Valerie Parker is generally a reasonable moderate conservative. When I disagree with her, which is not as often as other conservative columnists, usually my disagreement is somewhat nuanced.
Not this time.
In calling for personal responsibility in diet and weight control (versus "nanny statism") that call is only made to individual consumers, individual eaters of food. Big Ag and Big Food, for making portion sizes too big, using too much salt, sugar and not-so-good fats in food in the first place? Nooo ... to regulate them would be "nanny statism."
May 21, 2011
Bible quiz! Marriage, sex and more!
No, not by a Gnu Atheist, but the eminently mainstream New York Times columnist Nick Kristof. That said, fundamentalist types, if they answer the simple questions by a blindered belief system, will fail.
Long-term unemployed 99ers, without help, set record
Behind the smiley faces of falling unemployment rates in most states is this ugly reality: the long-term unemployed, those unemployed more than 99 weeks and therefore ineligible for further extended unemployment benefits, is now at 2 million.
People unemployed more than 6 months is nearly half the total. People unemployed more than a year is nearly one-third the total.
And, as the story notes, there's people who land jobs, only to lose them again in just weeks or a couple of months, often through no fault of their own. Since they got a full-time job, no matter how short, it broke the "streak" so they don't count as 99ers.
Add in the social-Darwinist job ads that say "no unemployed need apply," sounding vulgarly reflective of the 1840s "no Irish need apply," and it's clear that we have a long ways to go before we should be smiling too much.
People unemployed more than 6 months is nearly half the total. People unemployed more than a year is nearly one-third the total.
And, as the story notes, there's people who land jobs, only to lose them again in just weeks or a couple of months, often through no fault of their own. Since they got a full-time job, no matter how short, it broke the "streak" so they don't count as 99ers.
Add in the social-Darwinist job ads that say "no unemployed need apply," sounding vulgarly reflective of the 1840s "no Irish need apply," and it's clear that we have a long ways to go before we should be smiling too much.
What? Gnu Atheists NOT raptured to Mecca?
Well, the day is over and I haven't seen any Gnu Atheists raptured to Mecca to draw friendly, cuddly pictures of Muhammad for pilgrims at the hajj. Soooooo disappointed.
But, since both the rapture-Not! and Draw Muhammad Day are about done, you can still Draw a Gnu Atheist.
As I said on the Draw Muhammad post, "cui bono"? To what benefit is this day?
Does it, in and of itself, actually bolster free speech that much? Probably not much more than Justice Holmes' famous dictum about yelling fire in a crowded theater. What would probably help more is writing the U.S. and UN embassies of relatively moderate Islamic-majority countries, encouraging them to be more supportive of free speech, countries such as, say Jordan or Turkey.
Does it benefit more liberal-minded Muslims? Of course not. Especially in countries of some openness in the Muslim world, by painting a picture of yet more Americans tarring all Muslims with the same brush, it backfires, and potentially hurts them. That said, the majority of Gnu ringleaders, or "cadre formers," if you're P.Z. Myers (his post on the Mooney-Lindsey interview), prefer to lump the masses of believers of any religion with the most regressive elements within them.
Does it actually do anything vis-a-vis fundamentalist Muslim leaders? Of course not. It won't get them to suddenly "repent" of violence, narrow-mindedness, misogyny or other actual or alleged defects.
Does it benefit atheism or secular humanism in general? Absolutely not, and especially not in those countries I just mentioned.
Draw Muhammad Day is like using a shotgun instead of a rifle. Of course, for PZ, Jerry Coyne, et al, seem to like confrontation for confrontation's sake. Like ... Lenin! Another "cadre former" was he, after all.
But, since both the rapture-Not! and Draw Muhammad Day are about done, you can still Draw a Gnu Atheist.
As I said on the Draw Muhammad post, "cui bono"? To what benefit is this day?
Does it, in and of itself, actually bolster free speech that much? Probably not much more than Justice Holmes' famous dictum about yelling fire in a crowded theater. What would probably help more is writing the U.S. and UN embassies of relatively moderate Islamic-majority countries, encouraging them to be more supportive of free speech, countries such as, say Jordan or Turkey.
Does it benefit more liberal-minded Muslims? Of course not. Especially in countries of some openness in the Muslim world, by painting a picture of yet more Americans tarring all Muslims with the same brush, it backfires, and potentially hurts them. That said, the majority of Gnu ringleaders, or "cadre formers," if you're P.Z. Myers (his post on the Mooney-Lindsey interview), prefer to lump the masses of believers of any religion with the most regressive elements within them.
Does it actually do anything vis-a-vis fundamentalist Muslim leaders? Of course not. It won't get them to suddenly "repent" of violence, narrow-mindedness, misogyny or other actual or alleged defects.
Does it benefit atheism or secular humanism in general? Absolutely not, and especially not in those countries I just mentioned.
Draw Muhammad Day is like using a shotgun instead of a rifle. Of course, for PZ, Jerry Coyne, et al, seem to like confrontation for confrontation's sake. Like ... Lenin! Another "cadre former" was he, after all.
May 20, 2011
Worrying good for your wallet? Or is this Pop Ev Psych
So says a member of the one school of economics that is actually scientific: behavioral economics.
True? Or maybe "ehhh"? Or even more problematic?
Research says good worrying can prevent dumb decisions, Robert H. Frank claims.
First, before I get to the meat of Frank's column, you have to love this quote:
On the other hand, claiming that "the anxiety we feel about whether we’ll succeed (in finding an ideal job) is evolution’s way of motivating us" veers close to Pop Evolutionary Psychology.
Anxiety can fulfill that role; whether it evolved to do so, or the more ancient hominid equivalent thereof, is an entirely different question.
It stands to reason that some degree of anxiety produces a certain drive and focus. But, high-quality jobs as a Maluthusian-constrained "driver" of evolutionary change? Ahh, that's social/cultural evolution, not biological. And, if you look at the short length of human life since the development of civilization and ideas about jobs, differentiation of labor and private property, that doesn't seem enough time to be an evolutionary driver.
Then, there's this:
And, there's yet other problems with Frank's column.
Per things such as happiness quotients, does job success, above a certain level, outweigh nonjob ennui, angst or even self-loathing? Or does it outweigh high blood pressure, obesity, alcohol or drug problems and other ways of trying to control this anxiety?
Also, it doesn't address genetic-based vs. societal-based differences in different people's baseline anxiety levels.
Nor does it address differences in acceptable vs. unacceptable anxiety, etc. across cultures.
And, per various happiness quotients, it doesn't address how much job success, especially the monetary part, does or does not contribute to broader happiness.
Don't get me wrong; I love behavioral economics' scientific insight into matters economic. I just don't want it jumping the shark into the world of Pop Ev Psych. Or, the shark-jumping of lack of research and just-so of non-behavioral economics.
True? Or maybe "ehhh"? Or even more problematic?
Research says good worrying can prevent dumb decisions, Robert H. Frank claims.
First, before I get to the meat of Frank's column, you have to love this quote:
The late Amos Tversky, a Stanford psychologist and a founding father of behavioral economics, used to say, “My colleagues, they study artificial intelligence; me, I study natural stupidity.”And that's why behavioral economics is scientific; it doesn't start with the straw man of "Homo rationalis."
On the other hand, claiming that "the anxiety we feel about whether we’ll succeed (in finding an ideal job) is evolution’s way of motivating us" veers close to Pop Evolutionary Psychology.
Anxiety can fulfill that role; whether it evolved to do so, or the more ancient hominid equivalent thereof, is an entirely different question.
It stands to reason that some degree of anxiety produces a certain drive and focus. But, high-quality jobs as a Maluthusian-constrained "driver" of evolutionary change? Ahh, that's social/cultural evolution, not biological. And, if you look at the short length of human life since the development of civilization and ideas about jobs, differentiation of labor and private property, that doesn't seem enough time to be an evolutionary driver.
Then, there's this:
In every domain, people who work harder are more likely to succeed professionally, more likely to make a difference.Well, Frank doesn't say if professional success equates to larger-life success. He doesn't talk about how the word "success," other than, in a simple evolutionary issue of "staying alive," is defined culturally.
And, there's yet other problems with Frank's column.
Per things such as happiness quotients, does job success, above a certain level, outweigh nonjob ennui, angst or even self-loathing? Or does it outweigh high blood pressure, obesity, alcohol or drug problems and other ways of trying to control this anxiety?
Also, it doesn't address genetic-based vs. societal-based differences in different people's baseline anxiety levels.
Nor does it address differences in acceptable vs. unacceptable anxiety, etc. across cultures.
And, per various happiness quotients, it doesn't address how much job success, especially the monetary part, does or does not contribute to broader happiness.
Don't get me wrong; I love behavioral economics' scientific insight into matters economic. I just don't want it jumping the shark into the world of Pop Ev Psych. Or, the shark-jumping of lack of research and just-so of non-behavioral economics.
'Americanism matters' but hypocrisy doesn't
Beyond writing a blathering paean to American exceptionalism, Mona Charen also wrote a blathering bit of hypocrisy in the same column.
That's because, in the past, in other columns, she's shown that for her, "Americanism matters" must always be "nuanced" by Zionism when it comes to Israel.
That said, her American exceptionalism blather is summed up here:
And, that said, chauvinism? Let's not forget "freedom fries." Triumphalism? The "bin Laden is dead" sports-like celebration orgies.
Denial of mistakes? She quotes Calvin Coolidge:
That's because, in the past, in other columns, she's shown that for her, "Americanism matters" must always be "nuanced" by Zionism when it comes to Israel.
That said, her American exceptionalism blather is summed up here:
Liberals always worry that a celebration of American greatness will descend into chauvinism, triumphalism, or denial of the mistakes and crimes of American history.Actually, many liberals aren't a lot better on that than many conservatives.
And, that said, chauvinism? Let's not forget "freedom fries." Triumphalism? The "bin Laden is dead" sports-like celebration orgies.
Denial of mistakes? She quotes Calvin Coolidge:
“If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it. We must not sink into a pagan materialism. We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy.”Misinterpretation of the First Amendment in witch-hunting paganism and promoting Christianity, sometimes under the fig leaf of "Judeo-Christian heritage" with the abetting of Jewish conservatives like Charen, comes immediately to mind as a mistake.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)