The ramblings of an Eternal Student of Life     
. . . still studying and learning how to be grateful and make the best of it
 
 
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Personal Reflections ... Politics ...

Once you reach a certain age, the overarching goals of life change. When you’re young, your goals are (or should be) very grand. Depending upon who you are and how you’ve been influenced by the world around you, your aims in life might include achievement, power, wealth, fame, true love, that sort of thing. Maybe even happiness. However, after a decade or two, most people get rounded down (although a few do get on that elevator to the top and keep on chasing a dream — for better and for worse). Their goals start changing to contentedness, self-actualization, raising a family, and perhaps achieving religious salvation or transcendence. Then as you get older, it becomes mostly day-to-day survival, with an occasional attempt at “passing something on” or “helping to prepare the next generation” (despite the fact that the next generation mostly doesn’t want any help; never did, never will).

I think that I’ve found a more generic concept for whatever it is that we should be doing with our lives, no matter what our age and situation. It’s called “eudaimonia”, and it goes back to Aristotle and the ancient Greeks (it means something like “spirit of good being” or “human flourishing”). It’s kind of a generic notion of “being in synch”, about finding the best balance between your own authentic self and the world around you. It’s all about finding wisdom and acting virtuously for all the days of your life. It’s a hard concept to nail down – almost as hard as actually living in a eudaimonious way.

But hey, ya gotta keep tryin’.

ALSO – speaking of happiness, I see that the US military is quite happy about its successful missile shot at the NRO spy satellite that was going to come down soon. However, the purported reason behind the mission is starting to look just about as valid as President Bush’s reasons for invading Iraq (remember the supposed “weapons of mass destruction”?). Last night on the PBS Newshour, MIT science professor and defense critic Theodore Postol said that he did an analysis of the degree of force that the satellite in question would experience when it started hitting the upper atmosphere (had it not been shot down). He felt that the high degree of sudden force, combined with the twisting and tumbling the satellite would experience and the high temperatures of re-entry, would surely burst the tank holding the toxic hydrazine propellant, dispersing it well before the remains of the satellite got close to the ground. He described the construction of such tanks as “gossamer”, i.e. very lightweight (given that the rockets that launch these satellites can only carry so much, and the designers would rather have more cameras and electronic stuff than thick tank walls).

Sooooooo ….. another Bush Administration pro-military excuse goes down the tubes.

◊   posted by Jim G @ 7:55 pm       Read Comments (2) / Leave a Comment
 
 
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Current Affairs ... Personal Reflections ... Religion ...

I just have three minor, mostly unrelated thoughts to discuss tonight. It’s pretty hard to weave them into a coherent picture, but 0f course, I’ll “go down trying”.

First – here’s a nice little article from the NY Times about the end of outdoor skating during the winter on frozen ponds. Unless you are up in Canada or in the middle of northern Minnesota, it just doesn’t get cold for long-enough periods anymore. Also, because of human development, there is too much road salt and other pollutants that keeps lake water from freezing. That’s a shame. Outdoor skating was a part of my youth here in New Jersey. I was never very good at it, but it could be fun nonetheless. But no, it just doesn’t happen very much anymore. The world has changed.

Second – about that spy satellite that the US military is going to shoot down in a week or so. I can’t help but wonder if they would normally ride something like this out, but now have itchy trigger fingers because of that Chinese anti-satellite test in January 2007. It’s not like the thing would require evacuation of hundreds of square miles of land. It wouldn’t spray toxic rocket fuel for more than a city block or two. They could track it and give advanced warning to any populated areas that it might hit (chances still greatly favor its coming down in the ocean). It’s not some huge crisis.

So I can’t help but wonder if the dramatic response is a message to the Chinese – i.e., you guys managed to hit a satellite in a controlled test with a missile launched from a special base. We can hit a satellite from one of our regular warships in international waters. On any day we want (assuming that the interceptor missile works). Admittedly, there are some technical differences – they hit a satellite up around 500 miles up, whereas we would hit ours at around 100 miles or less. Our situation won’t cause the big space-junk mess that the Chinese caused. But still, I think the intended but unspoken message to China and the world here is that the USA is still the big khahuna with regard to space and military technology.

Third – is competition between religions a good thing? The March Atlantic has an article written by Alan Wolfe about this. In many instances throughout history, competition between differing religious viewpoints led to war, torture, and other bad stuff. Today, in some places, this still happens (e.g., Nigeria). But in the USA, the effects of religious Darwinism will arguably be more peaceful. Since we are a rich nation, there’s not much danger of warfare breaking out between, say, the Mormons and the Pentecostals. But what we are seeing is the “Wal-Mart-ization” of religion.

In the US heartland, the mega-churches seem to be growing at the expense of small, traditional Protestant congregations (actually, there are signs of early mega-church formation here in NJ; e.g., not far from me, a newly formed generic Christian group meets every Sunday in a local Boys Club gym). These big churches offer a variety of worship forms, some featuring modern entertainment, and a wide variety of services including job seekers clubs, social outreach groups, sports teams, study groups, parents’ support ministries, etc. Other types of churches will hang on, but only by finding specific targeted audiences, e.g. gays (at some liberal Episcopalian parishes), educated agnostics (Quaker and Unitarian churches), struggling immigrants (probably where the Roman Catholic Church in America is heading), poor people looking for support (e.g., urban Pentecostal and Islamic congregations), cultural niches (Judaism, Islam, Hindu temples), etc.

So, the days of Currier and Ives are coming to an end in the USA. Paintings of kids skating on a pond under clear blue skies with a quaint small-town church in the background are visions of the past (or fading fast, anyway). Skating now goes on inside a big indoor rink; religion happens inside something like that too. And those skies aren’t so clear and blue anymore, but if you do get such a day, you might see the contrail of a rapidly-climbing anti-satellite missile seeking out an enemy in space (or some falling space junk).

◊   posted by Jim G @ 10:34 pm       Read Comments (2) / Leave a Comment
 
 
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Politics ...

John Heilermann points out that after Tuesday’s primary results in Maryland, Virginia and DC, Barack Obama is looking like the heir apparent. Heilermann also thinks that Obama could either be the next John Kennedy or the next Jimmy Carter. Let me expand on that thought by not assuming the outcome in November. Let’s expand our consideration to include two other Democratic presidential candidates who came out of nowhere to rally the party to their cause (but lost to the GOP). Those candidates would be Michael Dukakis (1988) and George McGovern (1972).

So now we have more of a range. McGovern was arguably the worst of the worst; he never ever had a chance against Nixon. Dukakis, by contrast, did seem viable at first; polls in May and June of 1988 showed him running ahead of George H.W. Bush. But within a few months, Bush would take a commanding lead and would trounce the Duke in the general election. Next on the spectrum is Jimmy Carter, who won the election but then lost the Presidency (and I still contend that he was the unluckiest President of the 20th Century, or at least tied with Woodrow Wilson). Finally, there is JFK, the guy who won the election and did a good job as President until that black day in Dallas in November of 1963.

So which overall scenario will best fit Barack Obama? Yes, I know; let Obama be Obama. His campaign and his Presidency (if he is elected) won’t be exactly like those of any of these four past Presidents (and God forbid he should have an ending anything like Kennedy’s). But still, the point remains – there is a lot of uncertainty about Obama. We are breaking new historical ground here. The powers-that-be in the Democratic Party seem ready to take the risk, bolstered by polls showing favorable public attitudes, good outcomes in head-to-heads against McCain, and by Obama’s fundraising success. But public opinion is fickle. I hope that Barack Obama is truly the stuff of American greatness, the next tall man from Illinois to rise up to reconcile a fractured nation. We shall see — with prayers again that he doesn’t end up like Lincoln did!

◊   posted by Jim G @ 8:21 pm       Read Comments (2) / Leave a Comment
 
 
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Personal Reflections ... Politics ... Society ...

There’s a little piece in the March Atlantic Magazine regarding a U.S. Bureau of Labor study showing that overweight women have and are facing increased employment discrimination. Over the past 25 years, men and women of all ages and races have been getting heavier, and at the same time the discrimination against overweight women, in terms of salary differences, seems also to be increasing.

What also captured my eye is a bar chart that went with the article (using data from the study). This chart purports to show that between 1981 and 2000, the percentage of white working-age women who are either overweight or obese rose from 12.6 percent to 50.4 percent. I.e., from one-in-eight to one-in-two. If that is true, it is quite astonishing. But I didn’t think it was accurate. To check, I took a look at a report called “Health, United States, 2007”, published by the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. Table 74 of that report shows that in the 1976-1980 period, 38.7% of white women age 20 to 74 were overweight or obese; in the 2000-2004 period, this went up to 61.4%. That’s still a huge jump, and shows the current situation to be even worse than the Atlantic numbers (6 in 10 overweight versus 5 in 10). But it’s still not a fat revolution, as the study stats would imply.

There certainly is a health crisis lurking behind all of this, as excess weight correlates with an increased risk of diabetes, cardiovascular conditions and muscular-skeletal problems, from what I’ve read (and what I’ve seen in my own family). From an aesthetic point of view, I also find this regrettable. Every guy has his tastes in women; some guys like the Rubenesque figure and probably welcome the trend. But I myself like the tall thin type best – that is, from the shallow perspective of appearance. I’m mature enough to know that true human worth goes way beyond looks; still, I’m still entitled to what I find most immediately pleasing regarding body appearances. A little bit of ‘girlwatching’ doesn’t hurt anyone.

Sticking with the looks-only perspective, it’s no secret that most guys find women in their 20’s and early 30’s to be the most aesthetically pleasing. That’s just nature at work; most men have enough brainpower to realize that true friendships and relationships depend upon much more than surface appearances. But nevertheless, even the most enlightened guy can Platonically admire what nature does with reproduction-age females. So, perhaps the most disturbing statistical trend for we girlwatchers is what has happened to the 20-34 year old cohort of females; in the 1960-1962 period, only 21.2% of such women were overweight or obese; in the 2000-2004 period, that number went to 51.6%. My goodness, McDonalds and Hagen-Daz and ADM (with all of that unhealthy corn syrup they crank out) are trying to kill off girlwatching in America!

Just to show that I’m not being totally chauvinistic here, I’ll leave behind a link to an article that I just read on the New York Magazine web site regarding the differences between Obama and Hilary. Actually, I’ll link to the last page of that article, which sums things up very nicely. To paraphrase it, Hilary is the practical choice, the choice which assumes that politics in Washington and the world at large are nasty and are going to stay nasty. Obama reflects the assumption that through American good will and idealism, the world of nations and the world of politics can become kinder and gentler. Right now, the Obama point of view seems to be winning, and in a lot of ways, that’s a good thing. But I just don’t think that the world is ready for Obama’s paradigm; or, said another way, Obama is just not ready for the real world’s paradigm. His speeches sound like wishful thinking to me. But McCain and the GOP are just too pessimistic about the human race. I still think that Hilary, however uninspiring politically (and not much from the girlwatching perspective either), is the right mix, the best you can do. I still hope she can pull out of her tailspin.

◊   posted by Jim G @ 4:14 pm       Read Comments (3) / Leave a Comment
 
 
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Society ...

There’s an interesting article in the March Atlantic Magazine which speculates that in 20 years, a lot of today’s posh suburban developments in the exurban fringes could become low-income slum communities (“The Next Slum?” by Christopher Leinberger). The subprime mortgage crisis may have set in motion a process powered by a series of underlying demographic and economic factors, a process that may leave the cities and inner suburbs better off and the exurbs and their McMansions much worse. It would be hard today to imagine gangs, drug dealing, and vinyl-clad estate houses split up into tenements out along the Interstates and outer-beltways, but perhaps in 20 years the suburban-fringe paradises of today will become tomorrow’s nightmares. Stranger things have happened within the context of decades.

This made me thing of a song that I just bought and downloaded from the new Amazon MP3 site. I’m not getting paid to plug for Amazon, but I will give them credit for not requiring that you download their special software to buy their music. All of the other major digital music sites seem to require that, and personally I don’t like it. Who knows what their software is doing that you’re not aware of. My computer and its registry are cluttered enough as it is without needing a special application for every site that I do business with.

Anyway, the song I’m referring to is Cashman & West’s “American City Suite”, from 1972. It’s a lament about the decline and decay of urban neighborhood life in New York City that took place back in the 60’s. American City Suite is actually a rather touching and underrated tune; there’s some real emotion in it. It got some airplay for a few months after it was released, but has gone entirely unnoticed since then. Nice that Amazon decided to list it (I think that MSN also has it). Here we are, about 40 years later, and maybe those urban neighborhoods are coming back. And perhaps the suburbs (the outer ones, anyway) are going to experience the social decline that they previously caused in the cities, what Cashman & West sang about. It makes you wonder if Terry Cashman is thinking about writing a new version lamenting the end of the McMansion / SUV dream.

◊   posted by Jim G @ 7:30 pm       Read Comments (3) / Leave a Comment
 
 
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Society ...

I’m not a huge football fan, but since I live in the New York area, I couldn’t help but get swept up in the enthusiasm for the underdog NY Giants over the past few weeks. What a great comeback from a team that barely made the playoffs. They came back to knock off three powerhouse teams, and then beat the mightiest of the mighty, the previously undefeated New England Patriots, in the Superbowl. This year’s Superbowl finally earned its name. And the NFC playoff game in Green Bay was also a classic, being played in minus 3 degree weather (an “IceBowl”, as some have called it) and won in overtime with a dramatic field goal right after the kicker had blown two easier attempts. That was probably the one NFL football game that I’ll always remember.

Being a reflective sort of chap, however, I’ll not dwell too long on the athletic and spiritual achievements of the Giants over the past 6 weeks (as well as financial ones), great though they were. Instead, I’d like to ponder two social themes that are quite prominent in a football game, especially a high-powered, big-money game like the NFL. Those themes are competition and cooperation. Professional football is mix of both. There’s plenty of competition on every level; competition to win the game, competition between players to make the team, competition for TV ratings, etc. There must also be a lot of cooperation. E.g., cooperation between team players throughout the game; cooperation of teams with the rules of the game, and with the decisions of the referees; cooperation with the fans, who pay good money to watch; cooperation with the capitalist and governmental institutions who provide and maintain a stadium, provide traffic control for the crowds, sell commercial air time on the media, provide for a team’s logistic needs (uniforms, travel, game scheduling, training facilities), etc. Although the main point of an NFL game is to win and to make money in a capitalist economy, there is plenty of cooperation going on behind the scenes.

For me, though, it’s sad that competition is king here, and cooperation is the handmaiden working in the shadows. Football says a lot about our social priorities and assumptions. My second grade teacher told me and my parents that I was “different”. Part of the difference that she was referring to, I believe, regards my unwillingness to just accept things. Not that I’m any great rebel, but I think that I was born with an instinctual ability to notice and question things that many others take for granted. One of those things is competition; back in grammar school I knew early on that we were being encouraged to compete with each other, because that’s just how life in America is. But why is that, I wanted to know. No one had a good answer. Just shut up and take your lumps in dodgeball and ‘steal the bacon’.

I still wonder why we have to be so competitive. The Ayn Rand capitalist theory is that competition brings out the best in us. If we didn’t have to compete, if our needs for security were met, we’d all be lazy. Such laziness would eventually lead to rampant poverty and social collapse. Competition makes things as good as they are. Even the losers are better off in the long run because of it.

And yet I wonder. Is that really the main choice for us human beings? Competition versus laziness? That sure seems to be what we assume here in the USA. Cooperation is just a side-effect that’s sometimes necessary to enhance competition. It’s like that with mother nature herself. Families are the bastions of cooperation, but only such that each family can better compete for money, land, and opportunities for their children; this applies to almost all creatures. Putting competition first is in our nature.

But do we have to be slaves to mother nature? Isn’t it the human heritage to do something different, based on our ability to reason? My reasoning would say that cooperation is the better part. I would envision a human race where cooperation is king, where people truly strive to cooperate, where cooperation brings out everyone’s best. Yes, some competition would still be necessary; I myself enjoy having a choice of supermarkets and department stores to go to. And yes, competition makes the NFL so occasionally entertaining (but only occasionally; most football games are pretty boring to me). So why can’t we all assume that it’s cooperation that can make us better off; on every level, even to the level of nations deciding how to split up land, oil, seaways, water, minerals, wealth, etc.

Yea, I know, we’re a long, long way from that here on Planet Earth. For now, the most significant manifestation of international competition, i.e. war, continues on and on. We’ve kept it out of America for a long time now, although 9-11 showed that it could come back. Yes, I do look at (pseudo) Islamic radical jihad and al Qaeda as an exercise in competition, in the same vein with capitalist, species evolution, the “magic of the market”, and conservative politics. Imagine if we could turn down the competition instinct and do away with war. Imagine all the economic resources that would be freed up for better uses if the many nations of the world stopped building and buying jet fighter planes and tanks and destroyers and missiles and machine guns. Despite all of the wealth created by economic competition, there is also a huge economic drag created by military competition. When you balance these factors, is the average citizen of this world better or worse off?

I still think that humankind could make it different; we could make cooperation the prime directive, without losing our iPods and all of the magic that we saw from the NY Giants over the past few weeks. But that will probably take centuries of time and many more hard lessons. I won’t live to see it, but I’d like to think that every dream of a better world somehow helps.

◊   posted by Jim G @ 8:24 pm       Read Comments (2) / Leave a Comment
 
 
Friday, February 1, 2008
Personal Reflections ... Photo ...

WALLINGTON, NEW JERSEY used to be notorious for its bars. Well, perhaps notorious is too strong a word. They generally weren’t centers of gambling and prostitution. They were mostly blue-collar shot-and-a-beer places. But there were plenty of them, located on both the main drags and the back streets. Back during the Great Depression of the 1930’s, a lot of homeowners put an addition on the front of their houses and opened up a bar where the parlor would have been. Despite all the national unemployment, there were still many people working in the mills across the river in Passaic, and with all of the gloom, most of them could use a drink on the way home. So there was just enough demand for convenient liquor as to allow these homeowners to make a few coins. Back in the Depression, every little coin helped.

Many of these little mom-and-pop bars held on into the 1960s and 1970s. A few would still open up now and then, into the 1990s. By 2000, though, just about all of these neighborhood places were gone. Not that Wallington has gone dry, but you now have to stick to the thoroughfares and find a bar with upscale pretensions, or maybe a place with a restaurant attached (or the bowling alley on Paterson Avenue). Interestingly, though, if you walk the back streets of old-town Wallington, you will notice all of the funny-looking houses with living rooms extending out to the sidewalk line; i.e., the remains of the old bars.

Actually, there is one little tavern on Locust Avenue that is barely hanging on, but it’s in its last days. Locust Avenue is one of the main drags; however, the layout of this place is definitely classic Wallington-1930s, i.e. a shoebox in the front of an old two story house. The establishment in question had been run since the Depression by the Puzio family. Sometime during the late 70s or early 80s, one of the sons living at home decided to fix the place up a bit and keep regular evening hours on most weekdays and on Saturdays. It was no longer a dingy old bar smelling of spilled beer and rye, with a couple of old guys on metal stools burning cigarettes in the dark while watching a ball game on a TV above the cash register. “Pee Wee” (what everyone called the fellow who ran the place) built up a patronage of college students and young middle-class professionals during the 1980s. And I was one of those patrons. The “Colonial Room” (the place actually didn’t have a sign with that name, but there were printed matchbooks saying “Pee Wee’s Colonial Room”) was always a nice place to start the evening with. You’d leave by 10pm for other points of interest, for places where more exciting things may or may not have been happening. But even if the rest of the evening went bust, at least you got a nice hour or so in at Pee Wee’s.

Pee Wee works a day job, and by the 1990s, he lost interest in being a barkeeper by night. The place wasn’t open as much, and then finally wasn’t open at all. The 21st Century arrived without a Colonial Room available to stop into for a beer and a quick chat with good old Pee Wee. The world had lost another good thing. But not totally, as it turned out. Last year, my brother told me that he had run into Pee Wee at his church, and even though the guy is now in his early 80’s, he said he would try to open the bar on Saturday nights – although he couldn’t promise that it would be every Saturday.

Nonetheless, Pee Wee did make good-enough on his promise, and late last December I stopped in with my brother for a reunion. It was bittersweet. Pee Wee was now an old man; he’s still in pretty good shape for his age, but different from the guy I remembered (although he still has a good barkeeper’s knack for hospitality; e.g. he still gives you a glass with your beer bottle, without asking). The place was mostly empty and quiet. Pee Wee only had the background lights on, unlike the old days when all the lights were lit and the seats were full of people chatting and laughing. Behind the bar were just a few bottles, just enough to fix a couple of mixed drinks; quite unlike the rows of bottles on the shelves against the back wall, as in the old days. The reunion was great, but there was no doubt that it was 2007, and that the old magic wasn’t coming back.

My brother and I got there again last week; things were about the same, but I wasn’t expecting much this time. In a way, the melancholy had lifted somewhat with oldies music playing in the background, and with another customer or two present. But a “new era” for the Colonial Room is not in the offing. Pee Wee told us that he and his wife now have the place up for sale, and hope to move out of state in a few months. So although we will hopefully get back there at least once more before the end, the focus must remain on the past, and not the future. The goodbye process has begun. But at least there will be a goodbye process. Too many good things pass without a decent goodbye.

So here’s a pic of “the Wee” in his bar, with two friends. He’s obviously the guy in the center; Wallington is not good with irony, so you don’t expect a “Pee Wee” there to be a 7-footer, nor a “Big Moe” to be four-eight. Nonetheless, Pee Wee was a classic “tavern keeper”. The world will have lost something on the night when he locks the front door of the “Colonial Room” for the last time.

◊   posted by Jim G @ 11:02 pm       Read Comments (2) / Leave a Comment
 
 
Monday, January 28, 2008
Psychology ... Society ...

In the time before I turned 40 but after my marriage broke up, it occurred to me that a guy’s chances of getting into a romantic relationship with an available woman are usually determined within the first two or three seconds after meeting. After years of rough experience, I finally noticed that some women just plain like you from the first moment they see you; and some really dislike you. Actually, most are more-or-less neutral.

Still, if you want to get a relationship going, your best chances were with the first group. The second group would be a waste of time, no matter how much you otherwise had in common, and no matter how much you might feel attracted to someone who just doesn’t like your look. The third group is not impossible, but it takes a lot of work. And it keeps on taking a lot of work. If you get a relationship going with someone from the neutral zone, it could fall apart as soon as you start feeling secure enough to stop buying flowers and writing love notes every day (and try to get a night or two in with your old friends).

It also occurred to me that there is really no rhyme or reason as to how the three groups break down. Women who seemed totally not-my-type, who had nothing in common with me, sometimes fell into the attraction group. (OK, I am an honest if not rudely handsome man; I will admit that there are not hundreds and hundreds of women like that out there). And yet women with everything in common too often fall into the immediate dislike group. There is something unexplainable that happens in that first second or two of observation. Over the years, there have been a fair number of not-so-beautiful women in my attraction group; but surprisingly, there were some real beauties too (but of course there weren’t very many, and I always messed things up in the end with them). Furthermore, some of the “fan club” have included women of different ethnicities and race. Whatever this factor is, it’s an equal opportunity factor.

Eventually I extended the theory to other parts of life; low and behold, it seemed to work beyond the realm of dating and mating. It seemed to apply with people of all ages, both men and women (albeit on a non-sexual basis). It seemed to apply to job interviews (usually to my disadvantage). Some people just like you at first, and others shun you, without any rational reason other than “an inner hunch”. There’s a guy at work who just didn’t like me from day 1; I picked that up pretty quickly and so I didn’t waste any energy trying to be his friend. But after six years, the guy finally seems to be lightening up. He seems to have decided that I’m not quite the creep that his gut feelings made me out to be. Nonetheless, it took six years and the fact that some of his friends have been getting along with me just fine to change his mind; that’s how strong this ‘immediate judgment’ factor is. (It also works on in the other way too; if you ignore one of your natural fans, they may eventually turn against you, but that also takes quite a while).

I’ve noticed that the world of real science is starting to pick up on the “first sight” factor. There have been a couple of articles lately about the research of a psychologist named Nalini Ambady. One study indicated that a group of people looking at pictures of strangers could correctly guess the person’s sexual orientation (gay or straight) with surprising success, significantly higher than 50-50. Another similar study indicated that successful business leaders have a certain look that can be picked out, and that correlates with the financial success of their firms. Again, a group of average people looking at a stack of pictures could pick out those who were gay or were successful leaders with fairly good accuracy and agreement. An older study by Ambady indicated that college students decide whether they are going to like or dislike a professor in the first second that they see them. The initial impression was shown to carry right thru to the end of the semester.

There’s an old name for this field of study: physiognomy. Actually, physiognomy is considered junk science or “folk science” at best. But the work of Ambady and some others is showing that there may be something to the “immediate judgement” factor. There are actually two different questions raised by physiognomy: FIRST, just how strongly do people prejudice their judgments about another person based on the first look; and SECOND, are they right about their initial feelings? The research seems to indicate that people really do “read a book by its cover”, as my past experiences tend to indicate. (So I’m not 100% crazy after all).

But as to the SECOND question — that issue is still up in the air. We have three examples: being gay, being a good business leader, and being a good professor. Assuming that a random group of people tend to agree on first sight that person X looks like she’s gay or would be a good business leader, or would make a good teacher, does that mean that the face and the body actually reflect mental abilities and personality temperaments? OR, as I suspect, is it more the case that a person “floats to the top” in business or academia because the majority of people THINK she or he will be a good executive or teacher? Is it a self-fulfilling prophecy? Even with the gay situation, which we increasingly believe to be a function of nature and not nurture, one has to wonder if a child’s sexuality is partly shaped by what people around him or her sub-consciously think about him or her. (In other words, sexual preference may be shaped as much by social – genetic factors as by direct genetic determinants of behavior).

Well, in a way this depresses me. We seem to think that every child can become whatever she or he wants to become; it’s a very American notion. (And likewise, we blame every adult who doesn’t achieve their dreams; just didn’t have the fire inside.) And yet, maybe we’re all locked onto certain pathways in life because of a social judgment processes based upon the unalterable appearances of our body. Even if you have the interest and the strength and the mind to become an astronaut, if you don’t have the look (and the right opportunities, which may be a function of the right look), then you ain’t gonna make it. The “right stuff” needs the right look. Sure, not everyone can be a singer or an athlete or a senator or a great intellect; but everyone is good at something. Whatever that good is, for it to become truly GREAT may depend on how one’s nose is placed relative to their eyeline and upper lip, most ironically.

And as to the whole dating thing: you can find someone who shares your every interest, and whom you find very attractive; and yet, if that person just doesn’t feel the tingle at the start, then you’re probably never going to be more than good friends. The woman who is actually interested in you is going to have a totally different look from what you dig, and she finds most of your interests to be trivial. She may not like your style. And yet, she’s ready to be asked out to dinner. (Unless, of course, you’re an NFL quarterback or screen actor in your mid-20s, and you have your choice of all kinds of women.) Life is a roll of the dice. Some people get lucky and find their soul mates, i.e., someone with common interests who is attracted to you as much as you are to her. And some people just don’t.

No matter what the shrinks try to tell you, too often the losers and neurotics of the world actually ARE unlucky — just plain unlucky. The physiognomy thing tends to affirm that there isn’t all that much substantive difference between those with much achievement and fame (or even just basic happiness), and those who die as discontented nobodies.

◊   posted by Jim G @ 10:04 pm       Read Comments (3) / Leave a Comment
 
 
Friday, January 25, 2008
Current Affairs ... Economics/Business ...

For the past week, the economy has been in the spotlight. Looks as though it’s coming down with something. The federal government is going to be sending most of us some money in a few months, as a remedy. Borrowed money. Unfortunately, borrowing is a big part of what caused the illness in the first place. In the long run, more borrowing is probably going to make things worse.

Unfortunately, the American economy has become more and more like a Ponzi scheme over the past 20 or 30 years. Under the right conditions, the technology and managerial genius of American enterprise causes our economy to grow quite impressively. Unfortunately, we’ve decided to borrow and consume based on the assumption that those right conditions will go on forever. Borrowing and consuming have caused even more growth, which causes more borrowing and consuming, on and on like a snake eating its tail. No one has left any margin for error; not the federal government, not the mortgage market, not Social Security, not the stock market, not the average family . . . no one. No one thought to save for a rainy day, even though we’ve had rain before. It’s not just the real estate sector that has gone through a “bubble”; the whole American economy seems to have taken a bubble bath.

It looks as though the rain is starting to fall now; oil prices have gone up and don’t show any signs of coming down (although if our economy goes sour, they will). Real estate prices finally got so far beyond the underlying fundamentals of supply and demand that prices have stopped rising. Too many families signed big mortgages betting that real estate prices would continue their steady climb. They also bought big cars and lots of consumer goods on credit, thinking that the good times would never end. Now, it looks as if unemployment will start rising again, after remaining at historically low levels for over a decade. Hardly anyone is ready for that.

And then there’s China. China has been in the middle of this. China seems like our friend, selling us all kinds of consumer goods and electronic stuff at prices that are very low, and maintaining our ability to do that by loaning us back our dollars at low interest rates. But are they our friends? I think not. Personally, I think that the Chinese know our bad habits and have been shrewdly exploiting the USA’s frivolous ways to jump-start their own economy. Their population is about 4 times ours, and most of it is quite poor (our GNP is around 9 times theirs). However, if they could capture a big chunk of America’s demand for manufactured products for a few decades (as they are doing), they arguably could convert a large portion of their own population from isolated peasants into middle-class consumers.

If China can convert 1/3 or so of their population to middle-class levels, they will no longer need the USA as a market for their goods; their own internal economy can take over, as it will have gained similar purchasing power. At that point, the Chinese can leave us at the side of the road. Thanks, sucker; oh, and its time to repay all those debts that you owe us, no more new loans from us. Interest rates in the US will soar, and . . . well, things won’t be the same again. Our standards of living will start going down. And that’s going to cause a lot of political angst. It ain’t gonna be pretty.

Well, this isn’t going to happen right away. China isn’t ready to dump us just yet. They will probably act to help us get through the latest crisis, by not messing with our trade balance and continuing to purchase US Treasury notes (thus financing the rebate checks we will soon be receiving). For now, it’s in their interest to give their favorite junkie another fix. It buys them more time to do just what our economy did between the Civil War and the Korean War – convert from rural / agriculture to suburban / manufacturing and trade. This will happen faster for them; we were using canal boats and steam-powered railroads, whereby they are working with airlines and broadband Internet.

But the Chinese still need another 10 or 15 years to get a significant chunk of their nation out of rural poverty and up to western standards. And after that, they probably won’t immediately forget the lessons of frugality and savings and sacrifice, as we have done by now. Because of that, I think that American living standards will not get much higher and will then start to decline. The days of big houses and big SUVs and big spending sprees for the masses will fade. And at that point, the big gap between the rich and poor may finally become a political issue in America. Again, it ain’t gonna be pretty.

For now, though, the immediate crisis will probably come and go, although the impending recession may last a bit longer and go a bit deeper than the last two (1991 and 2001). Things will seem OK again in a few years, but will it last? I think that the intervals between future economic crises will get smaller, and the severity of those crises will get bigger. By 2025, I think it will be clear that the USA is not going back to the economic might that it enjoyed throughout the 1990s and again briefly in the mid-2000’s (and which it may yet taste again in the early 2010s). People then will look back with nostalgia on the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton era, although the scholars will be busy then writing tomes about what went wrong.

But you don’t have to wait until 2025 to read about it. Here are some resources. James Fallows has a good, fact-driven article on the China situation in the January-February 2008 Atlantic Magazine. And for those of you without subscriptions to the Atlantic or who don’t want to schlep on down to the library to study a policy question (another sign of American decline!), here are some other articles available through the magic of the Internet:

1.) George Soros’ view of the current economic crisis, including the China situation;

2.) a reflection on how lack of old-fashioned virtues such as common sense and humility are involved in the current economic mess, by classical historian Victor Hanson; and

3.) a journalist’s report on the Davos conference and the sense of unease there about “America’s ability to right its own ship”.

4.) also, the New York Times has weighed in with a Sunday Magazine article entitled “Goodbye to American Hegemony”.

OK, but before I go, let me get specific and say what I think we’ve done wrong. I blame it on our leaders, but more so on the population in general and especially the college educated population, which should have known better (but are probably the worst offenders). Unfortunately, we get the leaders we deserve, and they’ve done our bidding quite diligently, by:

1.) Letting the gap between rich and poor get so wide; and making it worse by cutting taxes for the rich more so than for the middle class and poor.
2.) Doing away with all economic regulation schemes back in the 1980s and 1990s, instead of being selective about eliminating the anachronisms and extending regulation into new economic realms, while maintaining its flexibility as to minimize impact on growth
3.) Allowing our dependence on foreign oil to go on unchecked, after two clear warning signs in the mid 70s and early 80s; we clearly should have had an energy independence program on the scale of the space program of the 1960s.
4.) Allowing so many fuel-hungry SUVs and McMansions; and even worse, allowing so many sprawling housing developments and offices and shopping centers to be built that are entirely dependent upon auto transport; we’ve locked our nation into high oil consumption.
5.) Allowing our governments to operate at such huge deficits; yes, I am saying that taxes should have been higher, as we can’t slash most government programs; despite some inefficiencies and waste, most government programs have awfully good reasons for their being.
6.) Allowing our public education system to be weakened, and making college level education prohibitively expensive for more and more families (instead of less and less, which would stimulate the economy in the long run).
7.) Allowing our manufacturing sector to be swept away so thoroughly, causing the USA to become so terribly dependent upon the rest of the world for the basic stuff that we need, as well as the goodies that we enjoy. I agree that international trade causes everyone to become richer, when it works correctly; but our world frequently doesn’t work right, so I can’t help but wonder if we should have kept some of those factories and mills going, even though they are more expensive to run than the ones in Brazil and Korea.
[SIDEPOINT: American military and diplomatic policy have become very nationalistic; and at the same time, we have let our economy become extremely internationalized. To me, that sounds like an exposed left flank. Common sense would dictate that we find an equivalent balance between nationalist and internationalist approaches in all three realms.]
8.) Allowing federal subsidy for basic scientific research to continually decline.
9.) Labor unions got too greedy and were responsible for much of America’s decline in the 1970s; but our leaders should have let them learn their lesson and allowed them to become responsible partners with industry, instead of breaking them.
10.) Too much buying on credit and too little saving for rainy days (and maybe retirement)!!
11.) Homeland security costs are a significant drag on our economy, along with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. On first blush, the Afghanistan operations and the homeland security efforts seem quite necessary; a foreign enemy attacked us, and they will attack us again if we don’t do something. True. But see point 3 above; energy independence would go a long way towards lowering our vulnerability to radical Islamic jihad. Looking the other way while Israel continued to take the best lands away from the Palestinians didn’t help either. But the Iraq operation was truly self-inflicted injury.
12.) Overall, taking such a short-term, me-first, enjoy-now / pay-later, consumption-based view of life; the nation I would have preferred wouldn’t have been as rich as we are now, living standards would be somewhat lower (although still way above most of our neighbors); but it would have been fairer, more dependable, and more sustainable over the long haul.

(Obviously I couldn’t even be elected as the class hall monitor in a high school).

◊   posted by Jim G @ 11:45 pm       Read Comments (3) / Leave a Comment
 
 
Monday, January 21, 2008
Brain / Mind ... Science ... Spirituality ...

Last week’s Science Times section of the NY Times made me aware of the “Boltzmann Brain” concept. My goodness, how could I have lived so long and never have heard of it? It’s a huge idea, a bold idea, way out there on the bleeding edge of cosmology and mathematics, wandering off into the field of epistemological philosophy and speculative metaphysics. It’s a Starship Enterprise kind of idea!

It’s actually too big an idea for me to properly explain here (and I probably don’t fully understand it anyway). Nonetheless, just for fun, I’ll try to describe it and make some observations regarding its theological implications. Whether I’m right or wrong, the concept certainly does have much to do with life and consciousness and their relationship to the Universe and to all creation — whatever that is or isn’t.

We know that there is conscious self-awareness in the Universe; as Descartes said, if we know nothing else for sure, we do surely know of our own individual consciousness. We’re also pretty sure from our scientific observations that conscious life occupies an incredibly tiny part of the Universe; it seems like nothing more than a small side show in a big carnival. The Universe is mostly made of thermonuclear-fueled galaxies and gravity-powered black holes and dark matter and vacuum space — incredible volumes of unoccupied space. Oh, and throw in dark energy; lots and lots of dark energy, causing those vast gobs of unoccupied space to expand at an accelerating pace. Relative to the vast Universe, intelligent, self-conscious life (i.e., the human race, and any other intelligent life out there) is like a little barnacle along the side of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.

That does strike some people, including myself, as kind of odd. Wasn’t there a more efficient arrangement  »  continue reading …

◊   posted by Jim G @ 12:56 pm       Read Comments (4) / Leave a Comment
 
 
TOP PAGE - LATEST BLOG POSTS
« PREVIOUS PAGE -- NEXT PAGE (OLDER POSTS) »
FOR MORE OF MY THOUGHTS, CHECK OUT THE SIDEBAR / ARCHIVES
To blog is human, to read someone's blog, divine
NEED TO WRITE ME? eternalstudent404 (thing above the 2) gmail (thing under the >) com

www.jimgworld.com - THE SIDEBAR - ABOUT ME - PHOTOS
 
OTHER THOUGHTFUL BLOGS:
 
Church of the Churchless
Clear Mountain Zendo, Montclair
Fr. James S. Behrens, Monastery Photoblog
Of Particular Significance, Dr. Strassler's Physics Blog
Weather Willy, NY Metro Area Weather Analysis
Spunkykitty's new Bunny Hopscotch; an indefatigable Aspie artist and now scholar!

Powered by WordPress