, most of evolutionary science must be about inventing plausible- (or implausible-) sounding stories for the primary purpose of keeping God out of the picture.
But if I were a creationist, then in addition to yelling "Contradiction! Contradiction!", I would wonder how in the world scientists resolved the contradictions in their own minds. Such as it is, I can't help but wonder if the creationists project an inversion of their own way of thinking onto scientists, so that Origin of Species = Holy Bible, etc. (Except they know that scientists know of all the things that have since modified our view from Darwin's but they figure that not getting it all right the first time is a flaw in the system.)
The most common assumption here, and one that bugs the heck out of me, is that the only possible alternative to a given Holy Book is a complete postmodern free-for-all. I've seen theists and postmodernists argue the same thing! "Oh, you're just another religion, because you believe that X is definitely true. So there." Or: "Without going by the Bible, you must be using human reason, which means just making it up as you go along." Give me a break.
I must echo my favorite atheist blogger, Greta Christina: Why does no one tell a version of the blind-men-and-elephant-story whereby the men compare notes to learn what a real elephant actually is?
It seems there's something counter-intuitive about the idea of assembling a worldview derived from direct (or indirect) observation of reality, instead of the acceptance of authority or acceptance of your own whims. Is learning really that scary? I hope not.
Oh, and since I posted the video, I feel obligated to comment on the atheist guy. I thought he did a decent job, but what he should have said to recover ground from O'Reilly's attacks is that even the world's most intelligent person can be taken by the scam of religion (so calling religion a scam is therefore not an insult to anyone's intelligence, not that that makes the argument false, of course). Plus, of course, he could have emphasized the fact that the threat of Hell is outright bullying, never mind insulting, although he did only have a few minutes. Is there a phrase for l'esprit d'escalier felt for someone else?