Hello,
Is being transgender scientific? I shared my heart and soul in this essay, which is beautifully written if I do say so myself. :)
http://www.youandmemagazine.com/articles/how-could-i-be-a-woman
Please let me know what you think about it.
xoxoxo,
Michelle
Showing posts with label Society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Society. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 13, 2020
Thursday, April 19, 2018
Einstein's activism
Einstein's activism against lynching apparently takes up 20 pages of his FBI "Treason File #61". There's nothing treasonous in it.
Einstein's FBI file is available on the FBI website.
Its implications are discussed in the newly updated _The Einstein File: The FBI's Secret War Against the World's Most Famous Scientist_ by Fred Jerome. I went to the book launch tonight.
Apparently, Einstein didn't just sign a letter. He actively co-chaired an anti-lynching organization, in shock and anger at the wave of lynchings in 1946 after black soldiers returned from World War II. His co-chair was noted singer and activist Paul Robeson, who was also a friend. When a singer was not allowed to stay in a local hotel --solely due to her race--- Einstein let her stay at his house. In her memoir, she recalled him fondly.
Einstein was also active ---beyond writing--- on other issues. Free speech and nuclear weapons are still debated today. But on anti-semitism and race, Einstein's opinions, while radical in their day, are common sense now.
I like knowing this side of Einstein. For me, it humanizes him.
Einstein's FBI file is available on the FBI website.
Its implications are discussed in the newly updated _The Einstein File: The FBI's Secret War Against the World's Most Famous Scientist_ by Fred Jerome. I went to the book launch tonight.
Apparently, Einstein didn't just sign a letter. He actively co-chaired an anti-lynching organization, in shock and anger at the wave of lynchings in 1946 after black soldiers returned from World War II. His co-chair was noted singer and activist Paul Robeson, who was also a friend. When a singer was not allowed to stay in a local hotel --solely due to her race--- Einstein let her stay at his house. In her memoir, she recalled him fondly.
Einstein was also active ---beyond writing--- on other issues. Free speech and nuclear weapons are still debated today. But on anti-semitism and race, Einstein's opinions, while radical in their day, are common sense now.
I like knowing this side of Einstein. For me, it humanizes him.
Friday, November 17, 2017
When showing why
Confederate statues constructed decades, or even close to a century, after the US Civil War? As much as I love reading about history, I sometimes wonder the point. But the mysterious case of the Confederate Statues almost feels like a mystery story. If the south wanted to honor its dead, I felt that perhaps it was right to keep the statues up.
Then I heard when the statues were erected.
Many of the statues honoring the Confederate leaders and fighters were erected half a century after the Civil War, concurrent with renewed or challenged segregation. More compelling, some confederate statues were put up during the Civil Rights movement of the late 1950s and early 1960s, almost a century after the end of the Civil War.
A half a century after the civil war? That timing makes it seem less like honoring the dead, and more about celebrating the cause. What cause? "Negro" inferiority. In other words, celebrating or supporting the tremendous suffering of human beings.
Excuse me while I vomit.
Because segregation wasn't "separate but equal"or a benign "southern culture": it was murder. Lynching was used brutally to support a system in which skin color trumped ability and character. Segregation was daily humiliation, the insulting of children, the permitted abuse of every African American. And before that, slavery : legal kidnapping in chains, the separation by ownership of parents from children, whipping.
I might be able too support a few confederate monuments IF they were constructed when white southerners were mourning their dead shortly after the Civil War. Even then, it is offensive, but I'm willing to compromise that much.
Challenge me: look up for yourself when Confederate statues and monuments were put up. Then ask yourself what it was like to be black at the time.
The study of history can be relevant to the present.
Then I heard when the statues were erected.
Many of the statues honoring the Confederate leaders and fighters were erected half a century after the Civil War, concurrent with renewed or challenged segregation. More compelling, some confederate statues were put up during the Civil Rights movement of the late 1950s and early 1960s, almost a century after the end of the Civil War.
A half a century after the civil war? That timing makes it seem less like honoring the dead, and more about celebrating the cause. What cause? "Negro" inferiority. In other words, celebrating or supporting the tremendous suffering of human beings.
Excuse me while I vomit.
Because segregation wasn't "separate but equal"or a benign "southern culture": it was murder. Lynching was used brutally to support a system in which skin color trumped ability and character. Segregation was daily humiliation, the insulting of children, the permitted abuse of every African American. And before that, slavery : legal kidnapping in chains, the separation by ownership of parents from children, whipping.
I might be able too support a few confederate monuments IF they were constructed when white southerners were mourning their dead shortly after the Civil War. Even then, it is offensive, but I'm willing to compromise that much.
Challenge me: look up for yourself when Confederate statues and monuments were put up. Then ask yourself what it was like to be black at the time.
The study of history can be relevant to the present.
Saturday, September 9, 2017
More Evidence?
There are climate change skeptics, but the publisher of Skeptic flipped on the issue. Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine, used to believe that climate change was not happening or, at least not human caused. He's changed his mind on this.
Katrina and the superdome. Sandy, with New York City streets under feet of water.
And I'm published in Skeptic, again, with vol22, n2. Reviewing books about fraud and cons. Obviously unrelated. One of the points, in one of the books: the most successful con is the one that is undiscovered.
And I've flipped over Skeptic.
Katrina and the superdome. Sandy, with New York City streets under feet of water.
And I'm published in Skeptic, again, with vol22, n2. Reviewing books about fraud and cons. Obviously unrelated. One of the points, in one of the books: the most successful con is the one that is undiscovered.
And I've flipped over Skeptic.
Monday, May 8, 2017
Tuesday, March 14, 2017
"Whether" prediction works?
Much more snow was forecast. On the news they talked of a foot or more for NYC. We have less than they forecast.
Is this unusual? My very first review for Skeptic magazine, written under my male pseudonym, talked about this. The book was William Sherden's _The Fortune Sellers_ and his persuasive argument was that predicting the future doesn't usually work. That even with better equipment and better training, weather prediction is not going to _ever_ be more accurate than an estimate, and that not for more than a day or two ahead.
Sherden makes the same argument for stock market prediction. People pay big money for stock market prediction, and how often is it right?
Try it: maybe write down for, say, a week, what weather forecasters say, and then write down what happens. How right are they for seven days ahead? For the next day?
Do you own stock? Would it give you confidence to write down what the predictors say, and then, six months or a year later, compare it with what happened?
Is this unusual? My very first review for Skeptic magazine, written under my male pseudonym, talked about this. The book was William Sherden's _The Fortune Sellers_ and his persuasive argument was that predicting the future doesn't usually work. That even with better equipment and better training, weather prediction is not going to _ever_ be more accurate than an estimate, and that not for more than a day or two ahead.
Sherden makes the same argument for stock market prediction. People pay big money for stock market prediction, and how often is it right?
Try it: maybe write down for, say, a week, what weather forecasters say, and then write down what happens. How right are they for seven days ahead? For the next day?
Do you own stock? Would it give you confidence to write down what the predictors say, and then, six months or a year later, compare it with what happened?
Saturday, December 10, 2016
Societal knowledge
Of course human beings continue to learn more about the world: the ancient Greeks couldn't put a human being on the moon, the germ theory of disease wasn't fully accepted by doctors until, what, a a century and a half ago?
But we also lose knowledge:
*archological sites give us new knowledge of human origins and the timing of human accomplishment. Bombs obliterate this, as was done in the first US Gulf War a quarter century ago, and more recently in Syria.
*the notion that everything is made up of atoms --which led eventually to the atomic bomb and plastics, amongst many other things--- was first proposed hundreds of years BC: but, by luck, Democritus's writings were lost, and Plato's (among others) were preserved, all by accident. What if it had been the reverse? (From Charles Van Doren's _History of Knowledge_).
*I read, somewhere, in English, that there are languages that are only spoken by a few senior citizens, that once they die, the language may too.
* So-called primitive people sometimes know that an obscure plant will treat a particular symptom. Pharmaceutical companies investigate this, and it can be the origin of some new wonder drugs. If the peoples, or the plant, go extinct, so does that knowledge.
*The Pinkerton Detective Agency protected the President of the United States before the Secret Service did. The Pinkerton detectives were also involved in a vast array of issues, from labor strikes to investigating fake psychics. So is the burning of their records insignificant?
*Which isn't as bad as the case of the massive scale of records destruction in the Chinese cultural revolution. Historians of China are at a loss: the records of earlier times were systematically destroyed.
*Houdini was one of the highest paid entertainers of his era, and remains an icon 90 years after his death. Too bad he was buried with some of his family correspondence in his coffin.
Can you think of other examples of knowledge that was destroyed, permanently, by accident or on purpose?
(Note: Source: the concept of "lost knowledge" was introduced to me by Peter Burke's _Social History of Knowledge_. I don't know if he discusses any of my examples).
But we also lose knowledge:
*archological sites give us new knowledge of human origins and the timing of human accomplishment. Bombs obliterate this, as was done in the first US Gulf War a quarter century ago, and more recently in Syria.
*the notion that everything is made up of atoms --which led eventually to the atomic bomb and plastics, amongst many other things--- was first proposed hundreds of years BC: but, by luck, Democritus's writings were lost, and Plato's (among others) were preserved, all by accident. What if it had been the reverse? (From Charles Van Doren's _History of Knowledge_).
*I read, somewhere, in English, that there are languages that are only spoken by a few senior citizens, that once they die, the language may too.
* So-called primitive people sometimes know that an obscure plant will treat a particular symptom. Pharmaceutical companies investigate this, and it can be the origin of some new wonder drugs. If the peoples, or the plant, go extinct, so does that knowledge.
*The Pinkerton Detective Agency protected the President of the United States before the Secret Service did. The Pinkerton detectives were also involved in a vast array of issues, from labor strikes to investigating fake psychics. So is the burning of their records insignificant?
*Which isn't as bad as the case of the massive scale of records destruction in the Chinese cultural revolution. Historians of China are at a loss: the records of earlier times were systematically destroyed.
*Houdini was one of the highest paid entertainers of his era, and remains an icon 90 years after his death. Too bad he was buried with some of his family correspondence in his coffin.
Can you think of other examples of knowledge that was destroyed, permanently, by accident or on purpose?
(Note: Source: the concept of "lost knowledge" was introduced to me by Peter Burke's _Social History of Knowledge_. I don't know if he discusses any of my examples).
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
Does it count?
Is measurement, numbers, taking over our lives?
The humanist in me is tickled that the design of, say, sailboats, is done using mathematics.
Surely university scholars are safe?
*statistical analysis of texts to find word patterns to help identify anonymous authors
*a database that ranks scholars by the number of times their article has been cited
My physician likes to describe the nuances of his patients symptoms on his reports, he told me, but he added that his boss wants him using specific diagnosis codes ---numbers--- instead. So much for nuance. Easier for billing, perhaps, easier for epidemiology perhaps, but less human.
I stopped going to a confidential support group in part because of the new rule that everyone had to sign in. So much for confidentiality. I'm told that this decision was made because the institution gets its funding based on ----the number of people who attend. In some support groups, that will scare people away.
Is it a "sign" of the "times" that even the romantic places of libraries often now use statistical "tests of collection strength"?
(One joke: if a math book is a book about math, is a library book a book about libraries? Just asking)
Then there's the danger of computers doing financial trading ---flash trading--- the owning of a stock for seconds, literally less than a minute, to make a profit.
What happened to the craftsman who designed the boat by how he felt, the librarian who bought the books that felt right, buying stocks because you feel they will go up?
What are we losing?
Are we becoming numb-er? (That joke is from the delightfully thoughtful book Innumeracy by John Allen Paulos, but all the other jokes, such as they are, are mine. The context in which I am using his joke is also different: the trends I describe are not his focus in that book and, in any case, have advanced since his book. Hopefully that does not "mean" that we are numb-er to them).
Monday, November 14, 2016
Trump vs Constitution
Hi all,
Donald Trump is dangerous, please sign the change dot org petition now, asking the Electoral College to change its vote at its December 19th meeting.
Do you think Trump is emotionally stable? Really?
Do you believe that climate change is a hoax? Land based hurricane, melting glaciers, and all?
Do you believe that journalists should be sued for stories that displease a politician?
I did not want this blog to be political, but I am making an exception, because Donald J. Trump is so dangerous. Even his appointment of alleged white supremacists, denial of climate change and support for changing libel laws to allow journalists to be sued --even these---are not my greatest concern.
I signed the petition because I am concerned that Donald Trump is not emotionally stable.
*remember when he published the politician's phone number?
*he stated on 60 Minutes last night (taped Friday) that many of the people protesting his election are paid by the media to protest and do not actually oppose him. Does he have a grip on reality?
*he has bragged about groping women, yet he threatened to sue as "liars" women who accuse him of doing what he bragged about. Is this someone who is emotionally stable?
*how did he react to petty insults, many of which were true, with 3am tweets? Do you really want him to have the nuclear codes?
Then there is this: he publicly called for the arrest, and perhaps the assasination, of his political opponent. Is that America?
I signed the petition because Trump is emotionally unstable.
More info on his positions and appointments thus far: ACLU dot org and Southern Poverty Law Center (splc dot org). Or even Trump's own website.
Change dot org petition to ask the Electoral College to change its vote at its December 19th to keep the loser of the popular vote from taking office: change dot org.
Donald Trump is dangerous, please sign the change dot org petition now, asking the Electoral College to change its vote at its December 19th meeting.
Do you think Trump is emotionally stable? Really?
Do you believe that climate change is a hoax? Land based hurricane, melting glaciers, and all?
Do you believe that journalists should be sued for stories that displease a politician?
I did not want this blog to be political, but I am making an exception, because Donald J. Trump is so dangerous. Even his appointment of alleged white supremacists, denial of climate change and support for changing libel laws to allow journalists to be sued --even these---are not my greatest concern.
I signed the petition because I am concerned that Donald Trump is not emotionally stable.
*remember when he published the politician's phone number?
*he stated on 60 Minutes last night (taped Friday) that many of the people protesting his election are paid by the media to protest and do not actually oppose him. Does he have a grip on reality?
*he has bragged about groping women, yet he threatened to sue as "liars" women who accuse him of doing what he bragged about. Is this someone who is emotionally stable?
*how did he react to petty insults, many of which were true, with 3am tweets? Do you really want him to have the nuclear codes?
Then there is this: he publicly called for the arrest, and perhaps the assasination, of his political opponent. Is that America?
I signed the petition because Trump is emotionally unstable.
More info on his positions and appointments thus far: ACLU dot org and Southern Poverty Law Center (splc dot org). Or even Trump's own website.
Change dot org petition to ask the Electoral College to change its vote at its December 19th to keep the loser of the popular vote from taking office: change dot org.
Saturday, October 22, 2016
News Policies
Knowing which candidate's policies I like better would be easier if the news covered them.
Neither presidential candidate's political positions were discussed on the NBC Nightly News tonight.
Trump laid out specific executive orders he would enact in his first hundred days. Specific ones! What were they? I don't know, the news only said that he said them, not what they were. Trump got better coverage than Clinton: from her the news only quoted a campaign slogan.
If this were an anomaly, I'd give it a pass. It's a weekend, and I'm not saying that slogans and personality don't have their place in Presidential selection. But spending more time on personality and slogans than on policy analysis is the norm for the NBC Nightly News, not that ABC or CNN seem much better.
Isn't it the JOB of the news org to go out into the world and examine the implications of a particular policy proposal? "Candidate says x. Everyone agrees that x would mean such and such, but they disagree about whether x would cause y." I'm not asking for a detailed long story, I'm asking for any coverage at all!
If the news orgs have the staff to cover every personality trait of the candidates, why don't the news orgs cover the policy positions and past records more?
It's not like the issues are life and death. Oh wait, they are!
*would a no-fly zone be practical and helpful to the people living under it?
*how many US cities are in near drought conditions?
*what percentage of Americans are at or below the poverty line, and what policies will help it?
What do Trump and Hillary propose about each?
I don't know, the news didn't cover it.
Yes, I'm angry. Lives are at stake!
Neither presidential candidate's political positions were discussed on the NBC Nightly News tonight.
Trump laid out specific executive orders he would enact in his first hundred days. Specific ones! What were they? I don't know, the news only said that he said them, not what they were. Trump got better coverage than Clinton: from her the news only quoted a campaign slogan.
If this were an anomaly, I'd give it a pass. It's a weekend, and I'm not saying that slogans and personality don't have their place in Presidential selection. But spending more time on personality and slogans than on policy analysis is the norm for the NBC Nightly News, not that ABC or CNN seem much better.
Isn't it the JOB of the news org to go out into the world and examine the implications of a particular policy proposal? "Candidate says x. Everyone agrees that x would mean such and such, but they disagree about whether x would cause y." I'm not asking for a detailed long story, I'm asking for any coverage at all!
If the news orgs have the staff to cover every personality trait of the candidates, why don't the news orgs cover the policy positions and past records more?
It's not like the issues are life and death. Oh wait, they are!
*would a no-fly zone be practical and helpful to the people living under it?
*how many US cities are in near drought conditions?
*what percentage of Americans are at or below the poverty line, and what policies will help it?
What do Trump and Hillary propose about each?
I don't know, the news didn't cover it.
Yes, I'm angry. Lives are at stake!
Dark Nights
Batman gave me nightmares and brainstorms about reality.
Last week I finally saw The Dark Knight, the Christopher Nolan film about Batman starring Christian Bale and the late Heath Ledger. The murderer and terrorist played by Ledger reminded me more of ISIS or Ted Bundy than of any comic book character.
Yes, the Joker as the villain robbed banks while wearing a clown suit, but his henchmen shot people in the head and the back--including their own partners-- and on-screen. And the Joker's monologue about preferring to kill or injure people with knives rather than guns was bone chilling.
So Gotham City turned to a vigilante to save them: a billionaire dressing up in a superhero costume with the mind of Sherlock Holmes and physical skill which is also barely human, and wealth to afford tech that even the police don't have. But the outlandishness of this premise was toned down in favor of the question: is a vigilante who, by definition, ignores laws, the answer? Is it justice?
A Wall Street Journal article compared Batman to Bush's War on Terror: a brave man saving us, ignoring a few civil liberties for the greater good.
Take away the few comic book conventions the film has left and the story could be reshot with ISIS or a real serial killer. Fewer explosions, smaller scale, but core issues the same:
*do people who murder and terrorize do it without regard for money or power? Where does that leave deterrence and negotiation? Should someone who only commits a crime in a heat of passion, or in desperation, be treated the same as one who does so from psychosis or lack of empathy?
*if the police are corrupt, does that open the door to a vigilante?
(in the film a police officer abets a kidnapping for cash to pay for health care for an uncovered loved one. In real life, what is happening to police salaries?)
*more than once, the evil-doer revels in forcing victims to fight amongst themselves: "either you all die, or one of you picks who lives." That is disturbing! Does it really happen?
*In the movie, a good guy gives up and becomes a bad guy. Do you hear about police officers being asked, or ordered, to work overtime? So they are less alert when asked to make a split second decision on civil liberty versus safety? Is it a wonder that some cops drink, or even commit suicide?
*In the Dark Knight, there is panic after terrorism in Gotham, which has a limited number of exit bridges & boats. Thankfully, we don't have any cities like that in real life. #sarcasm.
Yes, The Dark Knight is Hollywood. But some of the issues it raises are anything but. It's not for nothing that I slept poorly that night, reminded of when I was mugged, worried about terrorism.
Have you ever seen seemingly unrealistic fiction that spoke to real issues?
Last week I finally saw The Dark Knight, the Christopher Nolan film about Batman starring Christian Bale and the late Heath Ledger. The murderer and terrorist played by Ledger reminded me more of ISIS or Ted Bundy than of any comic book character.
Yes, the Joker as the villain robbed banks while wearing a clown suit, but his henchmen shot people in the head and the back--including their own partners-- and on-screen. And the Joker's monologue about preferring to kill or injure people with knives rather than guns was bone chilling.
So Gotham City turned to a vigilante to save them: a billionaire dressing up in a superhero costume with the mind of Sherlock Holmes and physical skill which is also barely human, and wealth to afford tech that even the police don't have. But the outlandishness of this premise was toned down in favor of the question: is a vigilante who, by definition, ignores laws, the answer? Is it justice?
A Wall Street Journal article compared Batman to Bush's War on Terror: a brave man saving us, ignoring a few civil liberties for the greater good.
Take away the few comic book conventions the film has left and the story could be reshot with ISIS or a real serial killer. Fewer explosions, smaller scale, but core issues the same:
*do people who murder and terrorize do it without regard for money or power? Where does that leave deterrence and negotiation? Should someone who only commits a crime in a heat of passion, or in desperation, be treated the same as one who does so from psychosis or lack of empathy?
*if the police are corrupt, does that open the door to a vigilante?
(in the film a police officer abets a kidnapping for cash to pay for health care for an uncovered loved one. In real life, what is happening to police salaries?)
*more than once, the evil-doer revels in forcing victims to fight amongst themselves: "either you all die, or one of you picks who lives." That is disturbing! Does it really happen?
*In the movie, a good guy gives up and becomes a bad guy. Do you hear about police officers being asked, or ordered, to work overtime? So they are less alert when asked to make a split second decision on civil liberty versus safety? Is it a wonder that some cops drink, or even commit suicide?
*In the Dark Knight, there is panic after terrorism in Gotham, which has a limited number of exit bridges & boats. Thankfully, we don't have any cities like that in real life. #sarcasm.
Yes, The Dark Knight is Hollywood. But some of the issues it raises are anything but. It's not for nothing that I slept poorly that night, reminded of when I was mugged, worried about terrorism.
Have you ever seen seemingly unrealistic fiction that spoke to real issues?
Saturday, September 24, 2016
Digital magic paper?
Is paper disappearing like a Houdini trick?
A few weeks ago a magician told me that he would be delighted to send me a publicity photo, but that everything he has is now digital. A publisher of a new book on magic history told me the same, as did a magic prop seller yesterday.
With a blog to my name, I can hardly call myself a Luddite. But beyond the charm of paper publicity material, how long will a digital ad or photo be kept online? Friends own paper photos that are more than a century old. What about material that were on cd-roms?
What will future historians do?
How will future performers know what current ones did?
A few weeks ago a magician told me that he would be delighted to send me a publicity photo, but that everything he has is now digital. A publisher of a new book on magic history told me the same, as did a magic prop seller yesterday.
With a blog to my name, I can hardly call myself a Luddite. But beyond the charm of paper publicity material, how long will a digital ad or photo be kept online? Friends own paper photos that are more than a century old. What about material that were on cd-roms?
What will future historians do?
How will future performers know what current ones did?
Wednesday, August 3, 2016
Magic, conjuring, escape?
When I saw magician David Copperfield on Broadway, each of the last three numbers earned a standing ovation. "Ricky Jay and his 52 Assistants" was called the hottest ticket in town by a leading New York newspaper--and with reason. The New York Times called magician Peter Samelson "a soft spoken conceptualist of sorcery."
I'm not saying that magic tricks often reach such heights. I am saying that in the hands of a skilled performer, magic _can_ be artistic.
Or powerful: how many entertainers have the half-life of Houdini? A recent TV series, comic book, novel, biography, and the occasional newspaper headline about someone escaping "like a Houdini." Pretty good for someone who's been dead for ninety years. (I'm a fan of the website "wild about houdini dot com by John Cox, who works hard and writes clearly about Houdini in the past and present).
Or useful: consider that Houdini exposed fake spiritualists. Imagine going to a seance hoping to contact a dead loved one. In mourning. Desperate. How heartless of a fake medium to take advantage of such grief! (Some mediums supported Houdini's efforts: better to route out the fake ones).
Or do a youtube search on Peter Popoff and James Randi. Popoff implied that God was allowing him to read people's minds, and used this as evidence that he had the power to heal people's cancer. He told people to throw away their medicine! Randi discovered that Popoff was using a radio transmitter to have someone backstage communicate with him. "I discovered two things about God that I hadn't known before", Randi joked, "One was that she was a woman, the other was that she sounded a lot like Popoff's wife!" Randi used his knowledge of magic tricks to expose a heartless scam.
Or consider the con game of three playing cards, a fast talking guy with fast hands, and a wager that you can track one of the cards. As entertainment, it may be fun. As a con, it parts suckers from their money. In AARP magazine, and in Stars and Stripes newspaper, magicians have exposed it, and other card cheating, as a public service.
Whether you like magic shows might depend on how good the magician is, or the style of magic: like music, there are many ways to be a magician: big tricks or small tricks, straight forward or artsy, funny persona or serious persona. Criss Angel is a goth daredevil magician, Lance Burton's original act was done to classical music and performed in a tuxedo.
But well done magic, regardless of the style, teaches us a very important lesson: we can be fooled. This can be fun-- a sense of pretend--- or not. An unskilled magician can do something we can't explain. A skilled magician can do something that seems unexplainable. The latter's a gift! If we can see the impossible, right before our eyes, even though we were staring at it, that means that we can be deceived even when we are on alert for trickery. And we know that, in the larger society, politicians and advertisers never ever try to deceive us, right?
But enough of this "magic can be important" argument. I'd like to stop typing, relax and watch some fun magic, taken into a world of fantasy where, as Eugene Berger puts it, "that which is broken can be made whole again". It's only pretend, but pretend can be fun.
Entertainment magic, performance magic, can be done badly, in public. But if you don't like the performance you just saw, consider that it might be the performer, or the style.
I'm not saying that magic tricks often reach such heights. I am saying that in the hands of a skilled performer, magic _can_ be artistic.
Or powerful: how many entertainers have the half-life of Houdini? A recent TV series, comic book, novel, biography, and the occasional newspaper headline about someone escaping "like a Houdini." Pretty good for someone who's been dead for ninety years. (I'm a fan of the website "wild about houdini dot com by John Cox, who works hard and writes clearly about Houdini in the past and present).
Or useful: consider that Houdini exposed fake spiritualists. Imagine going to a seance hoping to contact a dead loved one. In mourning. Desperate. How heartless of a fake medium to take advantage of such grief! (Some mediums supported Houdini's efforts: better to route out the fake ones).
Or do a youtube search on Peter Popoff and James Randi. Popoff implied that God was allowing him to read people's minds, and used this as evidence that he had the power to heal people's cancer. He told people to throw away their medicine! Randi discovered that Popoff was using a radio transmitter to have someone backstage communicate with him. "I discovered two things about God that I hadn't known before", Randi joked, "One was that she was a woman, the other was that she sounded a lot like Popoff's wife!" Randi used his knowledge of magic tricks to expose a heartless scam.
Or consider the con game of three playing cards, a fast talking guy with fast hands, and a wager that you can track one of the cards. As entertainment, it may be fun. As a con, it parts suckers from their money. In AARP magazine, and in Stars and Stripes newspaper, magicians have exposed it, and other card cheating, as a public service.
Whether you like magic shows might depend on how good the magician is, or the style of magic: like music, there are many ways to be a magician: big tricks or small tricks, straight forward or artsy, funny persona or serious persona. Criss Angel is a goth daredevil magician, Lance Burton's original act was done to classical music and performed in a tuxedo.
But well done magic, regardless of the style, teaches us a very important lesson: we can be fooled. This can be fun-- a sense of pretend--- or not. An unskilled magician can do something we can't explain. A skilled magician can do something that seems unexplainable. The latter's a gift! If we can see the impossible, right before our eyes, even though we were staring at it, that means that we can be deceived even when we are on alert for trickery. And we know that, in the larger society, politicians and advertisers never ever try to deceive us, right?
But enough of this "magic can be important" argument. I'd like to stop typing, relax and watch some fun magic, taken into a world of fantasy where, as Eugene Berger puts it, "that which is broken can be made whole again". It's only pretend, but pretend can be fun.
Entertainment magic, performance magic, can be done badly, in public. But if you don't like the performance you just saw, consider that it might be the performer, or the style.
Sunday, June 26, 2016
Gay execution
Saudi Arabia stones gay people to death. Legal murder! Imagine being the mother or father of someone who is kind, industrious, and happens to know in their hearts that the people they love are of the same gender. Yet, in perhaps 78 countries, same-sex sex is illegal.
But the tide is turning: in 113 countries, it's legal.
In some US states, it was legal to arrest people, just for who they love, as recently as 2003!
But the tide is turning.
The data is from The Economist magazine, October 11th, 2014.
Respect for consenting adults is from being human.
Love is love.
Same sex couples can have trouble being allowed to adopt.
If we deny parental rights to homosexuals,
are we saying that opposite sex spousal abuse is healthier than same-sex love?
Is that the message we want to send?
Being straight is great,
but straight needn't be narrow.
Words to describe lesbian, bisexuals, gay men:
sister, brother, daughter, son.
All of the 49 people shot to death were someone's son or daughter.
Saturday, June 25, 2016
Celebrity or trade laws?
The death of a celebrity compared to a blow to international trade law? How does US TV news coverage of trade law compare to its coverage of celebrity deaths?
How many people could be impacted by the "British exit" or the TPP?
What stories were covered the most in US TV news?
It's not like the "Brexit" or TPP could affect employment prospects in many countries, is it?
Or that the TPP or Brexit has the potential to effect climate change, is it?
When a celebrity dies, what story does the news cover more?
Could the tv news humanize the TPP debate if it tried?
Seriously?
How many people could be impacted by the "British exit" or the TPP?
What stories were covered the most in US TV news?
It's not like the "Brexit" or TPP could affect employment prospects in many countries, is it?
Or that the TPP or Brexit has the potential to effect climate change, is it?
When a celebrity dies, what story does the news cover more?
Could the tv news humanize the TPP debate if it tried?
Seriously?
Sunday, April 24, 2016
Extremism: communism, witchcraft, politics
Communist spies! It wasn't that Salem suddenly decided that witches were no longer in their midst at the end of 1692, nor was it that United States anti-communists suddenly decided that there weren't any more spies or disloyal Americans in the mid 20th century. It was that the accusers had gone too far: in 1692, the governor's wife was accused of witchcraft, centuries later it was, in part, Senator McCarthy's accusation that war hero and American President Dwight Eisenhower was a communist. In Salem, the overzealous judge Staughton was effectively kicked off of the witchcraft court, and later Senator McCarthy was embarrassed on television and censured by his peers. Thus ended the panics, if not the belief that they had some legitimate aims.
Staughton and McCarthy were overzealous, and it was interesting to realize that some of their critics agreed that this had hurt a good cause. "Witches/communists remain a threat, but abuse of power has killed our will to fight the fight reasonably." It's not that different from environmentalists who booby trap trees that are in danger of being cut down, despite the fact that these traps could harm people, or abortion opponents who believe that God gives them the right to murder doctors. Many (most?) environmentalists, and many (most?) critics of abortion agree that extreme tactics hurt their cause. Caveat: "extremism" of the sit-in movement which desegregated lunch counters.
One of my favorite lines about the utility of extremism is from Malcolm X, who observed that the white establishment was opposed to Dr. Martin Luther King and the NAACP, but added with as much humor as seriousness, "And then the white establishment looked at me, and they proclaimed, 'Thank God for Dr. King ... and the NAACP!" The audience laughed and cheered.
Staughton and McCarthy were overzealous, and it was interesting to realize that some of their critics agreed that this had hurt a good cause. "Witches/communists remain a threat, but abuse of power has killed our will to fight the fight reasonably." It's not that different from environmentalists who booby trap trees that are in danger of being cut down, despite the fact that these traps could harm people, or abortion opponents who believe that God gives them the right to murder doctors. Many (most?) environmentalists, and many (most?) critics of abortion agree that extreme tactics hurt their cause. Caveat: "extremism" of the sit-in movement which desegregated lunch counters.
One of my favorite lines about the utility of extremism is from Malcolm X, who observed that the white establishment was opposed to Dr. Martin Luther King and the NAACP, but added with as much humor as seriousness, "And then the white establishment looked at me, and they proclaimed, 'Thank God for Dr. King ... and the NAACP!" The audience laughed and cheered.
Wednesday, March 23, 2016
Silicon econ
Is there a part of life that has not been changed by computer chips? In the late 1980s and 1990s the most popular desk computers used Windows and, usually, Intel chips. The longtime head of Intel, chemist and businessman Andrew Grove, died a few days ago, and the NYTimes obituary made a statement that seems at odds with the notion that regulation is good:
"To meet voracious market demand...Mr. Grove insisted that Intel employees regularly work many overtime hours." Did this save the employees jobs, and perhaps the company?
The article also quoted a competing manufacturer, AMD, that Mr. Grove's "Intel goes to the edge-and sometimes over it..." in not allowing computer manufacturers to use other companies chips.
Did society benefit from practices that were impolite?
(Edited to hilight title)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)