I had a graduation party with the kids from my Catholic elementary school, since we're all still friends. There was a lot of food left over, so we took home a veggie tray and some cheese. No one in my family likes radishes, though, so we didn't know what to do with them. I didn't really worry about it.
My brothers, benevolent friends to animals that they are, decided to throw them to the rabbits in our yard.
Wait, not to the rabbits. At the rabbits.
I didn't know about it until I heard them talking last night about how Joey hit three of them.
And of course they defended themselves.
"No, Laura, it's not sociopathic."
"The rabbits need food!"
"We're not throwing them hard, really. They slow down because of the air resistance, and they're never high enough for acceleration due to gravity to have much of an effect."
"The rabbits aren't hurt, they're happy! Happy because they love radishes!"
"You just want the rabbits to starve."
"Laura, why do you hate bunnies?"
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Friday, May 30, 2008
Economics and Ethics: A Rant
Mac asked us to keep the blog alive, so I guess I'll share. This is one of those topics that's been bothering me for a while, but that I really can't talk to people in Wilson about with any depth. Be careful what you wish for, I guess.
In the mid-1700s, Francis Hutchenson, one of Adam Smith's instructors at Glasgow, wrote A Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy. In the section entitled "The Principles of Oeconomics and Politics," we get a few chapters on marriage and divorce, roles within a household (parent/child, master/servant) and the duties and responsibilities of household members. Otherwise, the section is pretty much devoted to politics. It's only when you get to the section entitled "Elements of the Law of Nature" that you get anything about property, money, and prices. These, apparently, were not a part of "oeconomics."
Hutchenson wasn't being dense. "Oeconomics," as it was understood until about the 1750, mostly had to do with household management, politics, or even management in a more general sense. Xenophon's Oikonomikos was fundimentally a work of ethics, and it is worth noting that Adam Smith himself was primarily a moralist. Economics was not a science, it was a field concerned with obtaining "the good life," starting at the home and later branching out into a larger, national sense on the level of the state.
What's struck me as I read more about modern economics is the almost total reversal that's taken place when we talk about the role of ethics in economic analysis. Economists have an almost painfully self-conscious desire to be scientists, and part of this desire to avoid nonscientific analysis is an attempt to aviod the kind of moral baggage that their forerunners attached to their analyses. Aside from the pure silliness that comes with a man studying social constructs trying to present himself on the same level of material objectivity as, say, a chemist (really, guys? really?), it has some implications that really disturb me.
Economics is all about choice. And in a context where (1) alternatives are pretty loaded, morally (for example, the choice between feeding the poor through social programs or letting them starve until the market corrects itself) and (2) alternatives are laid out with at least the hypothetical expectation of implimentation ("There is no such thing as a free abstraction"), even the apparent lack of preference on the part of the economist represents a moral choice in and of itself. In other words, by presenting "aid the needy" and "let them eat cake" as equally valid alternatives, their respective consequences described without comment, the economist has made an ethical statement, and a fairly disturbing one at that.
Economists try to run from this problem with a weird kind of number fetishism (under the assumption, I suppose, that numbers speak for themselves and therefore do not require an analysis that isn't completely factual), but all that it has really accomplished is to have made the field one of incomplete analysis. So, for example, we talk about GDP because it is easily measured, but we are less comfortable talking about the actual standard of living of the citizenry. We talk about production levels in a capitalist system, but we are less comfortable talking about waste (in contexts other than efficiency within production). These are important issues, but recieve little attention.
As much as I loathe his ideology and his propagandistic techniques, in this sense I really do have a deep respect for Milton Friedman. Friedman did not simply say, "the market is self-correcting, unless its normal fluctuations are impeded by state intervention," but actually went further, interpreted that conclusion as one that implies a certain ideology, and defended the logical ethical conclusions of that ideology. (A less repugnant example of an economist who is also willing to moralize might be someone like Galbraith or Stiglitz, but TASP nostalgia made Friedman hard to resist.)
Economics needs ideologues. Writing that almost makes me cringe, and you can bet that you will never hear me say that about another field as long as I live. But I think it's incredibly important. Fuck "political economy," fuck "social science." We need a "moral economy." Economists are and have always been closely linked to questions of social organization and policy-making. Scientists and mathematicians can tell us how to get where we are going, but they cannot tell us where we must go. For that, we need moralists, we need a vision. In a field so closely linked to politics, it is unspeakably irresponsible to shirk this responsibility.
I know more TASPers than myself are going into Econ, or planning to, at least. For fuck's sake, don't become one of those assholes who creates elaborate models to determine the impact of a 0.1% change in the interest rate. Don't sit around in a pressed suit and ask a table full of identically-dressed balding men whether we're bulls or bears. You, of all people, need to be the ones to shape our world, or to at least have the spine to try.
In the mid-1700s, Francis Hutchenson, one of Adam Smith's instructors at Glasgow, wrote A Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy. In the section entitled "The Principles of Oeconomics and Politics," we get a few chapters on marriage and divorce, roles within a household (parent/child, master/servant) and the duties and responsibilities of household members. Otherwise, the section is pretty much devoted to politics. It's only when you get to the section entitled "Elements of the Law of Nature" that you get anything about property, money, and prices. These, apparently, were not a part of "oeconomics."
Hutchenson wasn't being dense. "Oeconomics," as it was understood until about the 1750, mostly had to do with household management, politics, or even management in a more general sense. Xenophon's Oikonomikos was fundimentally a work of ethics, and it is worth noting that Adam Smith himself was primarily a moralist. Economics was not a science, it was a field concerned with obtaining "the good life," starting at the home and later branching out into a larger, national sense on the level of the state.
What's struck me as I read more about modern economics is the almost total reversal that's taken place when we talk about the role of ethics in economic analysis. Economists have an almost painfully self-conscious desire to be scientists, and part of this desire to avoid nonscientific analysis is an attempt to aviod the kind of moral baggage that their forerunners attached to their analyses. Aside from the pure silliness that comes with a man studying social constructs trying to present himself on the same level of material objectivity as, say, a chemist (really, guys? really?), it has some implications that really disturb me.
Economics is all about choice. And in a context where (1) alternatives are pretty loaded, morally (for example, the choice between feeding the poor through social programs or letting them starve until the market corrects itself) and (2) alternatives are laid out with at least the hypothetical expectation of implimentation ("There is no such thing as a free abstraction"), even the apparent lack of preference on the part of the economist represents a moral choice in and of itself. In other words, by presenting "aid the needy" and "let them eat cake" as equally valid alternatives, their respective consequences described without comment, the economist has made an ethical statement, and a fairly disturbing one at that.
Economists try to run from this problem with a weird kind of number fetishism (under the assumption, I suppose, that numbers speak for themselves and therefore do not require an analysis that isn't completely factual), but all that it has really accomplished is to have made the field one of incomplete analysis. So, for example, we talk about GDP because it is easily measured, but we are less comfortable talking about the actual standard of living of the citizenry. We talk about production levels in a capitalist system, but we are less comfortable talking about waste (in contexts other than efficiency within production). These are important issues, but recieve little attention.
As much as I loathe his ideology and his propagandistic techniques, in this sense I really do have a deep respect for Milton Friedman. Friedman did not simply say, "the market is self-correcting, unless its normal fluctuations are impeded by state intervention," but actually went further, interpreted that conclusion as one that implies a certain ideology, and defended the logical ethical conclusions of that ideology. (A less repugnant example of an economist who is also willing to moralize might be someone like Galbraith or Stiglitz, but TASP nostalgia made Friedman hard to resist.)
Economics needs ideologues. Writing that almost makes me cringe, and you can bet that you will never hear me say that about another field as long as I live. But I think it's incredibly important. Fuck "political economy," fuck "social science." We need a "moral economy." Economists are and have always been closely linked to questions of social organization and policy-making. Scientists and mathematicians can tell us how to get where we are going, but they cannot tell us where we must go. For that, we need moralists, we need a vision. In a field so closely linked to politics, it is unspeakably irresponsible to shirk this responsibility.
I know more TASPers than myself are going into Econ, or planning to, at least. For fuck's sake, don't become one of those assholes who creates elaborate models to determine the impact of a 0.1% change in the interest rate. Don't sit around in a pressed suit and ask a table full of identically-dressed balding men whether we're bulls or bears. You, of all people, need to be the ones to shape our world, or to at least have the spine to try.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Empty White Chairs
It seems as if the blog has died a little of late. I assume this has something to do with end-of-year formalities. I hope everyone is having fun at their wild shindigs and graduation ceremonies. Mine was destroyed by rain.
The graduating class was divided into groups, with one third graduating in the auditorium, and the rest of us in the gym. The orchestra, choir and band didn't get to play, because there wasn't enough room, so they used a recording of Pomp & Circumstance instead. Our commencement speaker, a friend of mine who is apparently a fabulous writer, had to record her speech earlier in the day, to be played in the auditorium. We in the gym got the real thing, and it was moving. I almost cried. There was a pall over the whole night. We could only have three guests per graduating student, so none of the younger students got to see us graduate, and for those whose families flew out to see the graduation, I imagine that graduation was not the best day ever.
Empty white chairs will be all that I remember of that night. The day before graduation, my friends and I went out to the football field, where graduation is normally held. They'd already put out the chairs for the graduating class, so there were rows and rows of empty white chairs facing an empty, blue-carpeted platform. Behind it were the risers for the choir and a stack of orchestra chairs. Tammy (my friend) wouldn't let any of us step on the blue carpet. She told us that we would have to wait until tomorrow night.
The next morning, we had to wake up unfortunately early for graduation practice, where they laid out the protocol in the event of rain. We all sat in uncomfortable white chairs, waiting while Mr. Gehrman, our principal, filled us in on Plan B. As it turns out, Plan B became the Plan. After a series of whirlwind visits to the junior classes, the senior AP English class went to Mrs. White's Golden Rule Cafe for Soul Food Day with our teacher. By the way, yams are delicious. As we came back from Soul Food Day, we passed by the stadium again. I saw the rows of empty white chairs again, and I think it was then that I decided they ought to be significant in some way, an unfulfilled promise to the graduating class of '08. Don't hate, oh-eight.
By this time, it was drizzling slightly. There were texts being buzzed around town, filled with inspirational cries of rebellion: "The class of '08 started together, the class of '08 will end together!" Viva la revolucion. Obviously, despite the fervor with which it seems the entire class of '08 opposed Plan B, the uprising failed. By the time I got to school for the graduation, I didn't hear any kind of dissent against what was now, officially, the Plan.
Ironically enough, at graduation time, there was no rain whatsoever. It looked like things might be clearing up. They didn't. In fact, things got much worse in the course of graduation. It was probably a good thing that we stayed inside. Marcos de Niza High School had theirs outside, and from all accounts, everyone was miserable. As it turned out, the post-graduation felicitations were much more heartfelt than might have been expected. Having been driven apart by Fate, we were far more inclined to cling to each other. The hugs were tighter, the smiles were bigger, and the laughs were louder.
Obviously, since I'd already decided that the empty white chairs were significant, I made sure to study them before we left. They were still sitting out on the field, empty, wet and soaking. I stole one for my friend Woody.
The rest of the night was filled with celebrations of a more traditional sort, and I forgot all about being a high school graduate. On the way back from Chris Lue Sang's graduation shindig, we noticed that the stadium lights were still on at our school, so we swung by again (Incidentally, I have no idea why the lights were on in the first place, if they weren't planning on having the graduation out there). The chairs were still there, and they were still being beaten by the rain. With the lights blazing, and the empty bleachers waiting for an audience, there was a definite air of expectancy. I would like to think they're still waiting, transported into a different dimension, for the class of '08 to return and graduate.
Anyway, I just thought you all should know what happened on my graduation night. Tell me all about yours! Or if it hasn't happened yet, then tell me about something else equally fascinating. Forgive me if my prose waxes obnoxious. These are just some thoughts that have been running through my head of late. You all need to show me how to write better. Try writing something in the blog, so I can have some examples. The blog must be revived! Viva la blog!
The graduating class was divided into groups, with one third graduating in the auditorium, and the rest of us in the gym. The orchestra, choir and band didn't get to play, because there wasn't enough room, so they used a recording of Pomp & Circumstance instead. Our commencement speaker, a friend of mine who is apparently a fabulous writer, had to record her speech earlier in the day, to be played in the auditorium. We in the gym got the real thing, and it was moving. I almost cried. There was a pall over the whole night. We could only have three guests per graduating student, so none of the younger students got to see us graduate, and for those whose families flew out to see the graduation, I imagine that graduation was not the best day ever.
Empty white chairs will be all that I remember of that night. The day before graduation, my friends and I went out to the football field, where graduation is normally held. They'd already put out the chairs for the graduating class, so there were rows and rows of empty white chairs facing an empty, blue-carpeted platform. Behind it were the risers for the choir and a stack of orchestra chairs. Tammy (my friend) wouldn't let any of us step on the blue carpet. She told us that we would have to wait until tomorrow night.
The next morning, we had to wake up unfortunately early for graduation practice, where they laid out the protocol in the event of rain. We all sat in uncomfortable white chairs, waiting while Mr. Gehrman, our principal, filled us in on Plan B. As it turns out, Plan B became the Plan. After a series of whirlwind visits to the junior classes, the senior AP English class went to Mrs. White's Golden Rule Cafe for Soul Food Day with our teacher. By the way, yams are delicious. As we came back from Soul Food Day, we passed by the stadium again. I saw the rows of empty white chairs again, and I think it was then that I decided they ought to be significant in some way, an unfulfilled promise to the graduating class of '08. Don't hate, oh-eight.
By this time, it was drizzling slightly. There were texts being buzzed around town, filled with inspirational cries of rebellion: "The class of '08 started together, the class of '08 will end together!" Viva la revolucion. Obviously, despite the fervor with which it seems the entire class of '08 opposed Plan B, the uprising failed. By the time I got to school for the graduation, I didn't hear any kind of dissent against what was now, officially, the Plan.
Ironically enough, at graduation time, there was no rain whatsoever. It looked like things might be clearing up. They didn't. In fact, things got much worse in the course of graduation. It was probably a good thing that we stayed inside. Marcos de Niza High School had theirs outside, and from all accounts, everyone was miserable. As it turned out, the post-graduation felicitations were much more heartfelt than might have been expected. Having been driven apart by Fate, we were far more inclined to cling to each other. The hugs were tighter, the smiles were bigger, and the laughs were louder.
Obviously, since I'd already decided that the empty white chairs were significant, I made sure to study them before we left. They were still sitting out on the field, empty, wet and soaking. I stole one for my friend Woody.
The rest of the night was filled with celebrations of a more traditional sort, and I forgot all about being a high school graduate. On the way back from Chris Lue Sang's graduation shindig, we noticed that the stadium lights were still on at our school, so we swung by again (Incidentally, I have no idea why the lights were on in the first place, if they weren't planning on having the graduation out there). The chairs were still there, and they were still being beaten by the rain. With the lights blazing, and the empty bleachers waiting for an audience, there was a definite air of expectancy. I would like to think they're still waiting, transported into a different dimension, for the class of '08 to return and graduate.
Anyway, I just thought you all should know what happened on my graduation night. Tell me all about yours! Or if it hasn't happened yet, then tell me about something else equally fascinating. Forgive me if my prose waxes obnoxious. These are just some thoughts that have been running through my head of late. You all need to show me how to write better. Try writing something in the blog, so I can have some examples. The blog must be revived! Viva la blog!
Friday, May 9, 2008
Who does this remind YOU of?
So I was watching Across the Universe the other day for the 500th time and for those of you haven't seen it, well...it's your loss. Anyway, I was watching it and then it occured to me that Bono's lines in this scene bear an uncanny resemblance to a certain "theosopher's" insightful words we had the pleasure of listening to on the peace sign that one memorable evening. Or maybe not....it just reminded me of it. My memory may actually be screwed up and I could actually be completely wrong and you'll all read this and watch this and be like what the fuck is she talking about but maybe this was my way of getting all of you to watch part of this movie or perhaps just my way of saying, "Hey!" So here you go...sorry the quality is quite poor. I was excited that I managed to find this scene on youtube in the first place. Oh and I hope everyone's APs and IBs and such are going well. And you don't have to watch the whole thing just that one part.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
"Dude! Africa!"
I was recently reminded of this article by novelist Uzodinma Iweala. It ran in the WaPo last summer, and my mom actually mailed to me when I was at TASP. I thought of it after hearing that a group of students from my school had gone to lobby Congress for money for the education of children in "developing" countries.
While this may be a worthy cause (although I'm sure Gayatri Spivak would have something to say about the transmission of Anglo-American values through US-funded education systems), I'm absolutely infuriated by the idea that Congress would send ed money to other countries while schools just blocks away from the Capitol are understaffed, dilapidated, and lacking basic resources like clean drinking water and textbooks. But that's not really the point here.
"...There is no African, myself included, who does not appreciate the help of the wider world, but we do question whether aid is genuine or given in the spirit of affirming one's cultural superiority. My mood is dampened every time I attend a benefit whose host runs through a litany of African disasters before presenting a (usually) wealthy, white person, who often proceeds to list the things he or she has done for the poor, starving Africans. Every time a well-meaning college student speaks of villagers dancing because they were so grateful for her help, I cringe. Every time a Hollywood director shoots a film about Africa that features a Western protagonist, I shake my head -- because Africans, real people though we may be, are used as props in the West's fantasy of itself. And not only do such depictions tend to ignore the West's prominent role in creating many of the unfortunate situations on the continent, they also ignore the incredible work Africans have done and continue to do to fix those problems...
Two years ago I worked in a camp for internally displaced people in Nigeria, survivors of an uprising that killed about 1,000 people and displaced 200,000. True to form, the Western media reported on the violence but not on the humanitarian work the state and local governments -- without much international help -- did for the survivors. Social workers spent their time and in many cases their own salaries to care for their compatriots. These are the people saving Africa, and others like them across the continent get no credit for their work.
Last [June] the Group of Eight industrialized nations and a host of celebrities met in Germany to discuss, among other things, how to save Africa. Before the next such summit, I hope people will realize Africa doesn't want to be saved. Africa wants the world to acknowledge that through fair partnerships with other members of the global community, we ourselves are capable of unprecedented growth."
from "Stop Trying to 'Save' Africa" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/13/AR2007071301714.html)
I pose this question to you all: which is more important, giving aid (keeping in mind that financial assistance has produced valuable successes as well as miserable failures in many of these contries) or avoiding the development of quasi-colonial dependency in countries receiving it?
While this may be a worthy cause (although I'm sure Gayatri Spivak would have something to say about the transmission of Anglo-American values through US-funded education systems), I'm absolutely infuriated by the idea that Congress would send ed money to other countries while schools just blocks away from the Capitol are understaffed, dilapidated, and lacking basic resources like clean drinking water and textbooks. But that's not really the point here.
"...There is no African, myself included, who does not appreciate the help of the wider world, but we do question whether aid is genuine or given in the spirit of affirming one's cultural superiority. My mood is dampened every time I attend a benefit whose host runs through a litany of African disasters before presenting a (usually) wealthy, white person, who often proceeds to list the things he or she has done for the poor, starving Africans. Every time a well-meaning college student speaks of villagers dancing because they were so grateful for her help, I cringe. Every time a Hollywood director shoots a film about Africa that features a Western protagonist, I shake my head -- because Africans, real people though we may be, are used as props in the West's fantasy of itself. And not only do such depictions tend to ignore the West's prominent role in creating many of the unfortunate situations on the continent, they also ignore the incredible work Africans have done and continue to do to fix those problems...
Two years ago I worked in a camp for internally displaced people in Nigeria, survivors of an uprising that killed about 1,000 people and displaced 200,000. True to form, the Western media reported on the violence but not on the humanitarian work the state and local governments -- without much international help -- did for the survivors. Social workers spent their time and in many cases their own salaries to care for their compatriots. These are the people saving Africa, and others like them across the continent get no credit for their work.
Last [June] the Group of Eight industrialized nations and a host of celebrities met in Germany to discuss, among other things, how to save Africa. Before the next such summit, I hope people will realize Africa doesn't want to be saved. Africa wants the world to acknowledge that through fair partnerships with other members of the global community, we ourselves are capable of unprecedented growth."
from "Stop Trying to 'Save' Africa" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/13/AR2007071301714.html)
I pose this question to you all: which is more important, giving aid (keeping in mind that financial assistance has produced valuable successes as well as miserable failures in many of these contries) or avoiding the development of quasi-colonial dependency in countries receiving it?
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
You guys, this is so apocalyptic!
Fermilab cited in suit to freeze Swiss accelerator
Switzerland has a long legacy of peaceful neutrality, but two men claim that Swiss scientists are building a device that could destroy the universe.
Walter Wagner, a former radiation safety officer for the Veterans Administration who studied physics at University of California–Berkeley, and Luis Sancho, a self-professed time-theory researcher, have filed suit to halt construction on the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) until their safety concerns are satisfied. The U of C’s Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) is one of the defendants in the lawsuit.
The Geneva-based LHC will become the world’s largest and highest-energy particle accelerator when unveiled this summer under the auspices of the European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN). The $8-billion endeavor is an international collaborative effort involving scientists from dozens of countries and universities.
The collider will raise protons to energies approaching seven trillion electron volts before slamming them together in an attempt to produce the Higgs boson and other elementary particles that would help move scientists closer to a Grand Unified Theory of physics.
But Wagner and Sancho claim that these experiments will produce dangerous materials as well. One such possibility they suggest is the creation of strangelets, altered subatomic particles that would change the earth into a dense mass of exotic “strange matter.”
They also said that the creation of mini black holes inside the accelerator could grow to consume the earth or even our entire universe.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Hawaii, also charges CERN with failing to file an environmental impact statement as required by the U.S.’s National Environmental Policy Act.
Wagner and Sancho are seeking a restraining order to stop CERN from proceeding with the LHC until new environmental and safety studies can be completed. CERN would have to voluntarily submit to the court’s jurisdiction, but the suit also names Fermilab, the Department of Energy (DOE), and the National Science Foundation as defendants.
Fermilab and the DOE are building key components for the LHC, so restraining orders against them could slow or halt the project.
CERN physicists said that they have made efforts to ensure the LHC is not dangerous.
“There is nothing new to suggest that the LHC is unsafe,” said James Gillies, CERN’s head of communications, in an interview with The New York Times last week. “Scientifically, we’re not hiding away.”
A 2003 CERN internal review determined that the likelihood of apocalyptic results from the LHC is negligible.
But Wagner remains unconvinced.
“They’ve got a lot of propaganda saying it’s safe, but basically it’s propaganda,” he told the Times. He said that CERN’s safety reviews were “fundamentally flawed” and weren’t conducted by disinterested parties.
Fermilab scientists and spokespeople would not comment on the pending lawsuit, deferring all questions to public affairs at the Department of Justice (DOJ). DOJ staff members, however, have also declined to comment.
But Edward Kolb, chair of the Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University, who spent a year working at CERN, said the suit is without scientific merit.
“I am much more concerned about Godzilla arising from Lake Michigan and cavorting about in Hyde Park than about collisions at CERN causing the end of the world,” Kolb said in an e-mail interview with the Maroon.
Kolb explained that cosmic rays strike the Earth’s atmosphere thousands of times per day with energies equal to or greater than those that will be produced in the LHC.
“If doomsday from energetic particle collisions was a possibility, it would have happened a long time ago,” he said.
However, the collisions of cosmic rays produce particles that fly away from the earth at near–light speed, while those in the LHC will stick around much longer. Some of these particles might form mini black holes. Physicist Stephen Hawking postulated in 1974 that such mini black holes were harmless and would quickly evaporate, but whether these black holes would be stable enough to consume the earth remains an open question.
Kolb added that if Wagner and Sancho are so worried about CERN, they should consider lobbying Congress to “ban cosmic radiation altogether.”
“Preliminary results point to the cosmic rays originating from gigantic black holes in distant galaxies. If Mr. Wagner’s concerns have any merit, then according to the [Bush] Administration’s policy of preemptive action, those galaxies must be immediately destroyed,” Kolb said.
Wagner unsuccessfully filed a similar lawsuit in 1999 to stop operation of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory. Since 2000, the RHIC has operated without incident.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
