DAS Blog

The Story of Hanukkah

2009-12-15T12:35:00.003-05:00

In spite of what many lefties think, Jews used to be persecuted. Who knew?

Hanukkah commemorates the triumph of the Maccabees (not to be confused with the Macabres, which are Jews who read the New Yorker, especially Charles Addams cartoons) over the evil tyrant Antiochus Epinephres.

Antiochus sought to destroy the Jewish people by desecrating the Temple (which put a fatal strain on the building fund) and by forcing Jews to eat spit roasted whole pigs, which was horrible as all the Jewish people had to pretend they never ate pork before but were trying it for the first time. Eventually, the Maccabees rose up and, using tactics that pro-Israel apologists would, nowadays denounce as "terroristic" when today's Middle Eastern armed guerillas use them, defeated Antiochus and his armies.

What they found was a mess (and there was nothing in that building fund to pay for fixing it). In particular, there was only 1 jug of oil left with the high priest's seal that could be burnt in the menorah. But a miracle happened. We Jews, being a frugal bunch, used the remaining oil that was not left with the seal but with a bunch of shifty walruses (who assured us of the kashruth of the oil) to fry up all sorts of delicious food. Unfortunately, there was only a day's worth of heart-burn medication left. But by the miracle of Hanukkah, the medication kept the Jews free of heart-burn for a full eight days!

Further miracles ensued -- for example, enterprising bakers were able to convince Ashkenazim that jelly doughnuts were a unique, highly exotic and hence highly prized Sephardic delicacy. On Hanukkah, our hopes are kindled as we light the menorah and read from the book of Zechariah who told us of a day when the transliteration of Hanukkah would finally be agreed upon.

Lighting a Candle or Cursing the Darkness

2009-12-10T12:02:00.005-05:00

One interesting thing about left-wing anti-Zionism is that Zionism is in many ways a response to a situation that lefties generally seem to grok whilst righties don't get: namely that in so much of the world Judaism is not the "default identity" but rather that Jews are always "othered", historically violently so.

Zionism essentially is an ideology that says "well, if we Jews are othered in the rest of the world, let's form a state where we our identity is the default". Certainly one can debate the wisdom of this on secular and especially on Jewish grounds (viz, part of Jewish "chosen-ness" is that Judaism is not supposed to be a 'default identity' but a 'separate' -- kadosh -- one). But somehow the left seems to have a big beef with the idea that we Jews have figured out a way to get around this issue of 'othering' by going off and forming our own state. When I read posts like this (and do see the comments, in particular the responses to my comment), I sometimes wonder if so many of my fellow lefties simply feel that we Jews are condemned to be "the other" and for us to try to be "default" is a grave sin. And this condemnation (from proud "atheists" and "Deists") is certainly not theologically motivated -- one must wonder about the motivation ... and yet those same lefties wonder why we Jews consider them anti-Semitic?

OTOH, it could just be that lefties don't like the example of Zionists lighting a candle rather than cursing the darkness of being "the other" because it sets a standard that cursing the darkness is simply not the best course of action. Of course, cursing the darkness is a lot more fun than lighting a candle, so who could blame lefties here. Still, while I would consider myself a lefty in part because I agree with the analysis of "the other" vs. "the default identity" (as well as because I am a firm believer in saving capitalism from itself via strong government regulation and a solid safety-net and even a fully mixed economy), I find it odd that so many lefties, after agreeing with this analysis so vehemently object to non-default groups trying to find constructive solutions to the problem of "otherness". I guess certain lefties really are Puritans who cannot stand non-elect groups trying to claim the status of the elect.

Update: what does it say about me that whenever I hear some pro-Israel apologist touting all the good things coming out of Israel and how "Israel is so careful when it wages necessary wars" I feel "you just don't get it ... do you?". And yet when I hear anti-Zionists talk all I can respond is "you just don't get it ... do you?". I wish pro-Israel apologists would pause for just one minute to think how they'd feel if a group of people following Native American religions with some Native American identities formed a homeland here and drove them out of their homes and then bombed the locations where they were able to re-settle (even if said people were justified about the bombings and were "careful" to "target" them). And I wish anti-Zionists would pause for just one minute to think about the Jewish experience -- they seem to have empathy for everyone else, but they can't even bother to really listen to the Jewish/Zionist narrative before dismissing it? I thought the left was supposed to be all about listening to alternative narratives -- but I guess it's really about dismissing some narratives as "colonialist" while promoting others? How is that liberal? How is that anything but Puritan?

Thinking About Undergraduate Research (for Grant Writing) ...

2009-12-09T15:24:00.002-05:00

I think I may have mis-underestimated the challenges involved in both teaching of and doing research with undergrads.

First there is the general issue of training vs. doing research. One of my frustrations with getting any research done is that my research students take so long to get even the most basic tasks accomplished. But thinking of what is involved in research from their point of view, I realize that part of the difficulty is that they are not just writing the simple sub-routine I've assigned to them ... they are students and what they are doing is learning. While it would serve my research goals if they just got the work done, it's important for them to understand what they are doing (would that the majority of my general and bio-chem students were this diligent about actually understanding the material). Yes, it's frustrating that, in order to get a student to write a few lines of code to convert between ppm and increments, they need to finish working through an upper-division math text on Fourier analysis, but part of the research experience for them is learning useful concepts they don't have a chance to learn in their regular coursework (e.g. as chem/bio-tech majors).

More fundamentally though is the challenge of working with students who have difficulties with abstract thought. When you think about it, there are really three levels of abstract thought: (1) thinking abstractly about abstract things, (2) thinking abstractly about concrete things and (3) thinking concretely about abstract things.

Most smart students are actually decent at level (1): they wouldn't have gotten 'A's in there general education courses if they were not able to analyze abstract literary concepts in a conceptually rigorous way. But (2) really is a challenge. For students to even take abstract thoughts and come up with concrete examples of those concepts really is difficult. Hence so many student complaints about "well I understand the concepts but I have problems applying them in solving problems on a test". But (2) goes even beyond Bloom's taxonomy of cognitive learning outcomes and most students can't go beyond that. For me, this was not a challenge: which is why I was able to find upper-division math courses so easy. Once you are able to think abstractly about numbers, upper-division math, for example is a breeze. But most students just can't get there.

Of course the real challenge is thinking concretely about abstract things. I am starting to realize that you just can't expect most undergrads to do this, even though it is necessary to get actual results in quantitative research. I was spoiled dealing with the best of the best undergrads in research settings both at Rutgers and at FSU. But as I think back to where I was as an undergrad, I certainly wasn't capable of taking abstract concepts and really thinking through them to get concrete results.

Indeed, when you think about it, it (literally) takes an Einstein to reach level (3) in some cases. E.g., the abstract concept of relativity is very old: Kant had conceptually figured out special relativity and Poe figured out general relativity. But to take those abstract concepts and translate them into a concrete language from which the applied mathematicians could generate models, thus turning (abstract) philosophical thinking into (concrete) science (e.g. testable hypotheses), took the genius of Einstein. I certainly never even mastered level (3) enough to make any progress in applied math (although my Ph.D. should be evidence that I could do such a thing well enough to have a career in scientific research).

So I guess I should be more patient that my undergrads, even my best and brightest research students, cannot make this leap?

I Write Letters

2009-12-09T11:59:00.002-05:00

(when I should be writing finals and grant applications)

To the President [will be sent as soon as the White House website is able to connect to captcha again]:

Recently you addressed the need for us to get small businesses hiring again and have indicated a desire to have tax credits and other incentives to ensure small businesses hire new employees.

However, due to the compromises "necessary" pass much needed health care reform, it is likely that whatever health care bill reaches your desk will contain a mandate for small businesses to provide health insurance coverage for all employees but will also (in the name of "fiscal responsibility") provide little in the way of subsidies to ensure small businesses can afford to pay for that health insurance.

Moreover, it now seems that health care reform will lack a "public option", effectively allowing the oligopoly of private insurance companies to charge whatever they want without fear of real competition to keep health insurance costs low. Considering that any mandate will render demand for health insurance completely inelastic, we can anticipate in an open market, even an "exchange", health insurance costs will skyrocket.

While health care reform is important, I urge you therefore to not allow bills to become law that interfere with your also much needed proposals to ensure small businesses hire again. We need health care reform that ensures increased access to health care. We don't need a "compromise" that will only make health care more expensive.

If you want small businesses to hire more people, propose a bill that will pay for small businesses to provide health coverage for said employees so they don't have to worry about. Don't, in the name of health care "reform", sign into law a bill that makes it even more expensive for small businesses to hire new employees.

*

To Senator Schumer,

Recently President Obama addressed the need for us to get small businesses hiring again and have indicated a desire to have tax credits and other incentives to ensure small businesses hire new employees.

However, due to the compromises "necessary" pass much needed health care reform, it is likely that whatever health care bill passes through Congress will contain a mandate for small businesses to provide health insurance coverage for all employees but will also (in the name of "fiscal responsibility") provide little in the way of subsidies to ensure small businesses can afford to pay for that health insurance.

Moreover, it now seems that health care reform will lack a "public option", effectively allowing the oligopoly of private insurance companies to charge whatever they want without fear of real competition to keep health insurance costs low. Considering that any mandate will render demand for health insurance completely inelastic, we can anticipate in an open market, even an "exchange", health insurance costs will skyrocket.

Health care reform is important. I urge you to keep up the good fight to truly reform the health care system. However the current “compromise” does not represent a step in the right direction but rather is an overly complicated bill that, when implemented, threatens to make health care coverage worse for enough people to jeopardize future progressive reforms as people, whose coverage will get worse under the so-called reforms being proposed, will say “why should we support any progressive reforms – look what happened when they tried to reform health care?”

I urge you in particular to vigorously oppose any bill that interferes with, e.g., much needed proposals to ensure small businesses hire again. I also request that you make these concerns known to Sen. Majority Leader Reid who somehow seems to think its more important to have a broadly supported health care reform “compromise” than a bill which will actually provide much needed reforms to our health care system. We need health care reform that ensures increased access to health care. We don't need a "compromise" that will only make health care more expensive.

If we as a society want small businesses to hire more people, we should be willing to help pay for that by paying for small businesses to provide health coverage for said employees so they don't have to worry about that expense. Don't, in the name of health care "reform", support a bill that makes it even more expensive for small businesses to hire new employees.

In general, it may be that true health care reform is something that simply cannot pass Congress. If that is so, it is disappointing. But we should then push for bills that expand coverage so we can evolve toward a better health care system. Let’s not, in the name of reform, push through shoddy “compromises” that only make matters worse and undermine support for future progressive reforms. It’s time for us Democrats to stop shooting ourselves in the foot by attempts to make everyone happy and actually work toward the progressive change we say we believe in!

Misc. Torah Blogging

2009-11-22T09:23:00.002-05:00

Those who take the creation story literally seem to feel slighted that they are "descended from monkeys". Isn't the rejection of the theory of evolution for this reason awful prideful? C.f. all the Biblical references about the vanity of man's supposed pre-eminance over the beast.

In re the Akedah, our Rabbi sang The Story of Isaac during his sermon on that parsha. A good take on that episode.

According to some, what people can't stand about Israel is that we have finally adopted the "hands of Esau" to defend ourselves. I'm not sure that this is really so true, though -- isn't part of the issue that we have the (sometimes duplicitous) voice of Jacob. IMHO, we shouldn't embrace our inner Esau but nor should we reject it because that's what the goyim can't stand. The issue is that we need to make sure we are children of Israel not children of Israel's former identity of Jacob, the trickster.

*

pardon the spelling errors -- I'm blogging from home ...

Health Care Reform (?)

2009-11-09T10:51:00.003-05:00

Concerns:

(A) I still worry that once the sausage making is done in the Senate, we'll end up with something that mandates health insurance purchase, gives health insurers every excuse to increase insurance prices and does nothing to ensure real competition to make sure price increases don't happen.

This will be the "compromise" that ensures "bipartisan support" -- except it won't. Holy Joe and the GOoPers (how's that for a band-name) will still filibuster, a few Dems. won't vote for the final bill (including 1 or 2 liberals because it will be a piece of crap bill). Thus in 2010, the GOP will be able to campaign that "the Dems. pushed through a partisan bill, facing bipartisan opposition, that even some liberal Senators didn't support -- and this bill has made your health care more expensive, etc., rather than better", etc., etc. (c.f. all my earlier posts on how problems with health care reform will affect support for Dems and progressive legislation). Of course, the so-called liberal media is always gaga for "compromises", so they'll support the bill -- which will give the GOP more leverage with it's "even the liberal media" arguments (as well as help cement the linkage between liberalism and wanking in the public's eye).

(B) Perhaps the Stupak amendment will be a wake-up call to an issue many Dems (including myself) tend to ignore but looms large in public concerns about health care reform: government run health care will indeed set-up a minimum standard for health care (because in order for private insurers to survive, they will need to do better than the minimum). However, the free market tends to sink to the lowest bar possible. Thus, whatever services are not provided by government health care will, with the exception of a few token services that private insurers will provide to gain market share with "value added" products, will not be provided by private insurers ... even if they provide such services now, private insurers may not continue to provide such services after they have to "cut costs to satisfy new regulatory requirements" (vide supra).

In fact, private insurers have already pulled this trick. Remember in the 1990s where there was a lot of talk about un-necessary procedures and the winds of health care reform under Clinton started blowing? Well, private insurers used this as an opportunity to start denying claims -- and it got so bad you could be in an ER for respiratory distress and your insurer would deny the claim of a chest X-ray! (happened to me)

We (I myself have argued this) argue that adding a public option, etc., will not affect those who already have insurance, but lot of fear that those with health insurance will be affected negatively by health care reform is based on what has happened previously with even attempts at reform. Dems. now are starting to realize this with the Stupak amendment -- if government subsidized health insurance won't cover abortions, why will private insurers do so? -- but it's a general issue.

If health insurance reform will result in those currently with health insurance having their coverage reduced to the point where it is just above the minimal insurance provided via a public option or some similar mechanism, then many of us who do have health insurance will be very unlikely to support it. And, the way sausage making works, you can bet that whatever government run health insurance comes out of said sausage making will be pretty horrid (because "to have robust health insurance subsidized by the government would cost too much money" the wankers will say).

So what will ensure that those of us who are lucky enough to have health insurance currently won't see our quality of health care plummet with health insurance reform?

(C) Small businesses -- health insurance is an issue that turns glibertarian would-be small-businessmen concerned about taxes and regulations killing their nascent businesses into commie pinko moonbat small-businessmen who cannot afford to provide health coverage for their employees but who need to hire employees to grow and who thus realize that the best thing government can do for them is not to get out of the way as they previously thought but rather to provide everyone with socialized medicine.

Unfortunately, the house bill mandates that employers provide employees with health insurance. Health care reform is a winning issue for Democrats because it is a wonderful example for glibertarian chamber of commerce types of how the progressive agenda and big government would actually help said chamber of commerce types. Unfortunately, the mandates, etc., of even the House bill will just re-enforce every fear Joe and Jane Shopkeeper have about "big gummint". And the Senate is, by design, even more out of touch with Main Street than is the House.

In general, I think the Dems are, as usual, shooting themselves in the foot by trying to have a "compromise" health care reform package. We need to have a public health care system in this country -- why not just provide one and let it grow until we get teh socialized medicine? Instead the Dems are crafting an overly complicated bill with a series of compromises that will satisfy no-one and that will backfire, both in terms of providing health coverage to people and politically.

What is up with the Democratic party? At a time when the GOP is in a tailspin, the Dems. still are busy with duck fondling that they can't even take advantage of the situation and pass popular legislation? Instead they have to make a bunch of sausage that will just make everyone sick? What's up with that?

Let's get this right: I am a Concern Niebelung, not a Concern Troll

2009-10-23T09:35:00.003-04:00

Perhaps the conservatives and the so-called liberal media (who know they are "out of touch" and figure -- incorrectly -- they are liberal and hence conflate their own out-of-touch-ness with liberalism) are right -- liberals are out of touch with everyday 'Murkins.

Consider the response to (as well as what prompted) this bit of Niebelungeheit on my part. Do liberals really think that the Dems are guaranteed the kind of establishment in-party status the GOP (in spite of Carter and Clinton) enjoyed from some time in the 1970s until 2006? Right now, of course, the GOP is really bringing out the crazy, but what happens if the GOP gets its act together? To me, the response to Christie blowing a 16 point lead should not be "see GOoPer trolls, the GOP is safe" but rather "what if the GOP gets its act together (which is a big if) and the next Christie-type doesn't blow his lead? how do we prevent this from happening?"

I think part of the problem is that we liberals are mainly used to hearing this kind of question from the so-called liberal media which always claims the solution is for us to moderate and compromise with the GOP even more to remain "in the mainstream". So it is perhaps understandable that when a Niebelung raises such questions, they would raise red flags and so many liberals would immediately get defensive about what is being suggested.

But there is still in the responses to my comment a strong element of misunderstanding of the American psyche, which misunderstanding by the Democrats has hurt us -- and the GOP was able to do so well, until they started to unravel and until it was so obvious what a disaster Bush & CO were, because they understood this aspect of the American psyche. The thing is that Americans are profoundly anti-ideological. The key American question is "what's the big idea?" -- and not as a matter of curiosity about the ideology but as a matter of scorn that any big idea can be good. Our mindset is not "that's a great idea" but rather "get 'er done". And the GOP was able to speak that language very well, which is why they were able to do so well for so long. Of course, it must be added that while the American distrust of ideology is almost positivistic -- Americans are not positivists ... their distaste for ideological thought extends to a distaste of questioning their own ideological assumptions, which leads to a certain traditionalism and maintenance of those assumptions, including a strong tendency toward religiosity, absent in, e.g., the more 'ideological' Continent.

The problem Democrats have -- whether its Blue Dogs trying to be "moderates" in order to appeal to the moderate, non-ideological electorate or it's liberal Dems who think that appeals for Dems to reach out to moderates are necessarily appeals to moderate -- is that we tend to assume people are ideologically consistent when, in fact, they don't give a darn about ideology, which is deemed as squishy and un-American. Americans want to "get 'er done". Thus, when the GOP speaks that language, they do well, but when it finally becomes obvious the GOP has not interest in getting things done correctly and is insane besides, Americans reject the GOP.

And those who note that Americans have rejected the GOP and are not accepting liberal ideology are not necessarily appealing for Dems to be more moderate. In fact, that's the worst thing Dems could do! When people say they are moderates, it doesn't mean they want politicians to be moderate -- it means they don't care what ideology politicians have as long as the government they give us runs efficiently and for the benefit of everyone and not just for those deemed "underserving" (whether they are a powerful few or those whom our Puritan heritage rejects as "non-elect"). In fact, we must remember that the small-p-pragmatism of Americans is one capitalization away from being big-P Pragmatism which is the philosophy at the base of modern liberalism in many ways.

Certainly, if we liberals believe our approach to government is what actually will benefit people, then we should be pushing for Dems to be more liberal. And if people see that we really do believe that our ideas work, then they will be more likely to trust us with government and embrace liberalism themselves. But if we Dems are always afraid that people will reject liberalism, then people will think "I don't really care about ideology -- yet liberal Dems think that I won't support them if they are liberal -- why? do they think their ideas won't work? 'cause that's all I care about -- and if liberals think their ideas won't work, then why should I think they'll work?" E.g. if we liberals "compromise" on health care, not only will it result in an awful bill that will make things worse for many people (who will blame "Democratic health care 'reform'" for their problems, since no GOoPer will vote for the bill), but it will send a signal to people that we don't believe in our own agenda so why should people believe in our agenda?

To me, though, the most bizarre thing, however, is the complete rejection in certain liberal circles of the importance of Democrats actually running government cleanly and efficiently. If Dems would actually listen to complaints about "gummint", what they would discover is that the actual complaints (as opposed to how GOP demagogues use the anger people have at gummint to promote their own agenda) relate rather simply to government not working well. It doesn't make me Tom Friedman or Bobo Brooks when I point out that if government runs smoother, Americans (who don't really care about ideology but rather just want things to get done) will be more likely to support the party of big government, e.g. (liberal) Democrats. And many of these aspects of government that cause everyday people annoyance are local government issues (which may involve corrupt local Democratic political machines)

So shouldn't having (local) government run smoothly be a top priority for Democrats? Shouldn't cleaning our own house be a priority? And shouldn't making liberalism work for people rather than compromising on it be a priority? And why are these to me self-evident priorities so controversial in certain liberal circles?

*

Update -- as you all know by now, no doubt, Christie did win. So my concern was on the mark. Of course, this will be spun as "see a Republican won even in liberal NJ". Of course this ignores that, on a federal level, the Dems. actually gained two seats and if it weren't for Obama, Christie would likely have won by a greater margin, but the spin will still be that this is a loss for Obama. The problem, though, is that centrist Dems will believe this spin and try to push for "compromises" with the GOP "because that's what the 2009 elections showed voters want" -- and these compromises will be disasters for which no-one in the GOP votes anyway -- thus, in 2010 the spin will be about disastrous Dem legislation. Of course, the usual trolls, e.g. at Sadly, No! are predicting a GOP sweep in 2010 and the usual moonbats are sanguine about a Dem victory then. But this just repeats the sentiments about this election. Nu? How do we Dems in the base make sure that the usual suspects in the wanker caucus don't wank us out of a good result in 2010?

Thoughts ...

2009-10-15T12:08:00.003-04:00

I can't get into any detail about what brings on these questions, but recent events do have me thinking ...

Supposed person A allegedly assaults or harasses person B. It somehow seems inappropriate to bring up any past history of B's behavior, etc. as if person A did assault or harass person B, it is still a crime or tort (depending on the nature of the action) no matter "what kind of person" is person B. However, naturally person A will have his/her own version of what happened. And whether or not this version is reasonable (and hence casts a reasonable doubt in person B's story or even whether one judges person A's story to have the preponderance of evidence in favor of it) depends very greatly on what kind of person B is, doesn't it?

How does one set up a system that still presumes innocence of the accused yet also ensures accusers that they won't effectively be put on trial? For that matter how do you set up a system that presumes innocence of the accused yet allows both "sweet innocent" victims and well "not so innocent" victims to both receive justice since their innocence is anyway not the issue if the accused really did what s/he is accused of doing (although it does point to how reasonable the doubts raised by the accused are).

*

How much can our society expect us to be lawyers? In a trial or hearing lawyers may ask you questions and depending on how you answer, this can effect the outcome of the trial/hearing. So of course you will get asked to remember precisely things which happened a long time ago, and failure to answer questions could result in contempt and not phrasing answers 100% "correctly" could result in your testimony being construed to mean something completely different than what you meant.

Now a lawyer would know when certain events occur to immediately start writing things down. But what of us non-lawyers? Does the legal system expect us to go through life notebook in hand, pausing to write everything down -- even when such writing things down could then be used against us: "why were you writing down what you did rather than responding to the problem at hand?"? Does the legal system expect everyone to know exactly what a lawyer would find important to remember and thus to write everything down? Does the legal system expect us to always use proper-lawyer language to express ourselves and consider it ok that if a layman uses non-legal language that his/her words will get misconstrued by the court?

Of course, in Jewish law, this is all simplified -- everybody is expected to be a lawyer (and my previous kasha above is also simplified in Jewish law -- you can make an end-run around presumption of innocence in such sensitive cases because often the accused would at least be patently guilty of violating a fence around the law). But we do not live under Mosaic law (perhaps the religious right is correct and we should? but somehow I don't think they'd like living under such a law ... at least in the sense that I am talking about here) -- if our society expects us to all be lawyers, why isn't being a lawyer part of high school? Why do you have to go to law school to be a lawyer even if, once the legal apparatus is put into motion, we will be expected to use the correct legal terms, have written exactly the kinds of notes of the event in question that a lawyer would write, etc.?

Perverse Incentives in Capitalism

2009-10-06T12:33:00.002-04:00

Conservatives like to talk about perverse incentives due to government interventions in the free market, but I would like to propose that free market capitalism has an inherent perverse incentive against progress.

What is the underlying justification of large rewards in capitalism? Roughly that high risks must be balanced out by high rewards otherwise people won't take risks.

But whom does capitalism tend to reward then? People who act to optimize expected utility (e.g. people who will take risks because the reward makes the risky action have a positive expected utility) -- i.e. people who are Bayesian rational actors. I.e. capitalism awards (a certain kind of) rationality. And since capitalists dictate the agenda of private enterprise in a capitalist system (money always has strings), the nature of private enterprise in free market capitalism is at best (e.g. when the system actually does function -- lately we've learned a lot about market failure, haven't we?) that of a certain kind of rational actor.

However, as GB Shaw (?) pointed out, all progress depends not on reasonable people but on unreasonable people. Yet capitalists are, according to a very specific definition, reasonable people.

So what does this say about the relation between progress and capitalism? Consider, for example, who got richer -- the true innovators of the modern PC age or Bill Gates? Free market capitalism, like any other evolutionary system, at best only sufficiently rewards successful innovations -- Apples' Steves have been amply and sufficiently rewarded, but who really got rich from making our society computer-saturated and how? And what are the implications of "who won" in terms of whether we really are in a technologically optimal environment?

Of course, the real innovations were produced by gummint anyway, weren't they?

Meanwhile, a bit ago on a comments thread at Eschaton I observed (in re. my uncle who has settled in Finland) that for all the emphasis glibertarians give to "the rugged individual", it seems that people who truly march to their own drummer thrive best in more socialistic societies in which they don't have to worry so much about the rat race but rather can do what they want to do at their own pace.

Which society gives individuals more freedom? In which society is being the sort of unreasonable person on whom progress depends rewarded rather than having rewards flow to Bayesian rational agents? And where do so many neat technical things come from anyway?

Hmmm ... I wonder ...

Blog Assignment

2009-09-30T09:37:00.003-04:00

Since I am so busy teaching, I've not had time to blog, I'll give you all (all 5 of you who read this blog) a Yom Kippur themed essay assignment: discuss the prelude to the Kol Nidre where we just declare it lawful to pray with our fellow sinners in light of Blu Greenberg's statement "where there is a Rabbinic will, there is a Halachic way" and relate Jewish conceptions of Halacha with Schopenhauer's concept of "will". Relate your discussion to the health care debate, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict or some other current issue in either Jewish or secular spheres.

A Pre-Mortem on Health Care Reform

2009-09-25T11:00:00.002-04:00

I hope that events prove me wrong and that we'll finally have health care reform in this country, but currently I am not sanguine. It seems that health care reform is the Lucy's football of American politics: every so often Democrats or even liberal Republicans (remember them?) will try to kick that football only to have it yanked from under them, so they fall flat on their faces.

This time around, it may be even worse, in fact. The Dems may be so dedicated to actually "doing something" as well as being bipartisan and compromising that they will pass a bill that will actually make things worse: forcing people who can ill afford to buy health care to purchase health care while doing little to prevent health care costs from rising due to increased demand (and decreased demand elasticity) following a health insurance purchase mandate. Of course, in spite of efforts at bipartisanship, no GOoPer will vote for the health care bill and a few Dems. will vote against it -- so the bill will be labeled as "a partisan Dem. bill that was foisted upon us by the left against bipartisan opposition" -- and it will be so used as a cudgel against future progressive reform even if the left doesn't actually like the final bill!

Some Dems. think any health care reform will be good politically? Well not if you are forcing your base to purchase something they can't afford, are proving every GOP fear mongering talking point about progressive "deform" correct and also screwing small business over (with an employer mandate) besides. BTW, while real health care reform will help small businesses because they won't have to struggle to hire people when they can't afford to provide health insurance for employees, an employer mandate will screw over the same people for whom "socialized medicine" is the one bit of "socialism" that has already turned glibertarian small businessfolk into screaming dirty hippies. So quenching a move left amongst main street businessfolk, screwing over young, healthy, underemployed people who are the base of the Dem. party, etc., is good politics?

Of course all of this just points to the underlying problem with true health care reform: it is indeed a giant leap. And Americans, by and large, are a phlegmatic people (our heritage is rooted in the phlegm of England's Hobbits) who don't trust large leaps, unless the leaps involve Empire (e.g. colonizing and killing people of a more dusky hue for fun and profit). Normally our Anglo-American phlegm serves us well -- it keeps us from disastrous changes that could upset our healthy and liberty-full democratic-republican system. But sometimes it hurts us.

In the case of health care reform, dirty hippies like me want us to leap into socialized medicine or at least single payer or (probably better) some German-style hybrid system. But that is too big of a leap for leap-fearing Americans. The problem is that health care reform is a leap across a chasm. So the tendency to simply cut the leap in half will cause us to fall into the chasm of making health care more expensive with mandates, etc.

Indeed, the whole argument for half-way measures is silly: health insurance is expensive because of adverse selection. Ok. But the solution to this is to force young, healthy to buy health insurance they can't afford (otherwise they would likely have bought it by now?)? And if they can't afford it, maybe, just maybe (if the fiscal hawks don't get too penny wise and pound foolish) we'll subsidize them to buy insurance and thus subsidize the health care of sicker folk?

Doesn't that sound a little foolish? Why subsidize people to subsidize insurers to pay for health care? Why not just expand existing social medicine programs to cover more and more people?

Americans are afraid of big leaps. When we do adopt progressive agenda items, it is often because they are targeted to solve specific problems, and Americans love getting things done and solving problems. For example, even if FDR signed onto the Share our Wealth concept, no way he could get it done. Instead he was able to pass an alphabet soup of agencies that addressed specific needs (both to employ people and to deal with deferred infrastructure building). LBJ was not able to get us nationalized health insurance, but he was able to have social medicine that addressed specific needs: e.g. Medicare and Medicaid.

Similarly, if we want socialized medicine, there is no way that leaping into it will work, as the political winds in a country so afraid of leaping (even if a majority of people like the idea of a leap in theory) to anything except Empire building will cause any leap to either be thwarted entirely or turned into a leap half-way across a chasm that will only land us into a pit. What we should do instead is expand the socialized medicine programs we have to address specific shortcomings in our medical system, thus leading on a path toward the nationally socialized system beloved by us dirty hippies.

Evolution man! Not revolution! That's the way to go. Although if you do go for revolution, don't go half-way. If you want to catch or kick a football, you gotta put yourself into the procedure. Otherwise the football will just hit your fingers and toes and break them.

Commentwhoring

2009-09-23T12:52:00.002-04:00

Check out my comments to this post in which I question this whole ACORN pseudo-scandal, hypothesize about the identity of the vines I saw growing in semi-abandoned buildings near the Poe House in Baltimore, etc.

NPR Translated

2009-09-22T11:16:00.002-04:00

I heard the most ridiculous interview on NPR yesterday of Carl Levin. It was a picture of exactly what is wrong with the media. So, in this vein, I'll give my "transcript"

Madeliene Brand: As a news reporter, it is my job to tell both sides of any story. You, who as chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee speaks for every Democrat about any matter related to the military, disagree with the report of the Great and Manly General McChrystal that says we must surge in Afghanistan now lest we loose the war there. But you and Obama do not want to send more troops to their death. Why are you disagree with this report? I'm a liberal, I'm willing to listen to and even agree with your sentiments about keeping America weak.

Carl Levin: Um, who told you either Pres. Obama or I disagree with the report? Did you actually read the report? It specifically calls people who interpret the report as meaning "just send more troops and ... um ... ponies" complete idiots who are potentially too stupid to breath

M. Brand: Journalistic imperatives tell me that there are two sides of every story. We've heard about what the report says. Now I am trying to be a good journalist and get your side of the story. Could you please explain why you disagree with Gen. McChrystal's report?

C. Levin: Didn't I tell you that I do not disagree with the report?

M. Brand: Why do we liberals like to be soft in waging war? Why does Obama hesitate before sending troops into battle to die? Why doesn't he support Gen. McChrystal's findings?

C. Levin: Didn't I just tell you that everyone agrees with the report? Did you read the report? It specifically calls people who misinterpret its recommendations in the exact way you insist on misinterpreting the report's recommendations complete blundering, blabbering idiots.

M Brand: In order to have a story, I must continue to act as if there is disagreement. Why do you disagree with the report?

C. Levin: Are you a complete nitwit and numbskull? For the umpteenth time, I do not disagree with Gen. McChrystal's recommendations

... and this is NPR which is (supposed to be) a cut above most other media outlets ... and journalists wonder why no-one listens to or reads the news anymore?

Anyway, it was certainly NPR. No-one was shouting and everyone was super-duper polite (that M. Brand was so polite to Sen. Levin will be yet another piece of "evidence" that NPR is teh liberal socialist propaganda ... and thus what M. Brand claimed the liberal position to be will be deemed by the GOP to be the liberal position -- thanks NPR for giving the GOP talking points!) ... which was amazing ... if I were Levin, I don't think I could have remained so polite ...

He's Back ...

2009-08-26T22:46:00.001-04:00

... and nobody gave me the memo. Anyway, check out the blogger formerly known as olvlzl's new digs (link at left).

Niebelungenheit

2009-08-21T11:09:00.003-04:00

I may not be a troll, but sometimes I am a Niebelung (c.f. earlier posts). But it appears that my efforts are for in the comments here. Evidently, in order for lefties to have a sane discussion about Israel, a right wingnut (*) needs to call Israelis Nazis and thus remind the left that Zionism is a form of socialism not racism.

I wonder when so-called "Zionist" righties will realize what kind of country Israel is and I also wonder when anti-Zionist lefties will realize what kind of liberal polity they can't abide. I guess the desire to force a narrative of colonialism (loved by the right and loathed by the left) where it really doesn't belong (as well as old fashioned anti-Semitism) blinds people to who are their friends and who are their enemies.

OTOH, do we as Jews really want to get into bed politically with people who are quick to "heil Hitler" simply because they support Israel and even wear IDF t-shirts?
Are we that blind too?

* it doesn't work when one of us Jews reminds left-wing anti-Zionists of this sort of thing -- they just clam up and say "sure Israel is good for Israeli Jews but it's not very good toward Palestinians" with no regards to how or why the Palestinians are in the (non) state they are in other than "if Israel didn't exist, they wouldn't be occupying Palestinian territory -- not even any regards to the fact that someone else would be oppressing Palestinians anyway ... as if that's an argument, though

Finally: A Peterson Tobacco in my Peterson Pipe

2009-08-21T10:07:00.003-04:00

As you may recall, about a year ago, I received, from a very dear friend of half Irish ancestry who had come back from a trip to Ireland bearing gifts as a belated birthday, in the midst of moving and early starting a new job as a perfessor present, a new Peterson pipe. Well, now I have finally decided to get something other than my beloved C&D "kitchen sink" tobacco and finally smoke a Peterson tobacco. Irish Oak, to be exact. It was between that and Old Dublin: Irish Oak is aromatic and lacks Latakia and Old Dublin lacks perique, and perique won out over non-aromaticity and Latakia. I just hope this mildly aromatic (aromatic in this case meaning seemingly only aged in sherry oak) doesn't foul up my pipe for smoking my usual non-aromatic blends.

In any case, in spite of mixed reviews, I am so far impressed with this tobacco. It has a very nice tin aroma with oak and sherry nicely complementing the fig and musty odors of the perique. It looked like the meta-blend that attracted me to kitchen-sink tobaccos in the first place -- my blend of RLP-6 and Revelation. And it kind of tastes like that too. It was sure strong on the match, having an initial nicotine kick rivaling Missassippi Mud. But as I sit in Rufus King Park (yes, I am writing this blog entry in Notepad in the park, so pardon the spelling errors) smoking it whilst my mechanic desparately tries to find a new tire for me (I ran over a curb Wed. and busted a tire ... and my wife's car has the hardest to find tires evah, evidently), it has a coolness (again similar to Mississippi Mud --albeit without the smokiness of the Latakia containing Mississippi Mud -- or possibly even a hookah -- that must be the Cavendish talking) together with cigar notes including an almost unidentifiable spiciness (remaniscent of Onyx Reserve cigars), presumably a combination of the perique, "exotic" Virginias and the sherry oak aging, of the sort that goes well in coffee (it sure is a nice after coffee smoke, which is how, luckily, I am having it) or with nuts. It would be wonderful to bottle this in syrup format and use it in everything one has with breakfast. It's indeed a good morning smoke.

We'll have to see, though, how well it works in the afternoon and evening and whether I can still smoke non-aromatic kitchen sink blends in my pipe after this. But, while I had been thinking "maybe I should have gone with Old Dublin" and not worried about my pipe, I'm now very glad I got this. Kitchen sink blends with a little sherry note won't be bad at all, anyway.

Update: the tobacco has now had a chance to settle in a bit in the tin (drying out, getting re-humidified, etc.) and now the Perique is really strong (and I am also getting more herbal cigar notes). Just opening the tin now, you can really smell the musty and fig like odors of the Perique and the nicotine, while not noticeable in terms of pepperiness, really has a kick ... it's hard to walk up stairs after smoking this! This tobacco is good! I do miss the Latakia ... but only a little.

If Profits are High, Ur Doin' It Wrong

2009-08-17T12:10:00.001-04:00

Overhead the morning C[orporate] NBC financial talking heads while smoking an Oliva G maduro cigar(*) and writing code at Barklay-Rex (I took the bus in today, and stopped in the city to hang out and code for a bit): they were a bit confused about what it meant that the GDP and corporate profits were approaching pre-reccession levels (cue GOoPers claiming that the media has a liberal bias for claiming Obama fixed the recession ... indeed, the reporters were squarely --citing Reuters -- blaming Bush & CO for the ression, which will just add fuel to the liberal media meme without actually helping the progressive cause ... how is it that media types consistently say just the right things to "betray" their "liberal bias" all while, when all is said an done, putting forward a very GOP friendly message, so that "even the liberal media supports the GOP"?).

Of course, we can't expect much from so-called financial reporters not understanding how a stronger dollar isn't being well received by the stock market (lower exports anyone? -- who's educating the financial correspondents around here? I'm a biophysical chemist, and I know more about finance than these yahoos!). But still, do they not understand that if corporate profits are high yet we are still feeling a bad recession that means there is something wrong with our recovery? Maybe the reason why big business and even big finance are happy but we aren't has something to do with who's on Team Obama? Perhaps things would be better if Obama had people on his team who actually were right about the recession rather than people who helped cause it (and cause economic problems world wide for the benefit of the economic powers that be as part of the World Bank/IMF), things would be different? Maybe we should have listened to the K-man about Obama? After all, the K-man didn't get a Nobel Prize for nothin' ...

Anyway, this isn't the only thing Team Obama just doesn't get. Why the hell are they dropping the public option? Let's go to the tape: GOP (via the tea baggers) push against a public option with scare tactics, Dems. cave, due to a lack of public options, everything the GOP 'warned' us would happen does, so the GOP rides to victory. How is this any different than the GOP's tried and true strategy of push Mayor Quimby to release Side Show Bob from jail then run against Mayor Quimby for being soft on crime and even releasing Side Show Bob? Why is Obama still playing 10 dimensional chess in a football game? As I keep saying, the Dems. need to just catch the football rather than fumbling it and breaking their fingers in the process. Of course it doesn't help that any time some Dems. try to catch the football, "even the liberal media" tars and feathers "extremist Dems" even as they have a record of ignoring or treating as marginal ("of course the liberal media would declare the GOP base to be marginal") similar movements amonst the GOoPers?

BTW -- doesn't the title reflect the free market in general? If the free market really worked as advertised, so to speak, if a company was making a lot of profit, a competitor would emerge and be able to sell the same product/service for cheaper (i.e. with lower profits) and drive the price and profits down? Don't high profits indicate a lack of efficiency in the market? Or am I thinking too much like a physical chemist here in how I conceptualize efficiency? I guess the question is "efficient at what?" ...

***

* you'll have to pardon how nicotine addled this post is. I did write it whilst smoking. Anyway, here are the tasting notes:

Oliva Serie G maduro (robusto?)

Cigar a bit dry
Initial taste on wetting tip: spicy
Bland on match building up slowly with woody, grassy and sharp tannic notes
Changing about half-way through to alcoholic and tarragon
Nettle flavor comes in about 2/3rds way through in addition to (slightly faded) tarragon and alcohol
Approaching nub, tarragon and alcohol notes fade away under the nettle flavor
At very end, slight kumquat-tar and astringent grainy and nutty notes appear along with nettle flavor

This cigar certainly was a much appreciated change of pace from what I usually smoke, but it hardly is a "new favorite". It does leave a nice, almost fruity (and certainly complementary to sun lotion) smell on my clothes. I wonder if anyone'll notice?

Maybe I Should Read This? ...

2009-08-13T11:13:00.001-04:00

... or maybe I shouldn't since, given this book review, the book in question seems like it reflect my views on the subject matter, so why bother reading it?

Questions Occasioned by Lingering News

2009-08-03T09:34:00.003-04:00

Some questions in my mind as the Gates' arrest story, the Kirchik (sp?) hit piece and Obama-care sink in:

(1) Where is the right on the Gates' arrest story? In particular why aren't they concerned that, whatever the context, someone was effectively arrested because he did not immediately comply with an order to produce his ID card? Indeed, many on the right are saying he should have produced such a card ...

Why is this a kasha? Because not so long ago (i.e. before "9/11 changed everything"(TM)) one of the big fears of the right (that even trumped fear of immigrants) was the issue of ID cards, etc. Anti-communists and right-libertarians feared us turning into a Yurpean-style police state in which anyone anywhere could be asked "where are your papers?". Pre-millennialists feared that an ID card would be a "sign of the beast". And yet these groups are now so silent about the issue of having to produce an ID everywhere and for everything? Why? Because "9/11 changed everything"(TM)? Do they not see that if some Commie or Satan (or the Monsters due of Maple Street) wanted to take over then all they would need to do is engineer a 9/11 style plot (Hashem forbid) and then they have their way? Hofstadter (sp?) warned of the paranoid style of American politics -- but now we see that sometimes the most paranoid suddenly also develop blind-spots and become the most easily duped (c.f. how certain Jews paranoid about anti-Semitism thus get into bed politically with theological anti-Semites because said anti-Semites "support" Israel)

(2) Speaking of issues in re. Israel (and thus the Kirchick piece): from a Zionist perspective why should American Jews be any more supportive of Israel than say American Greek Orthodox of Greek extraction should be particularly supportive of Greece? If an American Greek Orthodox Christian of Greek extraction spoke out against some action of Greece, would that make said person a self-hating Greek? If a WASP spoke out about something the Brits did, would such a person be a self-hating WASP?

Isn't the whole point of Zionism that we Jews should be just another nation? We should have a state like all the goyisher ethnic groups were supposed to get as well? Nu? So why should, from a strictly Zionist point of view, any American Jew be any more supportive of Israel than any other ethnic American (belonging to an "ethnic religion") be supportive of his/her ancestral homeland? Can't one argue that people like Kirchick, far from "supporting" Israel are in fact "objectively anti-Zionist" to use a phrase that Commies and their spiritual descendants on the right, the neo-cons would use?

OTOH, of course we Jews do have an obligation to our fellow Jews (although I suspect those quoting Gemarah to say that Jews shouldn't turn in other Jews to secular authorities are missing some important context, e.g. the difference between Rome and Parthia on the one hand and the US on the other!). Thus we have an obligation to support measures that maintain the security of the people of Israel (and also Jewish access to our holy sites). At this point, this means "supporting" the state of Israel (and also a resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict that places Jews in harm's way -- including opposition to counter-productive Israeli activities like booting out Palestinians from homes even if "we purchased those apartments fair and square" -- such arguments merely strengthen anti-Semitic stereotypes about Jews and money that we should be trying to break, not strengthen). But support for some abstract state of Israel, whose founding ideology directly opposes the central Jewish notion of being an "am ha-kodesh", is hardly a Jewish thing to do -- although you wouldn't know it stepping into a synagogue nowadays.

BTW -- one issue about Jewish "support" from Israel is that it does blind our eyes to the specter of the religious right, which is hardly really supportive of Judaism in a real sense (as opposed to their "support" of Israel) ... c.f. my comments on a semi-recent thread on Pandagon where I otherwise am concerned primarily with the "New Atheists".

(3) Obama-care: it looks like the Dems. are going to push through a bill that regulates health insurance companies, but in a way (especially if the public option is limited access) that will raise health insurance premiums and cause people to be dropped from health insurance. Is this really what we want to have identified as our "health care reform plan"? Even if the worst fears I mention don't come to pass, given the "compromises" Dems. seem to be willing to make, this is how the health care plan can and will be demagogued. Note to the Democrats: if you want health care reform you need to either catch it like a football or get out of the way. Too many Democrats, as I keep saying, seem like people who've never played catch with a football: if you try to catch the football in a half-assed manner with the tip of your fingers, you'll drop the ball and break your fingers. You either have to catch the ball or get out of the way.

Similarly with health care (and so many things): the Dems. need to either push for real reform or just get out of the way and stop this fight. If they push through some compromise which doesn't go far enough, all that will happen is health insurance companies will start raising premiums, health care will be even less affordable and it will be blamed on the Democrats for pushing through the regulations they did push through. And even the specter of this happening is enough (as it has been in the past) for the GOP to make political hay of the situation.

Anything else I should be questioning while I'm at it?

What should I file this under?

2009-07-21T09:51:00.003-04:00

I wonder if this is a case of "there is no more racism in America" or "liberals, like those pointy-heads in Taxachusetts are the real racists"? Or will right-blogostan even take a break from "teh white menz are being oppressed" to even notice this story?

Update: judging by the comments on The Root itself, it looks like the "explanation" for how this sort of thing can happen since there is officially no racism in this country (gag) is that Gates brought it on himself by not immediately playing step-and-fetchit with respect to his ID.

I Think I Tracked It Down

2009-07-04T19:59:00.002-04:00

A while back I posted about a cigar I had in Bal'more of which I didn't quite catch the name. I think I've finally figured it out: it was one of the Oliva Master Blends III cigars, which do vary from year to year.

I guess I should, in the absence of finding one in the cameroon wrapper as I had it, maybe I should have an Oliva Series G?

Long Awaited (albeit by whom?) Weekly Parsha Blogging

2009-07-04T18:55:00.001-04:00

How do Zionists deal with this week's Parsha in which we Jews are praised as a "people" ("am") different than all the "nations" ("goyim")? After all, the whole point of Zionism, pace whatever anti-Zionists imagine it to be, is that Israel is a nation like other nations?

OTOH, if we would have read Hukkat separately from Balak, we would have read the story Jeptha in which we see the neighbors of the Hebrew people acting, well, just like Israel's neighbors too often act today. Such disingenuity ... to which, of course, the anti-Zionists are blind -- I wonder why? ( / sarcasm ).

Still, Jeptha is really a piece of work, ain't he? Of course, the Zionists would consider someone like Jeptha a hero, and that we should ignore his shortcomings, etc. ... because he's on the right side in re Zionism, everything he did is ok as far as Zionists are concerned?

I write letters ...

2009-06-26T16:05:00.004-04:00

I wrote this one to the President:

President Obama,

You and others have expressed the wish that you will, as president, be a transforming politician who changes the very terms of our political debate. In particular, you have expressed support (and pushed legislation) for a strong and healthy progressive agenda. In particular you have begun efforts to address our great societal need for improved access to health care, perhaps via government run health plans.

We all know that US enterprises, both small and large, have suffered in the global market-place because they have to pay for health care for their employees while their competitors abroad have employees whose health care is paid for by the government. Additionally, we all know many entrepreneurs who would love to grow their businesses and contribute more to our economy but cannot as they cannot afford to pay for health insurance for additional employees and cannot, even with today’s unfortunately large pool of unemployed, find qualified employees who will work in any job that does not provide health care benefits. We all know that the US needs what has been denigrated as “socialist medicine”.

Yet, your proposals for even modest versions of a public option are likely to fail in the Senate. Some of my fellow liberals have dismissed this as the fault of centrist “blue dog” Democrats who are too willing to compromise on what should be uncontroversial aspects of the progressive agenda. I, however, feel that political opposition to “socialized medicine” reflects a broad popular opinion against government ran programs.

This opposition to government programs in favor of private enterprise, even in an age when we have seen how poorly the free market works, is not irrational. People fear, for example, that government ran health care will result in long waiting times for medical care. Why? Well, when I go to a store to purchase something, I might grumble when I have to wait in line for minutes on end, but I rarely would wait, even on a crowded day in a warehouse store to purchase big ticket items, for more than a half an hour. On the other hand, just today my wife and I spent almost two hours in line to get a passport for my daughter. Previously, I have had to wait over a half a day to get a drivers’ license, and for the majority of a day to get a marriage license.

So long as people associate federal, state and local agencies with long waiting times, people will naturally and rationally fall prey to scare tactics about how “socialized medicine will involve long waiting lists” and thus be opposed to even the minimum necessary reforms in our health care system. More generally, so long as the everyday interactions people have with government involve long waits, speed traps, big city political corruption or catch-22 situations, people will be opposed to the entirety of the pro-government progressive agenda our nation needs to do well in the 21st century.

If you truly wish to be a transformative politician, you need to address all of these issues. Make sure nobody has to wait for 2 hours to hand in paperwork to get a passport. Put strings on stimulus money that will buy local political machines off and keep them on the straight and narrow as well as push recalcitrant agencies like the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles to reform (as other DMVs have done). This nation can continue to be a city on the hill and beacon of a forward thinking agenda, but only if we create conditions on the ground where people have every reason to think that a “big government agenda” will be beneficial to them and not result in their having to wait in long lines for medical care, etc., as they have to wait at the post office for a passport or at the DMV.

*

My wife told me to whom to complain about the actual wait time (was it the inspector general or the post-master general? I forget ... I'll have to ask her later) ... but how can we expect people NOT to think that they will have to wait forever to receive medical care if we have "socialized medicine" when they have to wait so long just to turn in government forms? As I've been harping on for years on this blog, people don't like gummint for a reason and if the Democrats want people to support a progressive agenda, they'll need to do a much better job seeing all the trees that make up the forest of anti-government sentiment and addressing those issues.

Because Blogs Come and Go

2009-06-22T13:20:00.001-04:00

... and change addresses, I've updated my links. If I've removed your blog, don't feel insulted ... I've just not noticed any activity recently there. If you want me to add your blog, I might consider it ;)

Some Poems About April

2009-06-18T11:04:00.008-04:00

The showery weather, even though it is June, has got me thinking about April and poems I meant to write about scenes from that month ...

Following a pre-Evening Thunder Shower

A uniform pall
of the lightest slate
is really a dazzling
tensor of chrome 53
once etched to salt
a rainbow
like the one emerging
from the recent storm
whose banging of flint
against the filigree
of the span over which
I now drive
started no fires

The only conflagration
is a slowly descending orb
which,
even a few days ago,
would have already succumbed
to a cold
winter's
night.

But it is April now (and Old 'Possum has allergies)
so her late afternoon showers
don't end in darkness
but rather in the long lilac light -- a Debussy nocturne or Rorem picture of morning --
of a spotless mind's looming star eternally on the verge
of setting

The Morning After

Steamy petrichor liberated from yesterday's rain
and broken sticks of orange from yesterday's pipe
waft through the windows
carried along by the pressure of the sun
which every day
floods the house
with gossamer silver dawn curtains
with monotonically increasing promptness

How soon will the sun wrap itself around us
like a boa
choking us out of our slumber?
How will we remember this first sign
of chartreuse
when the world is too verdant for us?

The faint powder left by the burning

sol
will be a faint memory
and we won't even know whether
it was a mist or a tsunami
that hit us
so gently
on this early April morning