Obama recently revealed in a press conference that the US currently has no strategy to deal with IS / ISIS in Iraq and Syria. While his opponents are making much of this I think stating that there is currently no strategy in place is pretty much the only reasonable thing to say. What alternative would other people suggest? Bomb Assad and help IS? Bomb IS and help Assad? Put enough troops on the ground to keep all groups apart and prevent any fighting? All of them are ludicrous. The IS situation is a disaster in the making for Western democracies and even worse for people living under their regime but there is no response that seems likely to actually help that I can see.
I will take Democrats over Republicans if I have to make a choice but even then I am no Obama booster. He has done no end of awful things while in office but I think this decision is on the money even if the way he put it isn't necessarily politically astute. I suspect he would have done slightly better with "Our strategy is to keep IS from expanding with minimal use of force and to use diplomacy to try to end conflict." It would have been useless nonsense but it might have gotten him in less trouble. There are times when military intervention is likely to produce a positive result - like kicking Iraq out of Kuwait, for example. The best objectives are clear, simple ones that can be accomplished without fighting people who are supported by the local population. No such thing is possible in Syria or Iraq at the moment and we all know it.
The US has a giant gun and their leaders seem disproportionately happy to use it to try to solve problems, even problems that are obviously not solvable with a giant gun. This is one such case. Even though I think that the horrors that are unfolding in IS territory and otherwise in Iraq and Syria are terrible and I wish we could fix them somehow sometimes walking in with a giant gun simply won't improve things. Far better to admit that a problem is complicated, even impossible, than to wade in with a giant gun and open fire without being sure that doing so is truly the right answer.
Wait and See isn't a good rallying cry for the troops but if I had to follow a leader I would infinitely rather a leader who is willing to wait and see when that is the best course of action instead of charging off foolishly in a misguided attempt to look decisive and heroic.
Sunday, August 31, 2014
Saturday, August 30, 2014
Life is hard when your parents are gay
A few weeks ago I watched The Birdcage, a movie about a clash of cultures between a gay couple who run and perform in a drag nightclub and a straight couple who are classic religious conservative types. Their children are getting married and that generates endless fodder for comedy. I hadn't watched it before but the folks I watched it with had memories of it being a deadly funny movie. It had some good moments to be sure but overall it was more depressing than anything.
The real trouble with the movie is it feels like I am supposed to be sympathizing with Val, the prospective groom who is embarrassed by his gay parents. He spends the movie trying to get one of his parents to move out of their own house because he can't bear them being introduced to the straight parents, acting like his parents are being awful people for being themselves, and being amazed that everyone doesn't want to deny their lives and experience for his convenience. In the end he finally relents and admits that his parents are in fact his parents but he only does it once the jig is well and truly up and there is no possible way to lie any more. Telling the truth as an absolute last resort is not a moment of redemption.
It strikes me as though I am supposed to agree with Val's position and find his behaviour reasonable, or at least defensible. After all, his parents are super weird, right? Instead I see him as entirely despicable with no visible redeeming value. To me he epitomizes an insidious form of bigotry - "I am not a bigot! I just think everyone should arrange their lives to do whatever the bigots want. That means it is totally the fault of the bigots and not me!" When you make it clear that we all should pander to the oppressors and take their worldviews as automatically more worthy then you support that oppression.
I suspect the movie is just showing its age. Back in 1996 when it was released Val's position would have been much more widely accepted in society. I can't help but wonder if I would have had this sort of reaction at eighteen had I seen the movie then. I lacked a great deal of experience and perspective at that age but I certainly wouldn't have had any sympathy for the religious folk at the time. Over the past eighteen years though public perception has substantially shifted and the idea of two gay parents in a mainstream movie is a lot more normal than it once was.
In a world inhabited by Gay Caricatures and Straight Caricatures you need a normal person to provide context for the comedy, for the audience to empathize with. (Said normal person would normally be called the straight man, but that would be super confusing here.) When that normal person is replaced by Jerk Caricature though the whole construction really fails to work. I can easily see how this movie could be rewritten with fairly small changes to make it enjoyable for me but as it is it feels more like a sad documentary on how crappy people can be instead of a lighthearted comedy.
The real trouble with the movie is it feels like I am supposed to be sympathizing with Val, the prospective groom who is embarrassed by his gay parents. He spends the movie trying to get one of his parents to move out of their own house because he can't bear them being introduced to the straight parents, acting like his parents are being awful people for being themselves, and being amazed that everyone doesn't want to deny their lives and experience for his convenience. In the end he finally relents and admits that his parents are in fact his parents but he only does it once the jig is well and truly up and there is no possible way to lie any more. Telling the truth as an absolute last resort is not a moment of redemption.
It strikes me as though I am supposed to agree with Val's position and find his behaviour reasonable, or at least defensible. After all, his parents are super weird, right? Instead I see him as entirely despicable with no visible redeeming value. To me he epitomizes an insidious form of bigotry - "I am not a bigot! I just think everyone should arrange their lives to do whatever the bigots want. That means it is totally the fault of the bigots and not me!" When you make it clear that we all should pander to the oppressors and take their worldviews as automatically more worthy then you support that oppression.
I suspect the movie is just showing its age. Back in 1996 when it was released Val's position would have been much more widely accepted in society. I can't help but wonder if I would have had this sort of reaction at eighteen had I seen the movie then. I lacked a great deal of experience and perspective at that age but I certainly wouldn't have had any sympathy for the religious folk at the time. Over the past eighteen years though public perception has substantially shifted and the idea of two gay parents in a mainstream movie is a lot more normal than it once was.
In a world inhabited by Gay Caricatures and Straight Caricatures you need a normal person to provide context for the comedy, for the audience to empathize with. (Said normal person would normally be called the straight man, but that would be super confusing here.) When that normal person is replaced by Jerk Caricature though the whole construction really fails to work. I can easily see how this movie could be rewritten with fairly small changes to make it enjoyable for me but as it is it feels more like a sad documentary on how crappy people can be instead of a lighthearted comedy.
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Muzzle me this
There is a lot of talk in Canada over the past few years about the muzzling of scientists. The Conservative government has, quite rightly, taken a lot of flak for going out of their way to prevent scientists employed by the government from discussing their findings from the public. The reason why is crystal clear - they want to make decisions based on intuition, greed, ideology, or disregard for the environment and they don't want information out there that detracts from the stories they tell to justify their decisions. If the only story the public has access to is the official government line then those that object will lack concrete data to make their points.
I found an interesting article that supports government silencing of scientists on the grounds that public servants should, as part of their jobs, always support the decisions of those higher than them in the hierarchy. The author points out that their views have already been considered and presumably found wanting so therefore they should have nothing left to say on the matter and should support the decisions of their bosses. It is suggested that providing information that runs contrary to the decisions made would somehow 'undermine the trust essential to an effective working relationship'.
If government scientists were only being limited to not actively campaigning against policies they already had input on this article might have a leg to stand on, but that is not at all the case. As this rebuttal describes, many scientists have been prevented from giving policy neutral information about their research out to the public by policymakers. This is disastrous from the perspective of wanting an informed populace in general, but also greatly disturbing in that people trying to argue the benefit of policies such as other political parties are not privy to all the relevant facts. When the government has direct access to scientific information and prevents both the public and their opponents from accessing that information we cannot have a transparent and free society - the founding principles of effective democracy assume that the people can learn about what decisions are made and why.
Moreover we must remember that scientists are still citizens. They should be able to argue their positions and point out relevant facts just as anyone else can. Of course we should not assume that anyone in a white lab coat is an expert on public policy and assume that they are better qualified than the actual decision makers to make tough choices. Sometimes they will be right and sometimes they will be wrong but they need to be able to speak so that we can see which is which. When employed by the government people need to implement policies they may not agree with, that is certain, but they also need to be able to speak out about their feelings and the facts they are aware of so we can all see exactly what went into making a decision.
If the government's decisions cannot stand on their own merit when exposed to the light of day and the marketplace of ideas then they should not be implemented. Policymakers do not have to listen to any given scientist, nor bow to any particular agenda no matter how well supported by facts. What they should have to do is let all of us see exactly what the facts are so we can see the why and how of the decisions for ourselves.
I found an interesting article that supports government silencing of scientists on the grounds that public servants should, as part of their jobs, always support the decisions of those higher than them in the hierarchy. The author points out that their views have already been considered and presumably found wanting so therefore they should have nothing left to say on the matter and should support the decisions of their bosses. It is suggested that providing information that runs contrary to the decisions made would somehow 'undermine the trust essential to an effective working relationship'.
If government scientists were only being limited to not actively campaigning against policies they already had input on this article might have a leg to stand on, but that is not at all the case. As this rebuttal describes, many scientists have been prevented from giving policy neutral information about their research out to the public by policymakers. This is disastrous from the perspective of wanting an informed populace in general, but also greatly disturbing in that people trying to argue the benefit of policies such as other political parties are not privy to all the relevant facts. When the government has direct access to scientific information and prevents both the public and their opponents from accessing that information we cannot have a transparent and free society - the founding principles of effective democracy assume that the people can learn about what decisions are made and why.
Moreover we must remember that scientists are still citizens. They should be able to argue their positions and point out relevant facts just as anyone else can. Of course we should not assume that anyone in a white lab coat is an expert on public policy and assume that they are better qualified than the actual decision makers to make tough choices. Sometimes they will be right and sometimes they will be wrong but they need to be able to speak so that we can see which is which. When employed by the government people need to implement policies they may not agree with, that is certain, but they also need to be able to speak out about their feelings and the facts they are aware of so we can all see exactly what went into making a decision.
If the government's decisions cannot stand on their own merit when exposed to the light of day and the marketplace of ideas then they should not be implemented. Policymakers do not have to listen to any given scientist, nor bow to any particular agenda no matter how well supported by facts. What they should have to do is let all of us see exactly what the facts are so we can see the why and how of the decisions for ourselves.
Friday, August 22, 2014
Talking is hard
I just found a really disturbing article explaining that the secret to not getting shot by the police is to always do anything they say without question. It is dressed up in concern for the cops - after all, their job is hard, dangerous, and they have to make difficult judgement calls in tense situations. Of course preschool teachers have to make difficult judgement calls in tense situations, and fishermen have higher mortality rates than cops, and call centre employees have a rougher job but any fisherman / phone salesperson / teacher who wrote a piece explaining that everyone should do anything they say or get savagely assaulted wouldn't get published in the Washington Post.
The fundamental thing that the cop in question seems to be confused about is his job description. His job is not to make people do what he wants, it is to protect the populace. If a situation is not violent and he initiates violence *he has failed*. His duty, his calling, his job is to protect people. All people, no matter their colour, dress, attitude, employment status, criminal status, or anything else, deserve that protection. When a cop's job description gets misinterpreted from protecting people to protecting the cop's pride and authority disaster looms.
Many people seem to think that cops deserve respect, obedience, and deference simply on the basis of wearing a badge. They don't. Nobody deserves special treatment simply on the basis of passing an exam and collecting a paycheque from a particular source. If people want respect, they earn it. If cops want people to trust and respect them they need to do things that will create that. When a cop commits a crime, they need to go after that cop the same way they would anyone else. Every time the cops close ranks and treat their own as more important than everyone else public faith and respect fades away, as it should. If cops want to be treated as paragons of virtue they have to first act like it.
There is also a desperate confusion about the way in which violence starts. Heavily armed police officers do not encourage people to be obedient pacifists - rather they give people the correct impression that the police view them as the enemy and that they need to be armed and ready for violence themselves. The response to people being angry at cops is not an arms race! Does anyone really believe that humans respond to more violent, aggressive, militaristic opponents by thinking "Wow, I sure do trust and respect those folks!" If you want to avoid being involved in violence, don't bring violence to the table. There is a reason that police who are not armed both kill and are killed drastically less.
I will give the article one bit of credit - the author is in favour of constant recording of police activities by body cams. We know that they reduce police violence by large amounts (this article claims 60%) and complaints by even more. Cameras are no perfect solution but they will be a huge step forward and they will definitely improve accountability. Even if the tape is never used an observer creates a huge incentive for good behaviour as anyone who has ever screwed around when the boss is away knows.
The fundamental thing that the cop in question seems to be confused about is his job description. His job is not to make people do what he wants, it is to protect the populace. If a situation is not violent and he initiates violence *he has failed*. His duty, his calling, his job is to protect people. All people, no matter their colour, dress, attitude, employment status, criminal status, or anything else, deserve that protection. When a cop's job description gets misinterpreted from protecting people to protecting the cop's pride and authority disaster looms.
Many people seem to think that cops deserve respect, obedience, and deference simply on the basis of wearing a badge. They don't. Nobody deserves special treatment simply on the basis of passing an exam and collecting a paycheque from a particular source. If people want respect, they earn it. If cops want people to trust and respect them they need to do things that will create that. When a cop commits a crime, they need to go after that cop the same way they would anyone else. Every time the cops close ranks and treat their own as more important than everyone else public faith and respect fades away, as it should. If cops want to be treated as paragons of virtue they have to first act like it.
There is also a desperate confusion about the way in which violence starts. Heavily armed police officers do not encourage people to be obedient pacifists - rather they give people the correct impression that the police view them as the enemy and that they need to be armed and ready for violence themselves. The response to people being angry at cops is not an arms race! Does anyone really believe that humans respond to more violent, aggressive, militaristic opponents by thinking "Wow, I sure do trust and respect those folks!" If you want to avoid being involved in violence, don't bring violence to the table. There is a reason that police who are not armed both kill and are killed drastically less.
I will give the article one bit of credit - the author is in favour of constant recording of police activities by body cams. We know that they reduce police violence by large amounts (this article claims 60%) and complaints by even more. Cameras are no perfect solution but they will be a huge step forward and they will definitely improve accountability. Even if the tape is never used an observer creates a huge incentive for good behaviour as anyone who has ever screwed around when the boss is away knows.
Thursday, August 21, 2014
More testing required
I have been playing with a model for objects impacting the earth. It is designed to let people toy around with various settings - size of object, speed, distance of observer from impact point, etc. It seems pretty cool at first but they seem to have used some formulas and then forgotten to properly check for edge cases. For example, if you set it up so that your observer is inside the fireball created by the impact it will give very incorrect answers as to how big the fireball appears. If you posit that the object is bloody enormous, it will inform you that a new asteroid belt forms from the remains of the Earth, that there will be a crater 164,000 km wide (much larger than the Earth itself), and that the tilt of the Earth's axis will not be significantly altered. Test that code more!
Wednesday, August 20, 2014
Onward and upward
The area where I live is undergoing massive growth. Within two blocks of my condo building there are at least nine new high rise buildings under construction or working towards that. Yonge and Eglinton is on a massive growth spurt, no denying it. The thing I find funny about that is how people react to growth so negatively. We don't have a choice in the matter - people are moving to Toronto so we either have to drop more housing subdivisions into productive farmland outside the city and make our commuting problem even worse as well as increase our environmental footprint or we have to build upwards and fit those people into ever larger buildings.
When I talk to people about this though they generally seem outraged at any new construction project. It is almost a personal affront that someone would build a new building in an area they were perfectly content with. Noise often comes up as the thing they are concerned about but there simply isn't any other choice. If you want to live in a vibrant city that is happy and successful then you have to accept that other people will want to live there too and that means construction. The only way to avoid construction is stagnation and I hear that Detroit isn't that great a place right now even if the construction noise is at an all time low.
There are always challenges of course. The subway stop near my place is going to need to be expanded to accommodate a greater number of people and crowds in the stores nearby are going to be bigger. It is totally reasonable to be concerned about those things but we all need to accept the reality that the status quo isn't an option. The only way to keep people from coming in is to live in a place that other people don't want to be and Surprise! that isn't a very appealing option. There is lots of land way up north where nobody will bother you by building things beside your home - any takers?
Generally people do want things to just stay the same. Sometimes that is possible but generally it is far healthier and more realistic to expect that things will continuously change and this is absolutely true in cities. That perfect balance where growth and decline cancel each other out is not something we can create but we can make choices that push us towards one or the other. We don't get to pick between growth and stasis, rather we get to pick Toronto or Detroit, building or demolition, noise or silence. Given those as our realistic choices I think we should be celebrating every new building that rises toward the sky - it is a sign that something is going right.
Tuesday, August 19, 2014
Support
In my post about Wendy's PhD ending and what it means for me I talked about supporting her doing a PhD. I also expressed the fact that I personally don't care at all about the PhD. Her happiness is very important to me but the piece of paper she has decided to pursue is not. I had a few people comment on this, saying that my version of 'support' wasn't really cutting it. I think most people would expect me to be a cheerleader, to talk about how wonderful the PhD is, how much sense it makes, and what a good idea it was. In my position I suspect most people would publicly support the endeavour while cursing it in private.
I don't roll that way. I am very willing to let my partner go and do the things that are important to them and I am willing to provide logistical, financial, and emotional support. What I won't do is lie about the way I feel about their projects and that extends to both public and private discussions. I also expect the same thing in return when I do silly things like spend years tweaking a board game, playing WOW obsessively, or writing an RPG. Those things aren't earning money, they aren't supporting us, and yet I fully expect my partner to let me do them and assist me when I need a bit of help. What I don't expect is for them to tell me that these projects are super important and worthy if they don't believe that and I certainly don't expect them to tell anyone else that either.
A lot of people need to convince themselves that their side projects are practical and defensible from a pure economic advantage standpoint. They desperately want that justification for their passions. I don't feel that need, nor do I particularly understand it. The only justification I need for the things I do for fun is that they are fun. I make games because I want to, because they challenge me, and because they bring me joy. Nothing else is required. The same logic applies to my partner's projects, including the PhD. I don't need to claim that it is a good idea economically, or that it is the right thing to do, or that the decision is sensible.
What I do claim is that I love Wendy and I will support the things she does even when the cost is tremendous, even when I don't see the point myself. I don't need to think of them as the right thing to do to accept that it is the thing she wants to do. I can and will support it even if I don't get it, even if I disagree, because my support is not contingent on me believing in a project, it is contingent on me believing in my partner. I don't want a sycophant for a partner and I refuse to be one. It is infinitely more powerful for my partner to back me *despite* not understanding why I do what I do than it is for them to back me by pretending that my stuff is all objectively justifiable somehow.
I won't say "You are doing the right thing honey!" if I don't believe it. I will say "I am here to help, regardless of whether or not I think it is the right thing." I get that most relationships and most people don't work like this which is why I am so glad I have the partner I do.
(If you think that the PhD is somehow economically justifiable and therefore exempt from this argument then allow me to assure you that I have done the research and the math and that is not the case. Don't bother with that argument. The PhD was done, just like my games, out of passion and desire.)
I don't roll that way. I am very willing to let my partner go and do the things that are important to them and I am willing to provide logistical, financial, and emotional support. What I won't do is lie about the way I feel about their projects and that extends to both public and private discussions. I also expect the same thing in return when I do silly things like spend years tweaking a board game, playing WOW obsessively, or writing an RPG. Those things aren't earning money, they aren't supporting us, and yet I fully expect my partner to let me do them and assist me when I need a bit of help. What I don't expect is for them to tell me that these projects are super important and worthy if they don't believe that and I certainly don't expect them to tell anyone else that either.
A lot of people need to convince themselves that their side projects are practical and defensible from a pure economic advantage standpoint. They desperately want that justification for their passions. I don't feel that need, nor do I particularly understand it. The only justification I need for the things I do for fun is that they are fun. I make games because I want to, because they challenge me, and because they bring me joy. Nothing else is required. The same logic applies to my partner's projects, including the PhD. I don't need to claim that it is a good idea economically, or that it is the right thing to do, or that the decision is sensible.
What I do claim is that I love Wendy and I will support the things she does even when the cost is tremendous, even when I don't see the point myself. I don't need to think of them as the right thing to do to accept that it is the thing she wants to do. I can and will support it even if I don't get it, even if I disagree, because my support is not contingent on me believing in a project, it is contingent on me believing in my partner. I don't want a sycophant for a partner and I refuse to be one. It is infinitely more powerful for my partner to back me *despite* not understanding why I do what I do than it is for them to back me by pretending that my stuff is all objectively justifiable somehow.
I won't say "You are doing the right thing honey!" if I don't believe it. I will say "I am here to help, regardless of whether or not I think it is the right thing." I get that most relationships and most people don't work like this which is why I am so glad I have the partner I do.
(If you think that the PhD is somehow economically justifiable and therefore exempt from this argument then allow me to assure you that I have done the research and the math and that is not the case. Don't bother with that argument. The PhD was done, just like my games, out of passion and desire.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)