We Are No Better Than the Sumerians

Posted on 12 Mar 2014 by Frank Moraes

I have a long running obsession with the Sumerians. They were, after all, the people who invented writing. Of course, we aren’t talking great works of art like The Iliad, Don Quixote, and SpongeBob SquarePants. The purpose they put that writing to was just what you would think. “Larsa owes Sippar one goat”! Still goat accounting is important. Actually, the writing of numbers goes back even further, but you can see the accounting problems with an entry like, “One.” Obviously, it means one goat, but beyond that, one can’t say. I’m just kidding about the goats, but there is no doubt that the Sumerians domesticated goats and other animals. These are the kinds of things you can do when you settle down and create that other great Sumerian invention: cities.

The first city we know about is Eridu, which is located in what is now southern Iraq. It first became a village around 7,000 years ago, but it was not at that time what we would call a city. That took another 1,500 years. It and the many city states in the region that followed it is why Iraq is called the cradle of civilization. For good and for bad, this is where it all started. And in my search for more information, I came upon Michael Wood’s 1992 documentary series Legacy: A Search for the Origins of Civilization. Here is the first episode, which is about the Sumerians:

I had no problem watching all six hours of the series over the past couple of days. But Legacy doesn’t seem to have been one of Wood’s more popular series. And I can see why. It’s kind of a downer. It seems to have been Wood’s response to the Persian Gulf War, which took place almost exactly on the ruins of Eridu. The whole point of the series seems to be, “Look how far we have not come!”

This last weekend, I had dinner with my father and I brought up a dangerous topic: human progress. My father, like most Americans, is absolutely certain that civilization will just get better and better. But I was in such a mood as to push back a little on that. I make no claims about the future. But looking at the past, I don’t see any real progress. The Sumerians were pretty much constantly at war. And we are pretty much constantly at war. I’m willing to admit that we may have a tad more empathy than the difficult lives of ancient people allowed them. But it is just a tad and humans seem quite willing to let their emotions carry them away. For example, I doubt if many Americans would have complained had we decided to burn Osama bin Laden to death. And we are far more cruel to our farm animals than the Sumerians were to theirs.

The biggest problem with Legacy is that Wood seems reluctant to come right out and say what he thinks. But it is pretty clear if you are paying attention. Every civilization has aspects that are great. But they are countered by aspects that are bad. Here in America, we are very good at innovating and producing. But we are sadly deficient in long-range thinking and we have no spiritual life to speak of. The problem is that we are so powerful that we have managed to foist our civilization—for good and bad—on the rest of the world.

Wood focuses on medieval Baghdad, when the Muslim rulers (distinct from their modern counterparts) embraced multiculturalism. He quotes an unnamed Muslim scholar who said, “If one could combine Arabic faith and Jewish intelligence, with an Iraqi education, Christian conduct, Greek knowledge, Indian mysticism, and a Sufi way of life, this would be the perfection of humanity.” Of course, here in the west, we give lip service to multiculturalism. But what we really mean is that we want the traditional dress for parades, and we want there to be billionaires of all races and creeds. In the end, the west wants what the west wants: the rape of the earth and each other for the sake of ever higher profits.

I am extremely skeptical that a truly diverse civilization that takes the best of all cultures can exist. And I know that there is no apatite for such in modern America. Look what’s happened to religion in this country: Christianity has been so distorted that I now see Christ described less as the Prince of Peace and more like Rambo on the Cross. I hear damned little of “blessed are the meek” and more “Jesus wants you to be rich!” Just as some Muslim’s use their religion to justify murder, mainstream American Christian uses their religion to justify the worship of Money and Power.

In the end, I suppose we will muddle on. We aren’t any better than the Sumerians, but we’re also no worse. There is no Star Trek in our future, but their may be Mad Max. Or nothing at all.

A Little Valentine’s Day Reality

Posted on 14 Feb 2014 by Frank Moraes

I am a cynical son of a bitch when it comes holidays and romance. So Valentine’s Day is a big day for me. In 2012, I wrote The Blood of St. Valentine’s Day. It was about the two (or three) saints who the day is most likely named after. And it turns out that they were both brutally murdered, like most saints. Ah, romance! In 2013, I wrote Play Valentine’s Day Well. It was my advice to men about how to play the game of love. Actually, it is very good advice. But what do I have to say for 2014?

According to Wikipedia, “In 1797, a British publisher issued The Young Man’s Valentine Writer, which contained scores of suggested sentimental verses for the young lover unable to compose his own.” This is still with us today. But now guys can’t even be bothered to copy the trite and plagiarized sentiments; we just buy greeting cards. Still, I think it is a hell of an idea. Most women love it when you write them a poem. I know because I’ve done it for countless friends and it always plays well.

So I thought for 2014, I would update that tradition. I offer the following poem to young lovers everywhere to do with as they please:

I hope that I should never see
You screwing a guy who’s not me.

A guy who’s handsome and can speak,
Who’s manicured and does not reek;

A guy who’s total take-home pay—
One month of mine takes him one day;

A guy who drives a great new car,
Who pals around with movie stars;

Upon whose greatness all rely,
And always hate to say goodbye.

If this attractive you would be,
You never would have been with me.

I actual like that poem because it does get down to the ultimate truth of romance: we punch our weight. People don’t hook up with us because we are the best person in the world to them; we hook up because we are each about as good as we can get. And that’s great! It’s the nature of the universe. The only word that I disagree with is “if” when Stephen Stills wrote, “If you can’t be with the one you love, love the one you’re with.” Settling is not only acceptable, it is necessary.

As you live through this Valentine’s Day, remember the wisdom of That Mitchel and Web Look. Be a little bit deluded in each other’s favor. That’s what love is!

Thoughts on the Super Bowl

Posted on 02 Feb 2014 by Frank Moraes

I am out of town, thus the great slowdown in posts here. But I am not so unplugged as to not know that it is the biggest day of the year for Americans: Super Bowl Sunday. Here in the Bay Area, people are disappointed because two weeks ago, the 49ers lost in the last minute of the game against the Seattle Seahawks. I will admit, I was hoping for that outcome. I thought it would end the madness that is local fan behavior. But I was wrong.

Today’s game is between Seattle and the Denver Broncos. There are two ways that a fan could respond to this. There is the way that I look at it when I’m in a similar situation: root for the team that beat you with the assumption that at least you lost to the best team. That is not the way people around the Bay Area are responding.

The whole community, including public sources, are committed to what I think is more like the behavior of a spurned lover. They are rooting for Denver, but not because they want them to win; they just want Seattle to lose. It makes no sense to me. But then, being a fan of the local team doesn’t make any sense to me. Being the fan of a sports team is irrational regardless, but I would think people would have more idiosyncratic reasons for liking one team or another.

Like me. I don’t really care who wins the game today. But it does seem to me if you care about the 49ers, you would root for Seattle. After all, what if Seattle gets blown away today? That would say that the 49ers really suck. It ought to be an embarrassment for these people. After all, these people think they are somehow vested in how the “home” team performs. I will stick to my more idiosyncratic approach.

I might think differently if I liked football. But it still strikes me as the most boring game imaginable. And I don’t say that because I don’t understand the game. Whenever I watch it with fans, I am at least as on top of it as they are. But I don’t see why I should care about a game that is so planned out. And then the fact that it is played by a bunch of people who can’t even begin to be termed normal. And then the fact that it is violent, producing a charming side effect of brain injuries. But all of that is probably what makes football so popular. A violent and dangerous game played by a bunch of physical freaks? What’s not to like?

The Tea Totaler

Posted on 18 Jan 2014 by Frank Moraes

All evidence to the contrary, I don’t drink much. But I am not a teetotaler. That’s an interesting word. Originally, it referred to the 19th century movement of people who followed teetotalism—an explicit abstinence from all alcohol. It started at the same time and was more or less the same thing as the Washingtonian movement. There is a tendency now to think that as a nation we drink a great deal. This is not true, and I think this misinformation comes from groups like Alcoholics Anonymous and MADD who constantly want to define down what it means to be drunk or a drunk.

The truth is that people used to drink a lot more than we do now. I see this all the time while researching my daily birthday posts, where I find a lot of people of the past dying from liver damage due to alcohol consumption. And in the 19th century, it was especially bad. And here I’m not just talking about the drinkers themselves. Alcohol use then as now was associated with violence—especially domestic violence.

Today, people are far more responsible about their drinking. This is not surprising. Drug taking is a social activity. The biggest harms that occur with drugs are when new drugs are introduced into a culture where it had no history and thus no set norms. Despite all the mythology of the “disease of addiction,” people generally learn their drug taking habits from their environment. Although I have seen only too well the damage that alcohol can do to people and families, I think modest drinking is unquestionably a good thing. And wine and beer go well with most foods.

I try to have a drink every night. It is usually wine or beer, but I am not against the occasional mixed drink. In fact, I made up a drink called The Archie Leach, which is interesting as you will see later in today’s birthday post. But sometimes I have a problem. I want to have a drink, but I am tired and still have work to do. And thus, I created The Tea Totaler:

Steep one bag of a hearty black tea in 1.25 cups of 90°C (194°F) water for 5 minutes. I use Irish Breakfast tea but use whatever you like. Remove the bag. Add 2 tsp of heavy cream. Mix. Add one shot of vodka. Mix. Enjoy!

I can’t say that it’s great, but it is pleasant enough. I can tell you this: tea and brandy do not mix! And it gives you that extra energy to get your work done. Or to write unfortunate things on Twitter. It’s really up to you.

Afterword

Do be careful with this. The combination of alcohol and caffeine tends to make one feel as though one has had less alcohol than one has. Trust me: this is one drink, regardless of how it makes you feel. You may be thinking faster, but you aren’t thinking better.

Danica McKellar Teaches Female Stereotypes

Posted on 13 Jan 2014 by Frank Moraes

Back in the 3 January birthday post, Ever Since Marion Davies, I wrote, “The great film director Sergio Leone was born in 1929. Interestingly, he isn’t even listed on the front page birthdays of IMDB. Who is? Danica McKellar who I’ve never heard of…” This does not mean much. It is common that I won’t know a single one of the film celebrities who IMDB lists. This caused longtime reader and insightful commenter Rick Fane to write:

FYI – Danica McKellar played Winnie Cooper, the girl next door on The Wonder Years. She took some time off from her acting career to study Mathematics at UCLA where she graduated summa cum laude.

She has written several books which encourage girls to resist hiding their intelligence and to sing the praises of math and science.

I have never seen The Wonder Years, which is not exactly shocking. But I had heard of this series of books—most likely on NPR: math books for girls by Hollywood actress… You know the drill. Although I’m not keen on actors writing books, I liked the idea. I truly think that the reason people in general don’t like or “get” math is because math teachers are, with few exceptions, dreadful.

So I went to the library and picked up Girls Get Curves, a book on high school geometry. I provided a really big picture of the cover of the book so you could get a good idea of what’s in store. Don’t misunderstand, I get it: it’s like a magazine cover with enticing articles like “How do you attract guys?” and “8 self-esteem boosters.” But given the playfully seductive picture of Ms. McKellar, I have a really big problem with, “inside: body image quiz!” Hey girls, does this cover make you feel inferior? Does it make you feel like you’re an ugly cow? Well, then you’re normal. But that doesn’t mean I’m not gonna rub it in your face! (To be fair, the earlier books by McKellar have far more acceptable covers.)

I want to be clear: I didn’t read this book. I read parts of it. I skimmed it. Actually, I think that Danica McKellar should get third author status on this book. First, the book is more designed than written. There is no indication of who designed it, but it is well done in the sense of looking good. In terms of being distracting, it’s terrible. But I’ve been in the publishing biz for a long time now, I know that its all about getting people to buy books not read them. Second, the book is filled with compelling if stereotypical images by Mary Lynn Blasutta, who gets credit only on the copyright page.

I am at a distinct disadvantage in discussing this book, however. I know the subject rather well. I am a male. And I am long past my wonder years. So it is probably meaningless that I hate this book. But I think if I were a young female, I would also hate it. This is not to say that all young females would hate it. But given that when I was a boy, I didn’t want to be a stereotypical boy, I assume if I had been a girl, I wouldn’t have wanted to be a stereotypical girl. And this book screams, “OMG! You can be a bubble headed girl and still be good at math!”

Except, you know, you really can’t. It’s long been know that girls turn off to math at exactly the time they turn on to boys. Now there is still some question as to whether this is a hormone thing or a social thing. The evidence (that I’ve seen and I am certainly no expert) is that it is a social thing. And this book does not encourage girls to be themselves. It pushes them to be a very stereotypical image of a 15-year-old girl. Consider:

If Taylor wears pink, then Lizzie wears pink.
If Lizzie wears pink, then Jessica wears pink.
If jessica wears pink, then Brittany wears pink.

And then we’re given this new info:

OMG, Taylor is wearing pink.

Without that last line, we just have a bunch of conditional “rules.” But when we find out that Taylor actually does wear pink, it sets off a chain reaction that causes not only Lizzie to wear pink but also Jessica and Brittany!

OM-fucking-G! I can forgive everything but “pink.” And that it is about dressing up. And… Oh fuck it: it’s all horrible.

It is also no surprise that every image of a girl or woman in the book is slender. In fact, in one of the “testimonials” in the book, we have “Jessica Keramas.” Before, she was, “Overweight and shy.” It doesn’t matter what she is now, except, of course that she is slender and extroverted. It is very clear that both overweight and shy are pejoratives. And given the rest of the imagines of females in the book, I can only geuss that Keramas was not anything close to, say, Chris Christie. But Keramas is quoted saying, “Math skills helped me get in shape.” Yeah, all you tubbos, learn a little math and maybe a boy won’t be so disgusted with you!

I may not have ever seen The Wonder Years, but I know what it is. It’s that show with a kid from The Princess Bride. See, I’m not that out of it. It wasn’t a sit-com, but it was still more or less the 1990s equivalent to Leave It to Beaver. It presents an idealized kind of reality with stereotypes galore. And that’s fine with entertainment. But in the case of Girls Get Curves, I doubt very seriously that much education is getting done. I think books could be written that do what this one claims to do. But I suspect this is a book that parents buy their daughters, who just let the book collect dust.

The problem is that the book is part of the problem of telling girls to be a certain way. On top of that is the message, “And it’s okay to be good at math!” But the first lesson is so much stronger than the second. It drips from every page. In fact, the cover is the perfect example. If you look closely, you can see some lines and numbers. But the take away from the cover is, “Ain’t Danica McKellar hot?!” So instead of “it’s okay to be good at math” it is “it’s okay to be a certain kind of girl and be good at math.” If the book was only purchased by those kinds of girls (Sorry: the parents of those kinds of girls!) it wouldn’t have been a bestseller.

The Beauty of Abandonment and Decay

Posted on 30 Dec 2013 by Frank Moraes

Source: Barry Mangham/Pixog

Speaking of The Third Man… There’s that one most famous scene where Joseph Cotten and Orson Welles go up in the Wiener Riesenrad and Welles, as Harry Lime, talks about how insignificant humans are. “Look down there. Tell me. Would you really feel any pity if one of those dots stopped moving forever? If I offered you twenty thousand pounds for every dot that stopped, would you really, old man, tell me to keep my money, or would you calculate how many dots you could afford to spare?” The film takes place in Vienna, after World War II. Few people have any money and so the amusement part is abandoned. There’s something very special about that. And when Lime not so subtly tells Joseph Cotten, as Holly Martins, that he might just throw him out of the car, it’s believable.

Most people find abandoned places creepy. That’s especially true if the location is one where people usually are—in abundance. Like an amusement park. When it’s empty, it seems almost post-apocalyptic. But I like it. To me, it is the way things ought to be. It reminds me of 10,000 year old settlements like Catalhoyuk. The things we humans make outlast us by a long time. In a sense, it shows that we are better craftsmen than God. But even still, what we do and who we are only matters right now.

Shakespeare wrote only 400 years ago, yet the language has changed so much that we probably wouldn’t even understand the words if we heard them spoken the way they were while the poet was alive at the Curtain theater. And Shakespeare is lucky. Many thousands of people over the years have worked very hard to keep his work alive. And for what? The plays of Shakespeare like the work of all humans is destined to disappear, just as humans themselves. And I see nothing sad about that. In fact, it is a testament to the greatness of humans that we take pleasure in the creation of the ephemeral. Many of us even create art without any intention of sharing it with anyone—just for the joy of doing it.

It is with these thoughts in mind, that I came upon an article this morning, The 38 Most Haunting Abandoned Places on Earth. For Some Reason, I Can’t Look Away… Do click over, because the photos are beautiful. But are they haunting? I don’t think so. They are, instead, completely alive. Consider, for example, this picture of the Great Wall of China:

Source: reddit.com

The article explains, “The Great Wall is 13,170 miles long and vast sections receive little maintenance because of the enormous cost of caring for such a monumental structure.” I’ve never especially wanted to see the Great Wall. But if I could go here, where this picture was taken, well, that’s another matter entirely. That’s a beautiful thing: the forest is literally eating the wall. Imagine if you had built the wall and lived for thousands of years. Would you do something to stop the destruction of your wall? If you did, you would be a fool. You would be so much better to make something else that is ephemeral like yourself. Everything is ephemeral. Even the universe is ephemeral.

God, being a creation of man, is ephemeral. Just look at this abandoned church with its beautiful stained glass windows. As with so much in life, they overshadow man. Or am I wrong? When you looked at the picture, did your eyes avoid all the beautiful art that this church still is? Did your eyes instead, lock onto the child’s coffin in the middle of the picture? I wonder if it’s empty. And if it isn’t, does it matter?

Source: lovethesepics.com

I am not afraid, because I know the answer to that question.

Pigeons and Politics

Posted on 25 Dec 2013 by Frank Moraes

I offer this image to help you on this holiday that I hope you are spending with disparate family and friends. My point is not what is says in this image. As far as I can tell, this was originally a poster from a libertarian perspective aimed as “statists.” Liberals think this applies to conservatives and conservatives think this applies to liberals. And do you know what? They’re both right. Sort of.

Here’s how it goes: most people are not that into politics. It’s a tribal thing. And so they don’t know what they’re talking about. Most of them never talk about politics, so it doesn’t matter. But I know when I talk to liberals, they often think the silliest of things. If I were a conservative, I would be all over them. (As a liberal, I am too—but very gently.) So if I were Josh Barro, I would think that most liberals were idiots who were immune to facts.

Most liberals just watch regular news, though. Thus, what most liberals believe is roughly correct, even if it is neither broad nor deep. The problem comes in with the conservative media echo chamber. It takes regular conservatives and turns them into extremely ill-informed conservatives. These ill-informed conservatives often get the impression that liberals are ignorant because they are hearing totally different news. As I noted before, in the conservative media echo chamber, Solyndra is still a big issue. So the problem is these conservatives think they know a lot and the misinformation they “know” makes them think that other people who don’t “know” the same stuff are ignorant.

If you are at a party with a thoughtful conservative, you should have no trouble having a good conversation where you might even learn and rethink some things. I don’t think anyone needs any help in such situations. If you are at a party with a Fox News fan, however, you need to stay off difficult topics. I have found that I can make progress with such conservatives by staying off issues that Fox News is pushing. So no talk of Duck Dynasty. No talk of Obamacare. No talk of the ethnicity of Santa Claus. But you might find some common ground on corporate welfare. Or the fact that public schools get different levels of funding based upon how rich the kids are. (Property taxes!) Or why we pay double what other countries do for healthcare—but be careful with that one.

I think politics is important. And I especially think it is important to talk to the other side. So try to find some common ground. And if that’s not possible—if they are just angry conservatives who hate just about everyone and everything—change the subject to sports. That Atlanta-San Francisco game Monday night was amazing!

Lose Your Soul at Graton Casino

Posted on 15 Dec 2013 by Frank Moraes

Over in my area, they recently opened up a big Casino, Graton. I was enticed to go and check it out tonight. It was not much of an enticement. Being a great lover of statistics, I find most forms of gambling mystifying. I assume the electronic games have winning percentages that are mandated by the state. The blackjack tables are shuffled continuously so card counting is impossible except at the high stakes tables—or so I’m told. Craps, while a sucker’s game at least has a fun group thing going on, is not available. There is no poker, which one could win at if one were a good player. And there is no sports betting, which again, one could win at if one were a capable handicapper. Thus, to me, it is just a really loud, ugly place where cigarette smokers go to play expensive computer games.

And everybody’s in on it. As you can see in the picture on the right, there are Willy Wonka slot machines. Roald Dahl is lucky he is dead not to have to see that. I also saw Dolly Parton slot machines. There were lots of other things, but I’m not up on pop culture. It does make me wonder though. Parton is estimated to be worth a half billion dollars. Is there nothing she won’t do for money? If I had a couple of billion dollars, would she let me take a dump on her? Because what she’s doing on those slot machines is even more disgusting. I walked into that casino with a so-so opinion of her. Now I despise her. She is nothing but a whore who will do anything for money, even though she has more than she could ever spend.

But welcome to America, right? Isn’t that the new American Dream? Gain a bit of fame so you can cash out? The problem with that “dream” of course is there is no end to cashing out. Apparently, people are not cashing out so they can lay on a beach the rest of their lives. Now you just cash out for the pleasure of cashing out. And everyone is involved. Those who have no fame to cash out, can sit at the slots and put their cash in. I’m sure for every dollar some Dolly Parton fan wastes on one of her machines, the grande dame receives a few pennies. Soon she’ll be up to a cool billion. That’s why she went into country music, right?!

I don’t mean to put down all the gamblers. Hey, entertainment is entertainment. It ain’t my thing, but whatever. What bothers me is that I thought I saw a lot of Bill Whites there: lost people looking for just a little bit of meaning in their sad American lives where real meaning is scoffed at and ridiculed. It was a Sunday. They could have it all. In the morning, they could go to church and have a meaningless spiritual experience and in the evening, they could go to the casino and have a meaningless entertainment experience. Really, any person who feeds pigeons in the park has a far more engaged life than any such person.

Of course, as anyone who has spent any time in a casino can tell you, most of the people seem very sad. And that was fully on display tonight. It’s a binary experience after all: you either win or you lose. And that’s the problem with our whole culture and the economy that overwhelms it. That’s our meaning: winning a penny is good and losing a penny is bad. There might as well be switches on our fucking foreheads. But it wouldn’t matter. Because it doesn’t matter how many pennies you win. It is never enough. You’ll still sell off whatever is left of your soul to “Win!” again. Just ask the now fully soul-free Dolly Parton.

Dog Violence Is Completely Unacceptable

Posted on 25 Nov 2013 by Frank Moraes

As regular readers know, I admire Great White sharks. I admire grizzly bears. And I admire the larger molosser dogs such as the American Pit Bull Terrier. But I don’t think any of them should be kept as pets. These dogs have been bred for fighting. They’re good at it. And when they go bad and attack (and even kill) humans, we shouldn’t be surprised.

It doesn’t help that men who are trying to compensate for their own feelings of inferiority are attracted to these dogs. And according to the ASPCA, “His intimidating appearance has made him attractive to people looking for a macho status symbol, and this popularity has encouraged unscrupulous breeders to produce puppies without maintaining the pit bull’s typical good nature with people.” So we start with a breed that has a violent nature, appealing to macho assholes, causing breeders to make even less domesticated dogs.

I don’t know how we got to this point. We should never have accepted any kind of pet that was not entirely submissive to humans. I’m not saying they shouldn’t have character, but serious injury should not be on the list of “common accidents.” The ASPCA article is largely an apologia for pit bulls. But even it notes, “[T]hey tend to bite harder in play than other breeds.” And, “They’re easily excited and, when in an agitated state, they may have little control over their behavior…” Just great!

The website Dogs Bite produces lists of fatalities from dogs each year. Their list from 2013 includes 29 victims thus far. Almost all of them are pit bulls or other larger molosser breads. And I know: this is a small number of deaths compared to other causes. But these are completely preventable deaths that occur primarily so that some people can keep the most badass dog breed around that is responsible for the vast majority of dog on human death.

I bring this up because yesterday in St. George, Utah, a child’s face was half ripped off by a pit bull. He almost certainly would have died except that his 6-year-old friend pulled the dog off him until help arrived. The story is pitched from the perspective of the heroic 6-year-old. And indeed, he is a hero. But the bigger question is why his dog was being kept as a pet.

This isn’t about pit bulls. Whenever a dog attacks someone, there are always people who want to forgive the dog and justify what happened. I don’t care. I don’t think the dogs are evil; they are just doing what their genetics and environment dictate. But violent dogs should never be pets. And breeds that are known to be violent should not be acceptable pets. See that picture above. That is Nephi Selu, another 6-year-old boy who was killed by the family’s pit bull mix (also in photo). The dog was a male and had not been neutered. The owner was a police officer. According to the family, the boy and dog were best of friends. Until they weren’t.

It’s not acceptable to have dogs bread to fight as pets. It’s like having our children play in mine fields. We try to clean up mine fields; we should try to clean up our pets’ gene pool. Pets add so much to our lives, they should never be allowed to be a mixed blessing.

The Three Types and the Truth

Posted on 16 Nov 2013 by Frank Moraes

Three Kinds of People When it Comes to Truth

Austin Frakt posted this image over at The Incidental Economist (it is originally from Dog House Diaries.)

It got me to thinking who these three types of people are. I think the “Awesome” people are your general liberally minded people. I don’t mean “liberal” in a political sense. I just saw that 60% of Republicans are in favor of raising the minimum wage. (Fewer are for adjusting it to inflation.) So there are a fair number of reasonable people who consider themselves conservative even though they are, as I said, “Liberally minded.”

The “Dangerous” types are really quite common. I once had this insurance broker who told me that he had no misconceptions. The world was neatly divided into what he knew was true and what he didn’t know. He was, of course, a Republican. This kind of certainty is entirely typical of conservatives. It is similar to the Dunning–Kruger effect where people who have little skill in something overestimate their abilities while people with much skill underestimate. But in this case, it is that people who are most certain of something tend to be the least right. And on a larger level, people who are most certain about a lot are least knowledgeable about everything. You know, a conservative!

But what about that “Run” group: are there really people like that outside of a mental ward? I think there are: Christian conservatives. These are the people who really skew things. These are the people who dragged a once great political party into its current state where science and even facts are nothing but opinion. These are the people for whom Stephen Colbert coined the term “truthiness.” The “Dangerous” crowd can still be convinced of things. They at least admit that there are more things in heaven and earth than exist in their perfect truth bubble.

The “Run” group have all the truth that is necessary and that truth is Jesus! Or at least the Jesus that they’ve been taught. You know, the God who loves the sinner but hates the sin, but couldn’t be bothered to make man without Original Sin? That guy! The one who loves you but will consign you to the fires of hell. To suffer in agony. Forever. Because you masturbated or somehow otherwise offended him by doing something he designed you to do. That’s the “Run” group!

In my experience, the “Run” group divides up their ultimate truth three ways: one part “Jesus loves me!” and one part “God hates abortion!” and one part “God hates non-productive ejaculation!” So you see, the graph is wrong. It isn’t that the “Run” types have beliefs that expand to fit the big universe; they have just reduced the truth to just about the most pathetic set of things imaginable.

It is a good idea to run from them. Unfortunately, here in the United States, they are everywhere. I’d say they are 20% of the population. But I’ll admit, that number is very possible outside the truth bubble.

How to Catch a Cheetah

Posted on 15 Nov 2013 by Frank Moraes

Cropped from a photo most likely by Aden Bishar.

Not that I could do it, but it isn’t that hard to chase down a gazelle. The issue is that these really fast animals cannot keep those speeds up for a long period of time. Humans are one of the relatively few animals that can run long distances in the heat. In fact, that’s how we used to hunt: run down animals until they were exhausted so we could easily kill them.

The same thing is going on with cheetahs, which can run up to 64 miles per hour. But I still think you’d have to be crazy to chase one. I mean, they’ve got huge, sharp… They can leap about… Look at the bones![1]

But Nur Osman Hassan knew he had to do something when two rogue cheetahs decided that it was a whole lot easier to just kill and eat from his trip of goats.[2] After 15 kills, he finally got a group of neighbors together and they chased the cheetahs. This was done in the middle of the day when the cheetahs’ reletively poor temperature regulation would be their undoing. They chased them for just four miles. Then, according to the BBC, “The cheetahs got so tired they could not run any more.”

This is where the story gets interesting. “The villagers captured them alive and handed them over to the Kenya Wildlife Service.” I’m amazed by this because this doesn’t strike me as the way we would have done it here. I know, cheetahs are threatened species. But in America, the farmers would have just killed the cheetahs and dared the authorities to do anything about it.

I suspect that Hassan especially wanted to catch the cheetahs and turn them over to the authorities, because he wants to be compensated for his 15 goats. But I still think these farmers are better people than we are. And this has nothing to do with any ideas of the noble “savage.” It is just that Americas have been so rich for such a long time that we have a real attitude about what we are supposedly owed.

In the case of Hassan, I suspect that he is none too certain that he’s going to get compensated for his loss. The report does not indicate just how big a farm he has, but I figure he’s a fairly wealthy guy by local standards because he wasn’t even around to manage the situation when it started. So he could easily have taken a more vindictive approach to the cheetahs. Regardless, the situation worked out well for everyone, including the cheetahs. And I hope that Hassan gets his money.

[1] In case you don’t recognize it:

[2] A group of goats is generally referred to as a herd, tribe, or trip. I picked the most oblique.

H/T: FARK