What do people want? It’s a broad question that could spur a discussion well beyond the confines of a single blog post. There is one succinct answer to this question which highlights a disturbing aspect of the political noise coming from conservative America. Before getting to that, let’s set a scene we all know well . . .
Waiting in line. We’ve all done it. So, it’s not difficult to imagine yourself waiting in line. For purposes of illustration lets imagine you’re in line for movie tickets. Your happiness in the moment will likely depend on the speed of the line. Even if you are very patient when it come to lines, spending 5 minutes in line is better than 30 minutes. So let’s say you spend 15 minutes in line. Now your happiness has been adjusted down by a set amount equivalent to spending 15 minutes in a line. That’s probably not really an adjustment at all. You, like most people, will be about as happy as you were when you started waiting in line.
So now let’s add to the scenario. Instead of one line for movie tickets, there are four. Four separate lines, and you pick one at random. Now imagine standing in line while three other lines move toward the same goal: precious movie tickets. This time, your line whizzes by, while the other three lines stand relatively still. That feels pretty good. So if your speedy line still takes 15 minutes, you’re probably a bit happier at the end than you were in the single line scenario.
But what if, and you know where I’m going by now, your line moves like molasses. It seems that every person ahead of you line contemplate for ages on which movie to see, and then decides to pay in pennies dug from the bottoms of their pockets. You’re line still takes 15 minutes. 15 agonizingly long minutes while the other three lines move forward with a steady efficiency. We’ve all been there. It’s frustrating.
So in all three scenarios you wait in line for 15 minutes. It’s the same result. And yet the emotional reaction to each scenario will be dramatically different.
So what do people want? One of many answer is that people want to be better off than other people. It’s hard wired into our very being. We’d like to think that we want that line to move quickly. But, when it comes down to it, we’re pleased if our line moves faster than everyone else’s line.
It’s a disturbing reality that poisons a lot of political discourse on government benefits, wealth and employee benefits.
The Republican Party is largely the party of privilege. White Christian men trying to hold onto the privilege afforded to them by the nature of their position. Privilege is really just a stand in for doing better than others. Even a poor man is master of his wife. Even an uneducated white person can look down upon the immigrant.
So much of the Republican Party rhetoric seems to be about slowing down other people’s lines. About taking away food stamps, or benefits, or retirement. This message taps into something deep and dark within people.
Unfortunately it isn’t an easy message to counter. It takes clarity of purpose and reason that isn’t always easy to communicate.
The difference is the difference between hearing that a retired California government worker is living on a six figure retirement income and thinking “why does he get all that” versus thinking “why don’t more workers get that”
Friday, March 9, 2012
Monday, March 5, 2012
C'mon, Sir Charles
On the reports of the Gregg Williams bounty issue: "“You have to be a punk to snitch that out,” "
Adults talking about "snitching" is not a productive part of society. Reporting wrongdoing, even anonymously, is heroic. It took down Richard Nixon, it stopped the abuse of Abu Ghraib, and it will make the NFL safer. It's protected by law under whistleblower statutes. Grow the hell up, Barkley.
Adults talking about "snitching" is not a productive part of society. Reporting wrongdoing, even anonymously, is heroic. It took down Richard Nixon, it stopped the abuse of Abu Ghraib, and it will make the NFL safer. It's protected by law under whistleblower statutes. Grow the hell up, Barkley.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Gregg Williams, You're Ruining it for Us All
Gregg Williams paid his players to injure opponents. Direct hits to the head, neck, and knees, by players carrying an amount of force similar to an automobile. This tears ligaments, breaks bones, and above all, causes concussions. This, above everything else, is the one thing that would make football intolerable. Fixed games, steroids, players with criminal records, instant replay, more commercial breaks, the two-point conversion, expansion—none of these things would even approach the impact of the NFL allowing this to continue.
I'm never loath to quote superhero comics when making a serious point. They deal with issues of such exaggerated importance they'll occasionally give us a moment of really profound wisdom. Here's a chance to use Uncle Ben's best line, from Spiderman: "With great power comes great responsibility." Usually that's the kind of thing that comes up in political situations, but it's almost never applied so literally. These guys carry enormous power on the field. Literal force: they clobber each other. We understand that that creates a risky game, where injuries are a part of life. Legitimate moral questions are raised even in the day-to-day experience of football, and the answer to those questions is deeply tied to the NFL's ability to assume the responsibility created by the violence of the game.
Sometimes the responsibility emerges cleanly: after Kevin Everett was paralyzed after a collision during a kick return in Buffalo, he regained the ability to walk thanks to advanced techniques researched under grants from the league. The NFL also has funded extensive research into concussions, and consistently updates its rules to limit the hits that cause them.
But this is a new ballgame. We're not talking about the incidental risks of a dangerous activity, we're talking about deliberate violence, intended not to win the game but to break the opponent, in ways that destroy seasons, careers, and lives. A sadism induced by thousands of dollars. That's why the NFL needs to bring the maximum penalties in its jurisdiction against Gregg Williams. A lifetime ban is a minimum beginning. Public release of all documents pursuant to the investigation, and availability of league resources to any pending criminal cases or liability suits. And then, they need to find out where else this is happening, and bring down a similar wrath.
Thankfully, most fans are outraged by this, but there are plenty who are saying that this is just part of the game. And they're matched by players who refer to it all as no big deal; just an incidental burst of violence among the rest. This is obviously more evidence of the coarse sadism that I've written about before, but there's a secondary point to be made here: this is evidence of objectification of people.
Objectification is most commonly thought of in terms of sexual objectification, of which plenty has been written. I'm not trying to compare them—but the point is that this is a result of the same phenomenon. Fans stop thinking of the players as people, but something less. Not even animals: Michael Vick's dogfighting ring gained far more universal condemnation than Gregg Williams humanfighting ring. We're looking at men as machines, or perhaps, simulations. We forget that there is a human cost to Sunday's results.
We overcome the objectification of football players when we afford them essential human dignity—their safety is public concern, we respect the emotional and physical cost of the game and respond appropriately. To some extent, even fans' resentment of players' ability to negotiate pay for their services smacks of this objectification. The players' personal agency is dismissed. Shut up and play the game. That's what we need to stop.
The players' own indifference to injury or the bounties is no counterproof. They are surely under significant pressure to act as tough as possible, to prove to teammates and coaches and fans that their performance is unimpeded by any personal concerns. Beyond that, they have spent their entire lives in this enviroment—and in a culture that reinforces it—and are willing to objectify themselves, and take on a false consciousness about their role as humans. This is not to completely dismiss their statements on the matter—resisting objectification demands that their subjective views of the matter be fully relevant—but under no circumstances can this continue.
Roger Goodell, you've been a commissioner with a strong hand in punishment and a crucial concern for player safety. End this now.
I'm never loath to quote superhero comics when making a serious point. They deal with issues of such exaggerated importance they'll occasionally give us a moment of really profound wisdom. Here's a chance to use Uncle Ben's best line, from Spiderman: "With great power comes great responsibility." Usually that's the kind of thing that comes up in political situations, but it's almost never applied so literally. These guys carry enormous power on the field. Literal force: they clobber each other. We understand that that creates a risky game, where injuries are a part of life. Legitimate moral questions are raised even in the day-to-day experience of football, and the answer to those questions is deeply tied to the NFL's ability to assume the responsibility created by the violence of the game.
Sometimes the responsibility emerges cleanly: after Kevin Everett was paralyzed after a collision during a kick return in Buffalo, he regained the ability to walk thanks to advanced techniques researched under grants from the league. The NFL also has funded extensive research into concussions, and consistently updates its rules to limit the hits that cause them.
But this is a new ballgame. We're not talking about the incidental risks of a dangerous activity, we're talking about deliberate violence, intended not to win the game but to break the opponent, in ways that destroy seasons, careers, and lives. A sadism induced by thousands of dollars. That's why the NFL needs to bring the maximum penalties in its jurisdiction against Gregg Williams. A lifetime ban is a minimum beginning. Public release of all documents pursuant to the investigation, and availability of league resources to any pending criminal cases or liability suits. And then, they need to find out where else this is happening, and bring down a similar wrath.
Thankfully, most fans are outraged by this, but there are plenty who are saying that this is just part of the game. And they're matched by players who refer to it all as no big deal; just an incidental burst of violence among the rest. This is obviously more evidence of the coarse sadism that I've written about before, but there's a secondary point to be made here: this is evidence of objectification of people.
Objectification is most commonly thought of in terms of sexual objectification, of which plenty has been written. I'm not trying to compare them—but the point is that this is a result of the same phenomenon. Fans stop thinking of the players as people, but something less. Not even animals: Michael Vick's dogfighting ring gained far more universal condemnation than Gregg Williams humanfighting ring. We're looking at men as machines, or perhaps, simulations. We forget that there is a human cost to Sunday's results.
We overcome the objectification of football players when we afford them essential human dignity—their safety is public concern, we respect the emotional and physical cost of the game and respond appropriately. To some extent, even fans' resentment of players' ability to negotiate pay for their services smacks of this objectification. The players' personal agency is dismissed. Shut up and play the game. That's what we need to stop.
The players' own indifference to injury or the bounties is no counterproof. They are surely under significant pressure to act as tough as possible, to prove to teammates and coaches and fans that their performance is unimpeded by any personal concerns. Beyond that, they have spent their entire lives in this enviroment—and in a culture that reinforces it—and are willing to objectify themselves, and take on a false consciousness about their role as humans. This is not to completely dismiss their statements on the matter—resisting objectification demands that their subjective views of the matter be fully relevant—but under no circumstances can this continue.
Roger Goodell, you've been a commissioner with a strong hand in punishment and a crucial concern for player safety. End this now.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Interesting Things
Sometimes when I am crawling through the tubes of the interwebs I encounter an article that I think would be great for this blog. One course of action would be to post that article onto the blog. An entirely different, and perfectly valid, course of action is to leave that particular tab open until there is time to post the article later. This way I will have time to think of insightful and interesting commentary to go along with the post.
On what might be a slightly related note, the top of my current browser window is a jammed full of tiny unreadable tabs. So now I'm going to dump on give you these wonderful and interesting links. Here we go:
Sometimes People Hate Science:
Here is a long, insane video on why the earth is not rotating on its axis. Fortunately the video is accompanied by a short summary of the highlights. The summary of the summary is that a guy made a 30 minute video to explain how the earth is not actually rotating on its axis. This video was made in order to prove that the bible is accurate when it states "the earth is absolutely not moving." (citation needed . . .)
This video is a particularly extreme example of someone trying to defend religion from the evil of science. There's a sad irony in these attempts, as they are founded in a depressing lack of faith and divinity. A very smart and scientifically savvy Christian I know summarized the way anti-science Christians undermine their own faith with these arguments with a simple quote:
God is not afraid of science
Separate from the religious motivation for the video, the video itself raises a cool science question: how do we know the earth is rotating on its axis? I mean, we can kind of see it from outer space, or we can see that other planets are rotating and assume that earth is rotating as well. But, in space, all motion is relative. Is it possible that the earth is perfectly still in space and everything else in the universe is spinning around use in a zany way, making it appear that the earth is rotating? While the relative nature of motion is a fun though experiment, the answer is still no. We can actually measure the earth's rotation very simply using something called Foucault Pendulum. Click the link, it's cool stuff.
It Really is about Keeping Women in the Kitchen
This is a great short article arguing that birth control is one of the greatest achievements of the 20th century. The basic notion is that without reliable birth control women were always second class citizens, and men could claim that it was a requirement of biology. In fact, men still claim this, even with reliable birth control. The article argues that the hard line against birth control is a recognition that it allows women to break the shackles of a sexist society. Now, we're seeing a backlash against contraception itself by organization steeped in traditional male authority, like the Catholic Church.
The point that birth control may be the most important invention of the 20th century, and yet it's something that the reader (and myself) has never seen on a list of great invention of the 20th century is fascinating. Birth control has fundamentally changed a social dynamic that has existed as long as humans. What we're seeing now in politics (and yes, I include the debate over choice and abortion) is the fight over the dramatic social shift that comes from gender equality.
Humor Break
Politics is depressing. Watch these amazing cat gifs for a break.
Romney As Sociopath?
Cruelty to animals is something that connects on an emotional level in a way that cruelty to humans often does not. It's why the story about Romney's family dog, Seamus, is the kind of story that sticks. It is likely to stick to Romney as an indication of his uncaring nature, even more than his quote about not caring about the very poor (because they already have a safety net).
The summary is that when his family moved, he put the dog in a carrier and strapped it to the roof of the car. At some point during the drive the dog shat itself. Romney hosed it off at a rest stop and kept going. Ever practical. It demonstrates a certain heartlessness that fits with the image of Romney as a rich calculating machine. There are indications that this story will continue to linger:
Here is a humorous web video which pokes at the issue.
Gingrich even used the issue in one of his ads.
Oh, Santorum . . .
You didn't think you were going to get out of this link dump post without a healthy dose of Santorum did you? It feels like he spews crazy faster than even the internet can keep up. Here's the small sampling that ended up on my tab bar:
Rick Santorum needs to be President to counter the influence of Satan. Even more than the Satan stuff though, this article points out a Santorum quote that could cause more damage to his campaign than any of the crazy that he's spewed out:
of course we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.
When your run for President relies entirely on turnout among protestant evangelicals, in might not be a good idea to say that they aren't Christians .. .
Santorum may want to remove the plank from his own eye before worrying about the splinters in the eyes of American Protestants, seeing as review of tax returns has revealed that he gives a minuscule fraction of his significant income to charity. Many people would say that a foundation of Christian belief is charitable donation, especially when churches count as charities for such giving (Which I believe represents a huge part of Romney's significant giving).
Of course we know that being the "Christian" candidate in today's politics isn't about being kind to others, forgiveness, or giving. It's about trying to turn the clock back to a time before the United States provided any services or legal protections to anyone. So Santorum is putting forward his conservative chops by attacking that scourge upon humanity: public education. If you don't have the stomach for the whole article, here's the money quote:
"Yes, the government can help, but the idea that the federal government should be running schools, frankly much less that the state government should be running schools, is anachronistic."
(Aside from schools for the children of military personnel, the federal government does not actually operate schools. Most U.S. schools are supported primarily by state or local funding, or a combination of the two.)
Santorum said the public education system was an artifact of the Industrial Revolution, "when people came off the farms where they did home school or had a little neighborhood school, and into these big factories … called public schools."
Not as Conservative as It Seems
Conservatives make a lot of noise in our society. The noise itself can be fairly frightening, but it's important to remember that polls continually demonstrate that the populace is not nearly as stupid or conservative as the echo chamber makes it seem. Unfortunately, the importance of voting turn out, and the primary system, tend to make politicians more extreme than the generally populace. A recent poll in Virginia indicates once again, that where the state government is doing crazy things, the people who live there are far more moderate in their positions on these issues.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Fantasy Settings and the Roman World
I've been thinking a bit recently about why fantasy novels are set in medieval worlds. Or even if they're not properly fantasy, if we want a story told about times before modernity, it always goes to the tales of knights and castles and kingdoms. I think there's fascinating ideas out there from even earlier, of the Roman Republic and the Athenian philosopher-kings, and I've written up a few points about what would make a story essentially classical instead of medieval: a necessary task if we're leaving the real timeline.
* Urban vs. rural: I think this is an element that makes things particularly compelling. The castle is replaced by the polis for affairs of state. I think the results of this is a much larger political universe: medievalist fantasy usually focuses on the conflicts between the king and the nobles, or the various squabbles of competing petty warlords. There's a lot more to deal with if you're in charge of a city - fully capable political classes to contest authority, and powerful nonpolitical actors: guilds, mobs, organized crime, artists, beggars, merchants. And of course, those things are all interesting to explore beyond political struggles - there are more people doing more different things in a city than in a pastoral setting, where you're either a knight or a farmer. Maybe an innkeeper.
* Power of the state: There's a bit of a paradox here - the classical ruler is more checked by rival powers in the city, but simultaneously much more potential authority, should he dominate those elements. Medieval kingships tended to be low-stakes affairs, and royalty was its own prize. The greater organization of a Roman-style state opens up a lot more avenues for characters to interact with the state, both successfully or otherwise. Or attempt to interact with the populace, should they be rulers themselves.
* Range and diversity: I think in a classical setting, your characters are much more able to travel. A medieval affair tends to concern itself in one realm, which is fairly homogenous. Rome encompassed Egypt and England alike, and you are able to regularly mix things up with different cultures, religions, or powers running across things. You have cosmopolitan characters able to seek these things out, too, and more places to flee. At the same time, there's much more of a continuum between insiders and outsiders. A foreigner is not nearly as obvious.
*Monarchy vs. republic: A medieval setting almost never considers the idea that maybe people shouldn't be ruled by a king. A classical setting can really take up this argument, all the more urgent if the choices are a republic or an empire. Warlords can aspire to more power by claiming the imperium, and dissidents can do more than support the just and fair younger brother of the king. You get to inject very potent, resonant idealisms into a conflict over power.
*Barbarians at the gates: Always a loaded question, I think in a classical setting you can explore more the line between civilization and barbarism - and at the same time, undermine that distinction. As above, it's not an insular society like so many medieval kingdoms, instead you have a very distinct line that separates the Romans from the Germans, which characters are going to lean on. It's also a way to empower emperor-types, who are going to win prestige by turning back the hordes, and use fear of same to command their authority. Their supporters will be more complex than the toadies of the evil king.
*Thinkers: more than plotters, you get to have characters who are philosophers, and able to influence events with ideas. With consequences as disastrous as anything else, of course, as Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle were able to witness.
*Atmospherics: Here's where we get the robes-for-chain mail swap, but some of this is interesting in its own right. You get to move away from the colder north lands to the lush Mediterranean, and from wood and stone to marble. Villas. You can play a lot with tone here.
* Urban vs. rural: I think this is an element that makes things particularly compelling. The castle is replaced by the polis for affairs of state. I think the results of this is a much larger political universe: medievalist fantasy usually focuses on the conflicts between the king and the nobles, or the various squabbles of competing petty warlords. There's a lot more to deal with if you're in charge of a city - fully capable political classes to contest authority, and powerful nonpolitical actors: guilds, mobs, organized crime, artists, beggars, merchants. And of course, those things are all interesting to explore beyond political struggles - there are more people doing more different things in a city than in a pastoral setting, where you're either a knight or a farmer. Maybe an innkeeper.
* Power of the state: There's a bit of a paradox here - the classical ruler is more checked by rival powers in the city, but simultaneously much more potential authority, should he dominate those elements. Medieval kingships tended to be low-stakes affairs, and royalty was its own prize. The greater organization of a Roman-style state opens up a lot more avenues for characters to interact with the state, both successfully or otherwise. Or attempt to interact with the populace, should they be rulers themselves.
* Range and diversity: I think in a classical setting, your characters are much more able to travel. A medieval affair tends to concern itself in one realm, which is fairly homogenous. Rome encompassed Egypt and England alike, and you are able to regularly mix things up with different cultures, religions, or powers running across things. You have cosmopolitan characters able to seek these things out, too, and more places to flee. At the same time, there's much more of a continuum between insiders and outsiders. A foreigner is not nearly as obvious.
*Monarchy vs. republic: A medieval setting almost never considers the idea that maybe people shouldn't be ruled by a king. A classical setting can really take up this argument, all the more urgent if the choices are a republic or an empire. Warlords can aspire to more power by claiming the imperium, and dissidents can do more than support the just and fair younger brother of the king. You get to inject very potent, resonant idealisms into a conflict over power.
*Barbarians at the gates: Always a loaded question, I think in a classical setting you can explore more the line between civilization and barbarism - and at the same time, undermine that distinction. As above, it's not an insular society like so many medieval kingdoms, instead you have a very distinct line that separates the Romans from the Germans, which characters are going to lean on. It's also a way to empower emperor-types, who are going to win prestige by turning back the hordes, and use fear of same to command their authority. Their supporters will be more complex than the toadies of the evil king.
*Thinkers: more than plotters, you get to have characters who are philosophers, and able to influence events with ideas. With consequences as disastrous as anything else, of course, as Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle were able to witness.
*Atmospherics: Here's where we get the robes-for-chain mail swap, but some of this is interesting in its own right. You get to move away from the colder north lands to the lush Mediterranean, and from wood and stone to marble. Villas. You can play a lot with tone here.
Friday, February 17, 2012
Does anyone really think this?
Seriously? Who are these men who spend their time bitching about being men in a male dominated society?
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Making Me Happy this Week
This blog has been a little bit on the grim side, all told. So I wanted to change the tone.
Adele won pretty much all the Grammys. That's the best thing to happen in pop music since the Beatles were on Ed Sullivan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)