Musings of the Great Eric

Once again, the perfect metaphor can be found in Monty Python:

The answer is actually pretty interesting.

Or perhaps I should properly call it a theory - but it’s a powerful one. It also explains why video game consoles came from Japan but the PC games industry is dominated by American firms, and why the Japanese mobile market is so much more advanced than the American one.

What I find real interesting about it is that it’s basically a modern application of Jared Diamond’s thesis in Guns, Germs, and Steel - the technological development of a society is limited and shaped by physical constraints. In this case, the physical constraint is the alphabet.

So the reason Steve Jobs (or Bill Gates, or the entirety of silicon valley for that matter) are Americans has nothing to do with some nationalistic statement about the superiority of one culture over another. While they deserve credit as individuals, their ascent was made possible in part because the English alphabet was easily encodable on 8-bit computers. Their Japanese equivalents, whoever they might have been, faced an insurmountable constraint during these formative years of the PC revolution.

The author of the link deserves a lot of credit, because despite being familiar with this thesis, it still never would have occurred to me to look at the alphabet as the reason Japan and America took such divergent technological tracks. It really makes me wonder what other fundamental aspects of our world and culture are hindering us (or propelling us along) that we just never give any thought to.

I’m not sure what the wisdom of mining Harold and Kumar for social commentary is, its creators have offered up one of the most prescient insights into our culture that I’ve seen recently:

Mr. Hurwitz and Mr. Schlossberg, who grew up in Randolph, N.J., have known each other since high school, where the idea of Harold and Kumar took root. “We always had a very multicultural group of friends,” Mr. Hurwitz said. “One thing that struck us was that no matter our ethnic background, we were very much alike. But whenever we saw Asian or Indian characters on screen, they were nothing like our friends, so we thought we would write characters like them.” (Mr. Cho’s character is based on an actual Harold Lee. Mr. Hurwitz and Mr. Schlossberg are Jewish, as are Harold and Kumar’s best buddies.)

The signal achievement of both Harold and Kumar films is that they make race incidental without taking racism lightly; they presuppose an enlightened audience. “When we start to write, we’re under the assumption that everyone knows racism is bad,” Mr. Schlossberg said. “If you don’t know that, you’re a moron. Harold and Kumar’s attitude toward racism is more frustration at having to deal with idiocy than moral outrage. We try to create a world where racism is stupid.”

This has been my experience exactly, among my generation and especially amongst those younger than me (I’m 25).

I’ve observed mixed groups throw around words like Nigger, Jew, and Gay both as insults and terms of affection, in front of and sometimes directed at people to whom those terms would apply - and without anyone taking offense or intending it. In context, the behavior is so normal that I hardly even notice it except when I step back and take a broader view.

At the same time, I cannot imagine ever using those words in a group of older people, regardless of the context or group make up. They still live in a different world.

I think what’s going on with that kind of language is exactly what’s stated in the quoted bit. The terms aren’t being used as a way to reinforce stereotypes, but rather in a way that makes fun of the stereotypes themselves - because the stereotypes are, quite simply, stupid.

So Microsoft announced something interesting today, Live Mesh. It’s in limited beta mode now, but it shouldn’t be too long before Microsoft opens it up to the public. Techcrunch has the details. In a nutshell, it’s part file sharing, part backup, part synchronization. It’s kind of reminiscent of Apple’s Dotmac, but goes a fair bit beyond that.

While I haven’t played with it yet, and while I’m sure it’s still buggy and far from feature complete, it seems very neat, and earns Microsoft a rare kudos. If this is the indicative of the direction Ray Ozzie is going to be taking the company… there might still be some life in it yet.

The big problem? Microsoft needed to do this three or four years ago. It should have been a core part of Vista. Better late than never, I suppose - but whereas this might have kept me as a customer four years ago, now they’re at a point of needing to win me back. Mesh doesn’t quite reach that bar, at least not yet.

At this point my home network is a mish mash of computing platforms - I run Vista, OS X, and Ubuntu. Google Docs, while not nearly as elegant as MS Word, solves the synchronization problem for me, and Amazon S3 handles offsite backup. I might be getting a Blackberry or an iPhone at some point in the future.

To get me to switch, Microsoft needs to develop mesh into something that not only works across all these platforms, but proves itself to be a superior solution to anything that Google, Apple, or anyone else might offer.

“I felt so sorry for you when Bill had his affair,” the woman said. “I think the best way to overcome it is to become president.”

(source).

I’m fascinated by the “average voter”. It’s kind of like watching a slow motion train wreck… horrific, yet I can’t make myself turn away…

Jon Stewart last night, once again proving why he’s the most trusted newsman in America:

As one learns more about history, the shine tends to come off of a lot of its heroes. We learn that many of the historical figures we put on a pedestal were in fact human beings, who often made mistakes and came complete with moral failings. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, George Washington could and did lie, Thomas Edison was kind of a huge dick, and JFK had more foreign policy bungles than he had successes in his unfortunately short term in office.

Martin Luther King Jr., however, is an exception to that rule. The more I’ve learned about him, the more inspiring he’s become. He stood for what was right, without compromise, and spent his life fighting for those beliefs. His life was tragically cut short forty years ago today.

After the jump is the text from his last speech, delivered in Memphis Tennessee on April 3, 1968: (more…)

Explanation, via NASA’s Image of the Day. View it in its full size glory.

Every once in a while you just have to sit back and marvel at this age of wonders we live in. This incredible place exists nowhere on Earth. And unlike every similar photo from Earth you might see, there’s not a living thing to be found anywhere in this image. This is a photo taken on another planet, transmitted across space, and brought to your computer screen.

Amazing.

Via Dani Rodrik, this graph:

In a nutshell, under Republican Administrations, the richest see their incomes grow the fastest, and the poorest see it grow the slowest - inequality increases. Under Democrats, every income group gets richer faster, with the poorest seeing their incomes rise the fastest - five times faster than under Republicans. Wow.

The graph comes from Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels’ new book, soon to be released. Now quoting Rodrik:

Bartels shows in his book that this difference is not a statistical artifact or a fluke.  It is not the result of Democrats coming to power during better economic times, or of Republicans reining in the unsustainable excesses of Democratic administrations they replace. (It turns out that the same pattern prevails even when a Republican president is succeeded by another Republican.) These numbers are real and they are the outcome of partisan differences in policy. So if you are one of those who have bought the story that income distribution is the result of pure market forces and technological changes, with politics playing no role–think again.

I haven’t read the book, so for the moment I’m just taking the data at face value, and assuming that Bartels did his homework and controlled for all other variables. But the idea here isn’t new; Paul Krugman has argued often and convincingly that inequality is tied to public policy, especially under the Bush Administration.

The idea that the President has such an influence on policy, which in turn has such an influence on the economy and income distribution is a pretty profound one with some pretty disturbing implications - that’s an insane amount of power vested in one individual. But to be honest, I don’t have the faintest clue what might be done about that and consequently won’t say any more on it.

A more direct and obvious question though (which Rodrik asks) is why the hell do people vote Republican? Like, ever?

There have been a multitude of theories put out there. Thomas Frank put forward the most compelling theory in What’s the Matter with Kansas?, arguing that Republicans use social issues (like abortion and gay marriage) to get people to vote against their own economic interests. Krugman argued in Conscience of a Liberal that it comes down to good old fashioned racism. In my view there’s no silver bullet explanation - politics and voting behavior are complex beasts.

Given that the Republican party isn’t even able to significantly improve the economic outlook for the very wealthy compared to Democrats, it does beg the question of why even that group supports them, given economic history. They’ve got to be fooling themselves before they get around to fooling the lower classes that vote Republican - and that’s damn interesting.

As only Monty Python can explain it:

Remember that infamous 3 AM red phone ad Clinton played right before the Texas primary?

It was wrong on a number of levels, not least of which because the person people want to answer that phone is McCain rather than Clinton. As it turns out, it’s also pretty ironic, because the girl sound asleep at 3 AM in that ad is actually an Obama supporter and precinct captain, and has shot her own ad for Obama:

Thus teaching the Clinton campaign an important lesson about the dangers of using stock footage.

Obama’s speech yesterday, in full.

I didn’t have the chance to post this yesterday, because I’d wanted to say something more substantial than what was already being said about it. But since then I’ve come to the conclusion that I can’t say anything to either add or detract to it. I can only encourage others to listen to it - in its entirety - and show our fellow Americans that we really are as good, as mature, as intelligent as he believes us to be.

RIP, Arthur C. Clarke, 1917-2008

It’s rare that the death of someone I never personally met affects me; but I read this headline and immediately felt sad.

His contributions to science, science fiction and literature are more than I’ll make any attempt to list here. I shall forever admire his creativity regarding what’s possible; and he was one of the authors who helped to ignite my own imagination as well as my love of science. He’ll be greatly missed.

The video is his last message to Earth, from about three months ago on his 90th birthday:

The most appropriate obituary I can imagine is credited to a comment on Reddit:

The death of any sufficiently brilliant man is indistinguishable from immortality

The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms - greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge - has marked the upward surge of mankind, and greed - you mark my words - will not only save Teldar Paper but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA. Thank you. - Wall Street, 1987

Of course, the Reagan-era economy  that Michael Douglas’ character summed up so well here looked positively sane and egalitarian compared to the Bush economy now imploding around us.

I honestly don’t know enough about financial markets to comment intelligently upon what’s happening today, other than observing that words like “emergency” and “crisis” are being tossed around by many commentators, joining the talk of “recession” that’s been present for the last few weeks. But I thought it would be worth revisiting the fundamental idea that got us into this mess, which obviously has yet to change in the minds of some on Wall Street.

Greed is not good. Maybe this time we’ll actually learn that lesson.

Lyrics are mine, but with a hat tip to the excellent Tom Tomorrow and this classic Onion article for the inspiration, as well as the original Spider-Man theme song.

9/11 man, 9/11 man
Does whatever 9/11 can
Makes bold claims, every size
Just like Bush, they’re all lies
Look out! Here comes 9/11 man.

Is he dumb? Listen man
Now he wants to bomb Iran
Can he be that corrupt?
Take a look, there’s Bernard Kerik
Hey there, there goes 9/11 man!

In the chill of night
On the city’s dime
With the help of NYPD
His mistress is right on time…

9/11 man, 9/11 man
Friendly crossdressing 9/11 man
The FDNY, he’s ignored
9/11 was his reward

To him, life is a big terror attack
Even when it comes to Iraq
You’ll find the 9/11 man!

The Daily Show writers on the writer’s strike:

An observation: This clip is a little rough, but remarkably entertaining, and manages to capture that Daily Show goodness.

A further observation: This clip got from the writers brains to my eyes (and now yours) completely without the aid of a producer, distributer, cable network, or giant media conglomerate.

It seems clear to me what Viacom need writers for - clearly, its overpaid CEO isn’t capable of stepping up and churning out anything that anyone would want to watch, let alone pay money for. What the writers need Viacom for… that’s less clear. Especially given that this strike is primarily over residuals for internet revenues, which the writers have proven here that they’re more than competent enough to get on their own.

Now, the last time the writers struck, Viacom (and its equivalents) were providing a critical service to anyone with talent - they were the only entity capable of distributing media to a wide audience. Now, they’re just a middle man between the talent and the audience, offering a service that’s fast being commoditized. I wonder if any of the writers will figure that out, and look to cut them out of the equation for good?

When asked who my “hero” or “role model” is, my answer is and shall forever be “none” - but Einstein has always ranked a close second. He’s always been an individual that held a particular fascination for me, and someone in whom I’ve always found a lot to admire. So it was with a lot of interest that I picked up the biography Einstein: His Life and Universe by Walter Isaacson, and I’m happy to say it does justice to my almost-hero. It really is an engaging account of his life, and shows why Einstein is such an iconic figure of science.

For those who might be wondering, the book does include a great deal of scientific discussion and explanation, as it’s impossible to separate from Einstein’s life and key to understanding him. Suffice to say that I think that Isaacson does an excellent job explaining it in an accessible matter and integrating it into the larger story. His descriptions of Einstein’s insights are among the clearest that I’ve ever read, effectively explaining both the ideas and what made those ideas revolutionary. Most interesting to me was that the author placed the theory of relativity in context - both the historical context of scientific thought at the time, and more importantly perhaps, the context of Einstein’s life. The theory is explained not as an end in of itself, but for what his methods and insights reveal about his thought processes and character.

(If you’re curious about the science, Einstein’s own book on the subject Relativity: The Special and General Theory was written for the layman and is very readable.)

After all, the book is a biography first and foremost, and the main thrust is to study the human being rather than the physics. And it’s the descriptions of Einstein the person that make it such a wonderful read. As I said above, I’ve always been fascinated by Einstein - he’s a remarkable individual, and this biography illustrates why.

Naturally, the most fascinating aspect of Einstein is his genius. This is a man who in 1905 revolutionized our understanding of the universe, while working as a patent clerk. The author makes clear that though this was his crowning achievement that was never quite matched by anything later in his career, his unparalleled genius is still ever present throughout his life and work.

I wish I could say that I identify with this aspect of the man, but alas, I don’t - it’s people like him that make me feel deeply humbled and highly aware the limits of my own mind and intelligence. What I do identify strongly with is his humanity. I share (or at least, hold a respect for) many of his ideas about politics, religion, and his philosophy of science and beliefs about nature. Einstein was a fierce individualist, nonconformist, as well as a kind, humble, and thoughtful human being. He’s at least as notable for his idealism and political beliefs as he is for his science (Einstein’s essay Why Socialism? is another good read). This biography captures all those traits, as well as offers a path to understanding how and why they manifested in him as they did.

What I perhaps liked most about the biography itself was simply the humanizing treatment of its subject. Einstein was a real person, and like all people he had his personality flaws. He was not infallible, and certainly not when it came to his interpersonal relationships. The author did not portray him as a hero, a God of science, or perfect genius, but as a complete human being. I feel that discussing these human weaknesses helped to underscore his strengths. More historical figures should get such a treatment, as it makes them far easier to identify with. It’s much easier to aspire to greatness when we realize that even the greatest among us were far from perfect.

Overall, it’s readable, enjoyable, and interesting, and comes with a high recommendation from me.

A prophecy:

When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental — men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or be lost… All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.’ The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. - H.L. Mencken, Baltimore Sun, July 26 1920

Come true:

Q: Mr. President, back to your grade point average on holding the line on taxes –

THE PRESIDENT: Whew, I thought you were going to talk about the actual grade point average. (Laughter.) I remind people that, like when I’m with Condi I say, she’s the Ph.D. and I’m the C-student, and just look at who’s the President and who’s the advisor. (Laughter.) But go ahead.

- George W. Bush, Press Conference, September 20, 2007

It’s interesting to hear Bush sum up exactly what Mencken said in so many words. Look who’s the President, indeed.

And one other quip about his own intelligence from that same press conference:

Q: Do you think there’s a risk of a recession? How do you rate that?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, you need to talk to economists. I think I got a B in Econ 101. I got an A, however, in keeping taxes low — (laughter) — and being fiscally responsible with the people’s money. We’ve submitted a plan that will enable this budget to become balanced by 2012, so long as Congress learns to set priorities. And we can balance the budget without raising taxes. - George W. Bush, Press Conference, September 20, 2007

(Actually, he was more correct in the first quote; he was a C student through and through. And the quip about getting an A in fiscal responsibility… I won’t even dignify that comment with further acknowledgment.)

Of all the peculiarities of human nature, anti-intellectualism is the one that confounds me the most. What is it about being a moron that makes you want to be governed by fellow morons, rather than someone who’s more intelligent? Why would one actively and enthusiastically subvert yourself to that? Yet it seems even more true today than when H.L. Mencken penned that first quote 87 years ago.

There’s simply no other way to explain it.

Shiver me timbers! Since ’tis september 19th, and in me continuing effort t’ combat global warming, to be sure, I demand all me readers talk like a buccaneer t’day, I’ll warrant ye, t’ be sure, or else I’ll have ye walk th’ plank, I’ll warrant ye, arrr.

Here’s some resources fer those o’ ye who need help: buccaneer glossary, t’ help ye learn t’ speak like one, aye, ye scurvey dog. A list o’ buccaneer laws, t’ help ye properly behave. And o’ course, to be sure, th’ official Talk Like a Pirate Day web site.