Rules

1. No parent shall ever call a child a disappointment or indicate any disappointment that is not sympathetic.

2. Strangers in need shall be assisted.

3. Efforts shall be made to avoid boring others.

4. Except in cases of immediate self-defense, nonhuman animals shall not be killed or otherwise harmed.

5. Weapons shall be destroyed.

6. Inheritance shall be abolished and gifts shall be carefully scrutinized.

7. A minister of language shall identify tiresome turns of phrase.

8. Humans who whine shall be beaten.

9. Water and petroleum shall be heavily taxed.

10. Sunsets shall be admired.

Picture of me in my Hallowe'en costume

the Truths

At every moment, in every place, a variety of incompatible truths circulate. Nowadays we've got the biological truth, the Catholic truth, the born again truth, the New Age truths, and the postmodernist nontruths. And many, many others. You can't really subscribe to more than two or three without becoming an ontological mess. I happen to be partial to mainstream, rational, academic truths. I believe in that which can be demonstrated by means of the conventional sciences and epistemologies. If the size of the universe, the speed of light, the limits of human machinations, the breadth of my knowledge can't make room for an idea, I reject it mercilessly. Hence my disdain for God, UFOs, ghosts, many conspiracies, terroir, and one thousand other jolly illusions. But I suspect that my predilection for the demonstrable is ultimately little more than class bias. When I endorse checking New Age truths against academic truths, I am baffled when I try to explain the ultimate benefit of subscribing to my truth. What is the value of finding out what an Oxonian scholar or a Nobel winner said if one is delighted by the assertions of a guy with a website? Even if I could convince every man, woman, and child who had ever stepped into the Salt Lake LDS Temple that Joseph Smith was an arrant knave, what would be the point? How would it benefit them?

Dumb Democrats

I am amused every few years by the partisan frenzy that sweeps over my otherwise politically apathetic friends. All of a sudden the Republican candidates are execrable, horrifying, satanic. No appreciation at all of how close the two big parties are, and how unlikely either of them is to undo any of the fundamental injustices and inequalities that make America great. So this year's target has been Sarah Palin. She makes even a dumbshit like Biden look good. But he has not ceased to make unfathomably asinine statements.

Juggling

Poem

She wakes me nightly at five, without fail,
Leaving the rumpled bed, drawing me in her
Trail to living room colloquy, unbelieving
Glances, the sad suspicion she might prefer
Pale moonlight to my shadowy dances.

Things I love

light on water
dancing
Yunnan tea
Taiwanese cities
cheeses of many lands
Life's Rich Pageant
running along a night beach with a dog
one dead dog & one dead cat
the word "euphuistic"

Three cheers for P. Sabin Willett & Ricardo M. Urbina

Federal District Court judge Urbina has demanded that seventeen prisoners at Guantanamo Bay be released. These Chinese Muslims, who belong to the Uyghur minority group, have been the subject of protracted legal conflicts.

Their attorney, in an article published in 2005, wrote more generally about the prisoners in Cuba:

The Vice President says they men are Al Qaeda fighters. What does the military say? Eight percent are al Qaeda fighters. Ninety two percent are not. The Vice President says these men were picked up on the battlefield. The military data show that five percent were picked up on the battlefield. How did we get the others? US forces distributed leaflets. One says, in Pashto:

Get wealth and power beyond your dreams . . .
You can receive millions of dollars helping the anti-Taliban forces catch al-Qaida and Taliban murderers. This is enough money to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life. Pay for livestock and doctors and school books and housing for all your people.
Eighty-six percent were sold to us by people who got the leaflets.

Vice President Cheney says they committed hostile acts against Americans or their allies. What do the data show? Fifty-five percent of the detainees committed no hostile act against the US or its allies or any one else. By the way, wearing a Casio watch is a "hostile act." So is fleeing from US bombing.

On Casio watches.

Appaloosa

Though after The Hours I was pretty sure that I'd endured enough Ed Harris for a lifetime, I walked to the movie theater last night for the nine forty-five show of Appaloosa. The structure of the movie is fairly conventional; what makes it interesting is the characters. Harris plays a steely fellow who gets all flustered and giggly when he meets an attractive woman. The woman, a total slut, doesn't deserve him, but who else would shack up with a guy whose profession places a bullseye in the middle of his chest?
The images are beautiful, and the use of triangular compositions beautifully complements the movie's propulsive trinitarian dynamic.
Harris is excellent; Mortensen is fine, in spite of quite absurd facial hair; Zellweger is atrocious, as always; Irons is good; Spall is out of place (like Cleese in Silverado, a movie I quite like).
NB: This movie fails the Bechdel test.

Can coincidences be meaningful?

In a much read essay written in 1952, the Swiss psychotherapist Carl Gustav Jung outlined his thinking about the significance of chance events. He noted a series of anecdotal coincidences, then abruptly moved to refer to research on paranormal powers. I would move in a different direction.

What is a coincidence? It is the observed juxtaposition of apparently related events. In the examples cited by Jung, and by others fond of dwelling on such matters, coincidences are observed by one individual. There is little chance to verify the coincidences as they occur only in the mind: very few can be proven through written records. And the coincidence involves not a repetition, but a variation: an event is seen mirrored, slightly changed, in a different event.

These coincidences are not everyday things and they never appear to have any special significance. In other words, coincidences are no more likely to take place in the context of important events than in the context of trivial events; in the examples given by Jung, any given element of a coincidence is in itself unremarkable.

It is the observation of them that renders them remarkable. Once the brain notes a coincidence, it clings to it and interrogates the world for other, related events, which duly occur.

The human brain makes connections; that is its task. Should we be surprised that among the countless insignificant details of urban life the brain notes intersections and juxtapositions? Of course not: without such observations, we would be lost. But the question that needs to be asked, which Jung never asked, is whether the coincidences he identified are statistically significant. If we number every single datum, then pluck out those that our observant minds have called coincidences, do they occur with a frequency that suggests an unseen hand at work?

Only by answering that scientific question can the rational observer begin to understand the significance of coincidence.

What is so remarkable about coincidences, and what Jung utterly failed to appreciate, is that they attest to the extraordinary tenacity not of events, but of the human brain and its often perverse tendency to find connections.

Vote yes on proposition 2

A quiz that suggests, quite absurdly, that I'm pretty manly

I got 1100/1500.