Evariste Galois

Evariste GaloisOn this day in 1838, the Romantic period composer Georges Bizet was born. He was only 36 when he died. I’m not that fond of this early work. But his operas are quite good. And then came Carmen. Interestingly, it was not well received when it first came out. There were a couple of reasons for this. First, it was pretty racy. Critics didn’t like the idea that the heroine was a seductress. Even in France at that time, people apparently wanted heroines who threw themselves on the funeral pyres of their dead husbands. But there was also criticism that the opera was tuneless. That’s hard to fathom now because there are at least five different tunes in Carmen that everyone knows. It probably didn’t help that at its premiere, Carmen ran four and a half hours long. Today, it runs a much more manageable two and half hours. Anyway, here is “Habanera” from Carmen. It is delightful:

Other birthdays: anarchist philosopher Max Stirner (1806); artist Pablo Picasso (1881); the great Swedish Post-Impressionist Nils von Dardel (1888); novelist Anne Tyler (72); musician Jon Anderson and whatever he is James Carville are both 69; and the voice of Bart Simpson Nancy Cartwright (56).

The day, however, belongs to the great mathematician Evariste Galois who was born on this day in 1811. He was a pioneering figure in the development of abstract algebra—basically breaking down algebra into structures. Think of it like language where algebra would be the rules of creating a syntactically correct sentence. Abstract algebra would explain the nature of how articles work in those sentences. If you think the math courses you took in college were hard, consider that I think that stuff is easy, but I think abstract algebra is mind boggling. That’s what Galois was doing in his teens two hundred years ago.

He is best know for something else, however. In addition to mathematics, he was a radical republican in France when it was dangerous to be so. And at 20, it looks as though his mouth got the better of him. He ended up in a duel with someone who he felt certain would kill him. The night before the event, he penned a very long letter to Auguste Chevalier that laid out a number of this mathematical ideas. He had published a few papers before this, but this letter is most of his work and it was revolutionary. It wasn’t even published for 14 years after his death.

You can see why mathematicians love the story. It is romantic in the extreme: a brilliant young man produces earth shattering work while he faces certain death. Of course, it is actually tragic. The mind bends to the things he might have done had he lived longer. The Chevalier letter ended, “Ask Jacobi or Gauss publicly to give their opinion, not as to the truth, but as to the importance of these theorems. Later there will be, I hope, some people who will find it to their advantage to decipher all this mess.” He knew he was right, he just wasn’t sure how important it was. And it turned out that it took a while for others to figure it out. The young man deserved the time to do so himself.

Happy birthday Evariste Galois!

Afterword

I’ve been playing around with a play about Galois’ last night for a few years. It’s very postmodern. The difficulty of the math is a real problem. But I think it can be done. I have, however, never seen a play or movie about a mathematician that wasn’t dreadful. Math isn’t a patina that grows on the surface of a character. It radiates from the core.

Sympathy for Lt John Pike

Lt John PikeLt John Pike is back in the news. He’s the pepper spraying copy from the Davis protest two years ago. Yesterday, it was announced that Pike will receive $38,056 for a workers compensation claim. There is understandably much outrage in the liberal world about this. But I don’t go along with it.

According to the Davis Enterprise, “John Pike, 40, of Roseville, reportedly suffered depression and anxiety brought on by death threats he and his family received after the Nov. 18, 2011, confrontation at an Occupy UC Davis encampment.” I don’t doubt it’s true. If his claim were with regard to being a very public joke, I wouldn’t sympathize. For one thing, any harm that came to him in that regard would be totally offset with stuff like this:

Pepper Spray Jaws

But death threats and personal attacks are wrong. I understand why people do that and I am not innocent of it myself. But I don’t think that Pike is a monster. I’m sure in his mind he was just doing a job. And watching the video, I don’t get the impression that he is taking pleasure in what he’s doing. In fact, it seems almost robotic.

I find myself increasing at odds with both conservatives and liberals on these kinds of issues. Everyone wants to personalize it. Was Pike a good cop or a bad cop? To me, it is very simple: John Pike was a cop. We have a real problem with policing in this country. But it isn’t about what any particular cop does, although clearly, sociopaths show up in any line of work. The system itself is corrupt.

It is clear why a lot of cops think that they are being picked on by management and the public at large. I think there is something wrong with dumping all over one cop for stuff that they all do. Still, there is a satisfying irony of selective enforcement that is used everywhere in law enforcement coming back to bite those very same officers. But clearly, they would see it differently.

The bottom line is that focusing on Pike—regardless of his culpability—misses the point. Pike is gone from Davis. But the police still behave the same, because as a culture we seem to be all right with the idea that the police should largely be above the law. Or at very least, we don’t care.

Afterword

Here is a typical and very understandable liberal reaction from The Young Turks:

Nathan Phelps, Survivor

Frank commented on one of my last posts and informed me that Shirley Phelps-Roper’s brother, Nate, is now an atheist. That makes me feel better. Rational thought and escape are possible. According to the only source on the Internet:

Nathan “Nate” Phelps is an American-born Canadian author, LGBT rights activist, and public speaker on the topics of religion and child abuse. He is the sixth of the thirteen children of Pastor Fred Phelps, from whom he — along with three of his siblings — has been estranged since his eighteenth birthday in 1976. Phelps permanently left Westboro Baptist Church in 1980. In the 20 years following his departure, Phelps tried to find a milder form of Christianity, and raised his own children within an Evangelical church, but his doubts only grew as he continued studying religion. At the Reason Rally in Washington on March 24, 2012, he told that the events of 9/11 finally brought him to disbelief:

“Then, one sunny September morning, the illusion of a personal God that I tried so hard to believe in, exploded over the skies of Manhattan. Even as the ashes and ruin of this horrific act of blind faith settled over New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, I watched people across the country scrambling to that same irrational altar for their answers. In the fierce storm of emotion that rolled across this country, one realization rose to the surface of my mind with blinding clarity: certainly this mechanism of unassailable blind faith is one of the greatest risks mankind faces today.”

He is known for his criticism of the Westboro Baptist Church through literature, interviews, public speaking at atheist conventions and his website. He states that his father physically abused him and the other Phelps children and he believes that the church is an organization for his father to “vent his rage and anger.” Phelps’ brother Mark supports and repeats Nathan’s claims of physical abuse by their father.

Life May Be Simpler Now

The Goldbergs

Paul Waldman wrote a good one yesterday, The False Glow of Remembered Childhood. It’s about how everyone looks back to the days of their childhoods and says, “Those times were simpler!” But that isn’t true. As he notes, in a general sense the times were not simpler. They were simpler for you. Why? “Because you were a child!”

The core of the article is a quote from Adam Goldberg, the creator and producer of the new television series, The Goldbergs. When asked why he set the show in the 1980s, Goldberg said, “I think the ’80s works for a TV show because it’s the last time the world was simple. It was before the Internet really changed everything and made the world really small.” Mr. Goldberg, of course, was born in 1976.

What I think is really interesting about this is that I remember seeing an interview with Garry Marshall, the creator and producer of Happy Days. Toward the beginning of the series, he was asked the same thing, “Why did you set this show in the 1950s?” And his answer was the same: because it was a simpler time. He didn’t mention the internet, of course. He mentioned drugs. Mr. Marshall, of course, was born in 1934.

In addition to this aspect of all our personalities, we are also parochial from the standpoint of time. I was just discussing in comments the fact that the humor of long ago—like Rabelais and Cervantes and Shakespeare—is far harsher. So if you look at what humans have done over a time scale of hundreds of years, you see that we’ve actually become better. Punch and Judy have been replaced by Barney & Friends. I think this is excellent.

But life goes on. We still have to feed and clothe ourselves. And doing that by telecommuting Python code is no more complex than hand planting crops. In fact, I would say it is less complex. The complexity of the society tends to make our lives easier and simpler. Of course, when people like Bill O’Reilly claim that things were simpler at one time, what they mean is that there was more conformity. But there wasn’t. It’s just that they didn’t see it. And that’s because, as Waldman says, they were children. But it ever was so. People said the same things back in 1859:

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way—in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.

I Think Your Bible is Broken

Reading comprehension is not encouraged at Westboro Baptist Church…

Proverbs 6:16–19

There are six things that the Lord hates,
seven that are an abomination to him
[because the Bible tells me so]:

haughty eyes
[arrogance],

a lying tongue
[saying gays are evil, etc.],

hands that shed innocent blood
[gray area],

a heart that devises wicked plans
[such as picketing soldier’s funerals],

feet that make haste to run to evil
[or fly hundreds of miles to picket a soldier’s funeral],

a false witness who breathes out lies
[“You’re going to eat your babies!”],

and one who sows discord among brothers
[the definition of a WBC follower].

American Myth and Escape Plan

Escape PlanAs I noted this morning, I went to see Escape Plan with my brother. Given that it is a Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger vehicle, I expected it to be terrible. It wasn’t. I found it more engaging than I expected. It is a prison break film, and as such, there was much more actual plot than one normally gets in these things. Still, there was much to dislike. It had far too much exposition. The plot is straight out of a comic book. And it still had a lot of unnecessary action. But it is certainly one of the better films that either man has been in—not Rocky or Terminator 2, but watchable.

Thematically, what’s wrong with the film—and for that matter almost any Hollywood film—is its focus on the individual. Stallone plays Ray Breslin, a guy who consults with prisons by breaking out of them to show their weaknesses. He ends up in—Of course!—a prison that can’t be broken out of because of a double cross.[1] In the movie, Breslin is helped out by Emil Rottmayer. But that’s just because Schwarzenegger plays him. In general, the American film is the rugged individual defeating the system. Frankly, we’ve regressed from an artistic standpoint.

For example, Breslin has his business associates who are shown to be worried about him. But they are impotent to help him. A more reasonable plot would have them rescue him at exactly the time that he gets out himself. This approach seems to have fallen out of favor, just like the bomb being diffused with one second to go—and for the same reason: it seems awfully contrived.

Most of my day was spent working on a technical project that isn’t going terribly well. And this evening, I found myself having an anxiety attack. I decided to stop working and watch what has become my “go to” film when I am anxious or depressed: Romantics Anonymous. It is true that I have a huge crush on Isabelle Carre. And I very much identify with the Benoit Poelvoorde character. But I don’t think that’s why I return to it again and again.

The main characters are far more individualistic than any character that Stallone (or Schwarzenegger) has ever played. But it is only through the help of those around them that they find happiness. She has her support group and he has his employees. The individuals need help from their community in order to thrive. And in Romantics Anonymous, the community is celebrated. It is sad that we rarely see this in an American movie.


[1] The plot is entirely predictable and a glance at my notes during the movie show. But here is something to remember: the villain much be introduced in the first act of a movie. Normally, the villain is introduced in the first 5 minutes. This usually means it will be someone close to the main character. These days it is normally the character who seems too boring to be suspected. Anyway, it is all related to Chekhov’s notion, “Remove everything that has no relevance to the story. If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it’s not going to be fired, it shouldn’t be hanging there.”

Pat Robertson’s Shamanic Mission

Pat RobertsonI don’t think people appreciate just want an amazing man Pat Robertson is. Because he is cloistered away at the Christian Broadcasting Network, he has been allowed to simultaneously become a national figure while having the same old crazy beliefs of a regional phenom. There is his Bible approved weight-loss shake. And his claim to be able to leg press 2,000 pounds. And his claim that all good Christians should be in favor of assassinating Hugo Chavez. He’s a colorful guy!

But the big thing with him is faith healing. I find the fiction of faith healing really interesting. It is the most bizarre form of magical thinking. It is useless for broken bones. Just ask the Christian Scientists! And there’s that whole thing about God never re-growing limbs. It seems if the ailment is obvious, God is absent. But when it comes to things like cancer which come and go, God is right on it!

Well, yesterday, Brian Tashman at Right Wing Watch noted, Robertson: Mother Who Can’t Heal Son’s Deafness Must Be Doing Something Wrong. A mother named Debbie wrote to him, “My son is hearing impaired and cannot hear at all. I have prayed for his healing; it seems as if God is hearing-impaired. What am I doing wrong?” The title of the article makes it sound like Robertson shames the mother, but that clearly isn’t his intent. But it is a shaming thing to say.

As cultures advance, they tend to move from belief in magic to belief in prayer. There is a clear reason for this. If you have a shaman who can do miracles, he is either successful or he isn’t. If he dances for rain and it doesn’t rain, everyone see him for the useless pretender that he is. But praying to God provides the ultimate out. If you pray for God to heal your son and he isn’t healed, it isn’t God’s fault. God’s there; he hears you; it is just that you aren’t worthy.

But Pat Robertson had some ideas. First he said that she should “rebuke” the “spirit of deafness.” But if that didn’t work, “Try something else.” He and his co-host then laughed. To me that said, “If you try enough things, eventually something will work and you can credit God with it.” And if nothing works, maybe you aren’t worthy, or your son isn’t, but regardless, God works in mysterious ways.

What’s most interesting about this is that Robertson is going back to a very primitive approach to this kind of stuff. It seems very much like a shamanic thing. It’s very much the kind of thing that would have gotten him killed by the church a thousand years ago. Because this is not prayer. This is spell casting. And I think it is very telling of modern American evangelical Christianity. The movement is very confused theologically. And thus nothing is true and everything is permitted. As long as you claim that the power comes from Jesus.

Afterword

To go along with the article, here is the Jim Carroll Band doing “Nothing Is True”:

H/T: Crooks & Liars

America’s Most Hated Family Update

TextBBC’s Louis Theroux had the stomach, once more, to talk with batshit crazy Shirley Phelps, her unfortunate children, and the seriously fucked up Westboro Baptist Church in his documentary, America’s Most Hated Family in Crisis.

If only Shirley Phelps could keep her crazy to herself rather than poisoning the minds of her children. Kids at risk can be removed from a physically or emotionally abusive environment, but with families like these all you can do is feel sorry for them and hope they never have children of their own.

Shirley Phelps and Her War on Sanity

Westboro Bastards

As a sentient citizen of the U.S., I am well aware of Westboro Baptist Church and the appalling, vicious hatred of its “ministry.” In this country that they scream God hates because of gay people, they are allowed, by law, to publicly propagate their twisted version of Christianity. That’s the price we pay for having the right of free speech. So, even though the very existence of these heinous people is abhorrent, we can’t shut them up. Or kill them. And that really annoys me. If I were inclined to be a card-carrying AAA (Armed Atheist Activist), this human cancer cluster would be my first — possibly only — target.

I came across this documentary today, The Most Hated Family in America, and it is infuriating. The matriarch of this family cult could be Ann Coulter’s missing fraternal twin — they don’t look alike, but in tone, attitude, ignorance, and density of hate, they are very much the same. Coulter’s only saving grace is that she isn’t breeding. Shirley Phelps-Roper has spawned eleven children whom she vigorously indoctrinates in fanatical dogma of irrational hatred.

I became an atheist based on rational thought. The disturbing and incredibly frustrating fact is that these people think they are being rational too. People like Shirley Phelps contradict themselves without any sense of the bizarre dichotomy of their own arguments. If someone is stunned into silence by the sheer absurdity of her hate-fueled “lines of reasoning” she thinks she’s won the debate. It never is a debate though. She and her herd, for all their smiling and smug self-assuredness, have no interest in hearing someone else’s point of view. There is no room in their minds for ideas that, deep down, they must know make real sense.

Ricky Gervais NEVER Sleeps

I don’t suppose it’s a secret (or important for that matter), that Ricky Gervais is one of the five people on the planet that I would pay to be stuck in an elevator with. Recently he tweeted something like “hard work never killed anyone, but why risk it.” To which I responded, “What if you’re only saying that to quell competition?” Unfortunately I think I may have tweeted it completely out of context which thoroughly undermines my squeak for attention.

One of his other tweets mentioned something he wrote for his blog:
Creativity is the ability to Play
. I read it and came to the conclusion that either he has had himself cloned or he never fucking sleeps. Jesus Christ. I’d call him a workaholic attention-whore if I didn’t value his very existence so much. Rather than let his superhuman prolificacy cause me to curl up into a sad ball of why-the-fuck-botherdom, I am trying to put a positive spin on his attempted encouragement.

I’m loving having a YouTube channel to dick around on. I know I’ve always dicked around, whether on radio, TV or at the Golden Globes, but with this it’s actually expected of me.

I discovered that this is the best thing about Twitter too. Just playing; mucking about for the hell of it. Although, I could technically count that as work. Dicking about should be tax-deductible for me.

Let me explain. Scientific studies of creativity have basically concluded that it can’t be taught, as it is a “facility” rather than a learned skill. Putting it very crudely, creativity is the ability to play. And, to be able to turn that facility on and off when necessary. This makes perfect sense to me. Everything I’ve ever written, created or discovered artistically has come out of playing.

Stephen Nachmanovitch said that, “Creative work is play. It is free speculation using materials of one’s chosen form.” Basically mucking about with the stuff you have in front of you. Experimenting with it, seeing what happens, and keeping the stuff you like I guess. In fact Scott Adams said, “Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.”

Now I don’t know which I feel more inspired to try: dicking around on Twitter or start making “art” with objects within easy reach. He ends by comparing Twitter to a public restroom bathroom stall which is brilliant. And I say brilliant, not because I think he shits diamonds, but because his observation is accurate and pithy.

Everyone is famous on Twitter. Everyone has their platform. There are downsides to this and sometimes the internet seems like everyone is just emptying a drawer out of the window, but that’s freedom of speech. You can’t censor things based on quality. Nor should you. To each his own. I’ve been critical of this sort of non-regulation in the past and I think I described forums and chat rooms as graffiti. Well maybe Twitter is just another big toilet wall, but there’s as much clean space and spray paint as you’ll ever need. What are you going to do with it? Create something or destroy someone else’s picture?

Create or destroy? That’s a tough one. If only I had the power to create a tweet that would destroy all the assholes on Twitter.


I found this image on the site of the young man who made the 15 Things to Never Say to An Atheist.