Cape Cod on Thanksgiving

Happy Thanksgiving

When dealing with foreigners, Americans have a particular problem to overcome that we share only with the British:  from watching tv and the movies, people who have never been here think they know all about the place. They think that underemployed 20 year olds in New York City have two-bedroom, two bath apartments on Central Park; they think that gunfights break out two or three times during our morning commute; and they think we're always eating.  (That's apparently the take-away for Indians watching Seinfeld, which, fair enough.)

Of course, anyone who has ever watched a tv show or movie supposedly about something the watcher actually knows about, like working in an office or practicing law or parking a car in Manhattan, knows that tv has no connection to what really goes on because (a) if it did, it would be just as boring and frustrating as those things actually are; (b) tv writers are hired directly out of Harvard and don't actually have any real life experience.

Thanksgiving is the one great exception to this rule.  Thanksgiving has been presented on large and small screens 10,000 times, and each time has been exactly accurate. We travel great distances to eat together, around a large table heaping with food, and argue and laugh and love.  And even those who aren't blessed with family and feasts know exactly what they'd be doing if they were.

Every year when late November rolls around, Peter and Brit make cracks about how Thanksgiving is just second Christmas.  This shows that they understand American Thanksgiving, but misunderstand American Christmas.  Christmas in the states is nothing like what is shown on tv or in the movies, even in snowy New England villages.  In practice, Christmas is a minor secular holiday that happens to fall during school vacation.  Thanksgiving is the high holiday of our national religion.

To your and yours, a happy, safe and healthy Thanksgiving.

The Whiniest Whiners Who Whine

This morning, while brushing my teeth, I was rank-ordering political arguments based on my contempt for them, as one does.  The top three were surprisingly easy to identify.  Of all the whiny whiners who whine, the one's for whom I have the most contempt (in alphabetical order) are:

• 9/11 Truthers;
  
• Anti-vaccinationists
  
• Fathers' rights activists (this is probably the least known of the three; for a primer, go here).

But when it came to determine which of the three I most despise, I was a little caught out.  These idiocies are a veritable feast of contempt.  The 9/11 Truthers are loud, obnoxious, and try to exercise political power.  The anti-vaccinationists tend to present as reasonable middle-class parents but are for that reason the most dangerous.  The fathers' rights people are just gross and are basically pissed off that they have to pay to support their children and try to present themselves as civil rights victims, which I don't even like from (non-black) people who probably are actual civil rights victims.

On the other hand, it's impossible not to feel some empathy for the anti-vaccinationists, even while realizing that they must be mercilessly crushed.  Their desire to find someone to blame and extract large cash settlements from that someone is fundamentally human (hmm, evolutionary psychology?  Contemptible, but not top three material).

The 9/11 Truthers can't actually effect the world until they put down the bong; and once they quit smoking dope they discover that the towers really did fall because Muslim fanatics flew planes into them.  Plus, they do provide hours of laughter, like the woman truther who, finally convinced that the government couldn't have wired explosives in the towers in the weeks leading up to 9/11, surmised that every skyscraper in the country must be wired with explosives during construction.

As a result, for having no redeeming value whatsover, fathers' rights activists are, of all the whiniest whiners who whine, the whiniest whiners of all.

Signs Of The Apocalypse -- First In A Continuing Series

I've never watched an episode of Dancing With The Stars, and had never seen any part of it until I went looking for this clip.  Bristol Palin seems like a nice if somewhat vague and unformed young woman and certainly dances better than I ever have, would or could.  On the other hand, I'm perfectly willing to accept the view of those who actually know something about dancing, or Dancing, that she isn't nearly good enough to have made the finals on her own.  I could not care less is she wins or gets voted off.

But apparently lots of people do care and that strikes me as a sign of the apocalypse.

We seem to be treating politics now like just another team sport.  In Boston sports talk, you'll sometimes hear the phrase "they wear our laundry."  The point is that how a fan feels about some supposed scandal in sports (tape-gate, or Rodney Harrison taking HGH, or David Ortiz possibly having taken steroids, or Barry Bonds supposedly having taken steroids, or Manny being a lazy undisciplined player) depends entirely on whether they play for "your" team.  Caring whether Bristol Palin wins or loses a tv dance contest because her mother is Sarah Palin isn't politics, it isn't rational, it's just down to who's laundry she wears.  (Yeah, I know, but I didn't realize where this was going until it was too late to turn around.)

There's no rational basis on which to prefer the Red Sox to the Yankees, the Raiders to the 'Niners, or Manchester to ... some other soccer team.  I strongly believe that there is a rational basis to prefer conservative government to liberal government, and probably for preferring Republican government to Democratic government -- and I'll freely concede that if you start with another set of axioms, there are reasons to prefer Democrats to Republicans.  (Generally, the reason for the latter is "they'll give me stuff," but that's perfectly rational.)  But that doesn't mean that we are rational about these decisions and caring about Bristol Palin, one way or another (I mean, we're three weeks from an election in which we swept the Democrats from the House and people care whether Sarah Palin's daughter wins a dancing contest?) means that we've moved beyond rational argument.

For the people who would win a rational argument, that's bad news.

Now This Is Genius Marketing

Of all the misconceptions people have about big business (<Heston>CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE</Heston>), one of the funniest is the idea that marketers control hidden persuaders that turn us into consuming automatons.  Just go read some of the marketing literature to see just how much of marketing "science" is old-fashioned guessing.

Marketing is an art, not a science, and this is its Mona Lisa:

I'm Not Sure What It Says About The World...

Or about me, but I've now got two different songs on my iPhone titled "Fuck You."  I had completely forgotten the first when I downloaded the second.

Alaikum Salaam

So Obvious

So, That Happened

Congratulations to the Republican Party, which won big last night.  This election was very much a correction, not a realignment.  Right now, it looks like the Republicans will end up with between 235-239 members in the House.  This is a return to the number of Representatives (232) the Republicans had in the 109th Congress, 2004-2006.  I still remain convinced that this movement rightward is the underlying long-term trend as the population moves south and west.

In other good news, attacking immigrants once again doesn't lead to victory.

Finally, the 2010 census will lead to redistricting before the next Congress and the Republicans have made extraordinary gains at the state level, giving them a chair at the table in most states.  Unfortunately, this will lead to the two parties divvying up highly gerrymandered seats for short-term gain.  Leaving aside the obvious democratic arguments against gerrymandering, I'm convinced that Republicans would benefit from districts drawn without regard to party strategy.  (The Democrats seem to think so, too.)

I Resemble That Remark

This is apparently somewhat controversial in England.  In the US, we have Old Jews Telling Jokes.

And Sturgeon Was An Optimist

Brit has kindly suggested that, as the iconoclast's iconoclast (making me an iconophile, and indeed I quite like a nice icon), I might one day write for the Dabbler on things that everyone knows but that aren't true.  (For example, that the Chevy Nova in fact sold very well in Latin America.)

Obviously, ever since I've been wracking my brain for something sufficiently obvious to be worth disproving, and I haven't really come up with anything.  The closest I've come is to knock down that terrible piece of trendy job advice: follow your passion.

Whatever you do, don't follow your passion.  Following soon becomes stalking; stalking becomes sneaking into it's bedroom late at night and abducting it; and abducting it becomes burying it at the crossroads while eating its still warm heart.  Following your passion will kill it.

This follows from Sturgeon's Law:  90% of everything is crap.  So, if your passion is movies and you become a film critic, what you actually spend your time doing is mostly watching crappy movies.  If you love cooking (which usually means you like making one big meal on the weekend after planning a menu and shopping for specific ingredients), what you actually spend your time doing as a chef is cooking crap.  (If you open a restaurant, rather than just become a chef, what you actually spend your time doing is losing money.)

Telling people to follow their passion is telling people that, if passion is their passion, they should become a prostitute.  Actual prostitutes are not in it for the sex.

As I've Always Suspected,

Virgin to launch space tourism in 18 months

I could have achieved so much more had I been less distracted.

Three Guys and a Strategy: There's Nothing You Can Do That Can't Be Done

Three Guys and a Strategy: There's Nothing You Can Do That Can't Be Done: "I've never quite understood what the Beatles meant to tell us with this line, but it turns out to be a very nice way to think about why many..."

For anyone out there interested in the Strategic Management stuff I post from time to time, two friends and I are now blogging Strategy at Three Guys And A Strategy.

Roman Holiday

The Secret Blog is in Rome, half to attend a conference and half on holiday with the Secret Wife.  (This academic life is kind of a blast).

Anyway, following on ten things about Montreal, here are ten things about Rome:

1.  When it comes to the Internet, Rome is still in the 20th Century.
2.  Paris and London are modern cities.  Rome and Venice are not.
3.  Rome, on the other hand, is cheaper than Paris or London.
4.  Romans really are garrulous, at least with each other.
5.  If I lived in Rome, I, too, would seriously consider a motor scooter.  Parking in Rome is about as organized as hide and seek at a child's birthday party.
6.  It is just incredibly hard for Americans not to tip.
7.  Historic Rome is surprisingly small, accessible and walkable.
8.  The Piazza Novanno (shown in the video) is beautiful and in all ways excellent.  A good day would be to sit in the shade at one of the many trattoria, watching the pretty women and art that fill the Piazza, drinking cup after cup of Italian coffee.
9.  There is a larger and more obvious police presence in Rome than in any American city.
10. English pops up everywhere, and not just in ways meant for tourists.

To PhD Or Not To PhD

I was minding my own business surfing through Roger Ebert's website, when I stumbled (do surfer's stumble?) across the following letter:

Q. I have watched and read your reviews for years with great honor.  I disagree so strongly with your review of "Eat Pray Love" that it makes me sick.  You just don't get it, and many others like you don't get it. You do not know at all what it is like being a woman in this day and age (or previously) who did not want to be defined by a man or married off to one. If you think Stephen in the movie was an OK husband, you are out to lunch.  He was horrible!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (except on paper to people who do not need emotional sustenance). David was the narcissist from hell that  many of us have fallen for… do you not get that??????????? Many of the males of the species are frankly overrated and the women's movement has proven this (or frankly not sufficiently). I hope your wife will bring you up to speed. (Jeanine Carlson, Ph.D., Licensed Clinical Psychologist)

Earning a PhD is quite an achievement; something of which to be proud.  Certainly, it is as much worthy of advertising as being an adult male (Mr.), adult female (Ms.), married female (Mrs.), physician (Dr.) or lawyer (Esq.), but for some reason people who attach PhD to their casual signatures seem to be mentally unbalanced at rates higher than that of the general population.  It's a useful signifier, but I'm not quite sure what it means.  As with much social science, causation is ambiguous and it might just be that psychologists are both nuts and very proud of their degrees.  Just in case, and assuming I do eventually earn my degree, I think I'll still sign my name without adding PhD, unless there's some good reason to do so.

"A court-ordered publication ban on the proceedings prevents the media from reporting on what was said in court."

Here we have the number one difference between the US and Canada:  not only a prior restraint on the press, but a ban on publishing what as said (in public) in open court.  Short of preventing certain people from speaking out on an election, it is hard to imagine a more core violation of the First Amendment (if, of course, the First Amendment applied).  Had I known, I would have been sorely tempted to go to court and then report what I heard once I returned to the (aptly named, in this case) Home of the Free.  Not because what was said was interesting -- I'm sure that it's anodyne eye-wash to the effect that she loves her mother -- but because governments simply shouldn't be allowed to get away with this shit.


The case is, as it happens, interesting.  A 19-year old woman came home late and was stabbed by her mother.  People seem to assume that the reason was the dishonor reflected on the family by having a late daughter.  All we are told about the family is that their name is Ebrahimi and they speak Farsi at home.  It also seems likely that they have not absorbed the majority culture.

Oh, Canada!

We tend to think of Americans and Canadians as a single people divided by Quebec, but after a week, more or less, in Montreal, I have to admit to some differences:

1.  They are serious about this French thing.  In fact, the more urgent the information on some sign, the less likely it is to have English on it.

2.  They really are nice, even the French speakers.  They are gracious enough to pretend to be fooled by my jaunty "Bonjour" and immediate douse me with a torrent of French.  I then say, "En Anglais, por favor," and off we go.

3.  They call their pastrami "smoked meat."  But it is just as delicious.

4.  In the stalls in public accommodations, the slide is on the door frame and the hasp is on the door.

5.  The McDonalds sell "double Big Macs," which are exactly what you think they are.

6.  More restaurants have full bars than you would find in the States.

7.  Waiters and Waitresses are both overly solicitous and subtly rude.

8.   Much more smoking.

9.  Even the casual food is better.  The croissants are much better.

10.  The portions are more reasonable (except at McDonalds).

All in all, Montreal would like to be the Paris of the New World, but succeeds in being the New York of Canada.

No Presents For Peter

The Secret Blog is in Montreal, having been admitted to Canada despite the following conversation.

Canadian Border Guard:  Good Afternoon.
The Secret Blog:  Good Afternoon.  (Hands over passports.)
CBG:  Where are you going?
TSB:  Montreal.
CBG:  What's the purpose of your visit?
TSB:  Pleasure..
CBG:  (Skeptically)  Pleasure?
TSB:  A vacation.
CBG:  Do you have anything to leave in Canada?
TSB:  [NO BATHROOM HUMOR!!!]  No.
CBG:  Do you have any alcohol or tobacco in the car?
TSB:  No.
CBG:  (Starting to wrap up) Do you know anyone in Canada?
TSB:  (Hit by a stray gust of honesty.)  Yes, Peter Burnet.
CBG:  (No longer wrapping up; suddenly paying attention.)  How do you know him?
TSB:  (Spell of honesty passes; I imagine myself trying to explain BrothersJudd or even just saying, "I met him on the Internet."  I need an honest, plain-vanilla answer)  I've known him for years.
CBG:  (Look saying, that's not what I asked.)
TSB:  He's a personal friend.
CBG:  (Pause)
CBG:  Are you bringing any presents into Canada?
TSB:  No.
CBG:  Welcome to Canada.

Can Kagan Be Confirmed?

Despite public apathy towards her, Elena Kagan was sliding towards confirmation.  There was no big reason to oppose her and she was about as good a nominee as Republicans were likely to see from President Obama.

But now a federal judge in California has ruled that, as a matter of federal constitutional law, marriage cannot be restricted to one man and one woman.  That decision will likely end up in the Supreme Court.  To predict that this improves Republican prospects for the mid-terms is easy; gay marriage loses whenever people vote.  But I wonder if it also puts pressure on sitting Republican senators (and, for that matter, Democratic senators from strongly anti-gay marriage states who need to get reelected in November) to oppose Kagan.  The vote is scheduled for tomorrow, which means a lot would have to happen quickly.

Don't Buy Green Bananas, Apparently We're Doomed

A recent study published in Nature claims that global warming kills phytoplankton.  A blogger claims that this means the end of life on Earth.  Kevin Drum argues that we could avoid certain death if we were willing to pay another $100 a year on our electric bill.  Megan McArdle, in a remarkably balanced post, points out that this is nonsense on stilts.

But that's not what I wanted to talk about.  One of the reasons that I'm skeptical about global warming is that is too perfectly fits the agenda of the far left.  Capitalism is evil, the environment uber alles, our only hope is that we cede power to international institutions of technocracy and, by the way, we're going to need a whole lot more taxes.  If your recommended solution to a new, serious problem that pops up out of nowhere is exactly the same as the solutions you were recommending to our pre-existing problems, you'll have to excuse me if I suspect that the new problem is more convenient than real.

Which is why its somewhat annoying that, more and more, my preferred policy responses to the possibility of induced global climate change are exactly the same as my responses to most other policy problems we have:  we (meaning the entire human race) need to dump regulation and focus on getting as rich as we can as fast as we can.  At this point in history, richer functionally means smarter.  Richer societies can spend more money on pure research and on applied research.  We can put more minds to work trying to understand the problems facing us and more minds means more possible solutions.  Once we have a theoretical solution, being richer improves our chances of being able to turn theory into practice and makes us better able to withstand whatever problems global warming causes.

That of course assumes that global warming is a real threat.  On the other hand, if it's not a threat, well, we'll just have to make do with being richer and smarter.

Contrast that with the left's plan to impoverish the world because of the chance that global warming is a real threat.  We will live miserable lives and still -- taking the science seriously -- suffer global warming.  If the science is wrong, we will have made ourselves poor for no reason at all.