Messy Haired Boy and the Un-Kicked Ass

Image by Brymo via Flickr

There was a boy, with messy hair. Too many fears, not many friends. Stuck in his head, crazy thoughts.

He needed an ass-kicking.

He got an education, of a sort. He avoided women and work and women.

He needed an ass-kicking.

The Universe saw he needed an ass-kicking. And stuck a shoe in.

The boy rubbed his ass, sobbing.

The boy has changed a bit, ass hurts a bunch, but yet some messy hair,
but yet some too many fears,
but yet some not many friends,
but yet some stuck in head,
but yet some crazy thoughts,
but yet some avoid women,
but yet some avoid work,
but yet some avoid women.

Image by bunchofpants via Flickr

Boy is better, but not much better.

NEEDS MORE ASS-KICKING!

My Nisbet Gripe, Cont'd

Image via Wikipedia

Michael Tobis - Only In It For The Gold

My Nisbet Gripe, Cont'd: "I have no objection to the idea of framing messages effectively. Until this week, I had no idea why some people were complaining so bitterly about Nisbet.

But Nisbet is in the strange headspace of politics, where science is just a piece of furniture on the landscape of politics. What's more, it's a black box which emits certain very simple results. And when he describes the box, he gets it hopelessly wrong, and uses the bizarre and broken frames of the worst elements of the press.

The problem isn't the concept of framing. The problem is that the guy who has done the best job of staking out 'framing' as his personal territory has about the most toxic set of frames out there for our issues. There is no getting rid of writing to your audience, but the word 'framing' itself isn't all that valuable. If it belongs to Nisbet I don't want it.

One thing I've learned recently is that while in many ways I behave like a journalist, I simply have almost no interest in 'news' any more than I am interested in 'sports'. Events in sports fall clearly into the space of 'don't matter'. In fifty years nobody will remember who won the superbowl this season. In politics, they will remember Obama's name, but little of what he said or did.

As long as we play on the battlefield of week-to-week politics and don't actually look into the science box, we lose the war of words. Yes, the right is disposed against us and the left toward us, pretty much for arbitrary cultural reasons. But the opposition is free to twist the facts and we aren't. So they pick off people as they start to pay attention and the mythology of massive corruption in climate science gets further elaborated.

If we don't play the long game, if we don't try to revive critical thinking and evidence-based reasoning, if we don't go beyond assertion and into explanation, we are playing on the opposition's turf.

Nisbet may have done a good job of describing the opposition's turf, but that is all he knows. He, specifically, is an example of a person lacking a scientific education remotely commensurate with his capacities and interests. His approach embodies the substitution of politics for knowledge.

The long game is our home turf, and we have to stop listening to people who miss that point completely. The absurdly short time scales and shallow symbolic allegiances and frantic half-crazed yuppie obsessions du jour of the beltway and the press are the problem, not the solution.

"

My comment to the post:

I am slack-jawed. You summed up Nisbet perfectly. You communicated better than I could have, exactly how Nisbet rubs me the wrong way. I am compelled to go into detail about how good a job you did.

> Yes, the right is disposed against us and the left toward us, pretty much for arbitrary cultural reasons.

Image by vodstrup via Flickr

A good thing to remember. Once the costs of excess atmospheric carbon dioxide reaches the trillions (with human cultures displaced from drought and flooding, loss of food and wood production from climate change, and loss of ocean protein and nutrition from acidification), the left cannot be counted on to spend scarce resources effectively, because of the need to reward loyal voting blocks. (Not claiming the right will be any better.)

> Nisbet may have done a good job of describing the opposition's turf, but that is all he knows. He, specifically, is an example of a person lacking a scientific education remotely commensurate with his capacities and interests. His approach embodies the substitution of politics for knowledge.

So cruel, and so true.

Preschool, pretty cool!

Honestly, was before my anxieties built up. Starting with first grade, I lived inside my head, and that was not a pleasant place to be.

Man, I am so glad my daughter finds new places and new people fun. If a kid learns nothing else except:

1) that other people are far too interested in themselves to notice you

2) what other people think of you is none of your business

3) not much counts besides ** having a long term vision that you can change as evidence suggests, ** having the ability to stick with a long term plan, ** having the patience to work through the difficulties, ** having the guts to not be afraid of being knocked down, ** having the nerve to stick with it until you achieve success. Every other think is of far far far less importance. No grade in no subject will count as much.

Image via Wikipedia

But, man, these lessons are hard to learn, and US culture does not make it any easier.

Arnold Kling: Status Competition

Arnold Kling: Status Competition: "Arnold Kling's blog posting --

Gordon Wood, in Empire of Liberty, writes:

After all, wealth, compared to birth, breeding, ethnicity, family heritage, gentility, even education, is the least humiliating means by which one person can claim superiority over another; and it is the one most easily matched or overcome by exertion.

Image via Wikipedia

The alleged goal of reducing economic inequality is trumpeted by people who want to strengthen inequality of political power. The goal is to entrench Harvard while delegitimizing those who are less educated. When push comes to shove, political income redistribution favors Insiders over Outsiders. Thus, the bailouts and the continued support for 'too big to fail.' In my view, the biggest threat to America's democratic tradition is not concentration of wealth. It is concentration of political power."

My comment:

> The alleged goal of reducing economic inequality is trumpeted by people who want to strengthen inequality of political power.

I consider myself a "Progressive", but I would nominate your statement as "Really Existing Progressivism described in 25 words or less".

Add " serving themselves" to the end, and you got a winner.

Image via Wikipedia

Anyone who claims to be "Progressive" should explicitly state how they will avoid (or at least mitigate) a self-serving political regime. It is hardly "Progressivism" if the only thing guaranteed is self-serving arrangements by the well-connected self-described "progressives".

Self-satisfaction is a primary human trait

From my experience, even in a relationship with very high leverage (an employer working with an employee), it is practically impossible to motivate somebody to work on any relative deficits, even if the rewards would be considerable.

Self-satisfaction is a primary human trait.

To a first approximation, in a western democracy, the best we can do is corral and socialize humans until the age of 16 (sometimes the age of 20), and hope they pick up the habit of motivating and improving themselves. If that doesn't happen, then corral them for 50 more years, in institutions differentiated by the tiny amount of liberty they allow.

Comment prompted by Arnold Kling in Econlog: Goldin and Katz and Education Policy Failings in Historical Perspective