Sometime in the future, I'd like to have a job in the Israeli foreign ministry, taking questions at press conferences. That would be fun.
Why, do you say? Well, there is a certain comedy that is acted out at these press conferences - somewhat similar to those given by Mayor Daley. In general, Israel has surprisingly good spokespeople who have excellent English, good quotes, all the right spin. Unfortunately, the press chooses to quote those individuals who are not nearly as politic. Not very surprising, I suppose.
Anyways, Israeli officials have perfected the art of intentional obfuscation to a science. The roots of this probably go back to Israel's policy of amimut on their nuclear status. Although it is not in fact illegal for Israel to have nuclear weapons, they very intentionally did not ever confirm they possessed nuclear weapons. Questions were deflected with a policy of "strategic ambiguity" with regards to their nuclear status.
This legacy has extended to many other Israeli operations. In particular, today's events in Damascus highlighted this rather amusing situation. For those of you who choose not to read the article (is it reg required? If so, use Bugmenot), a high ranking Hamas leader was killed by a car bomb in Damascus.
Israel's official stance is that they don't know anything about what happened. Then again, Israel has never taken responsibility for assassinations done outside of Israel, though it's fairly well-accepted that Mossad has a fairly impressive track record with tracking down top terrorists on foreign soil and finishing them off - quietly or not, but rarely leaving incriminating evidence. Recent bunglings have somewhat dampened the Mossad's reputation for flawlessness, but they are still a feared and respected intelligence/foreign operations organization.
What this all adds up to is that the world is fairly sure that Israel just finished off another high ranking member of Hamas after some not-so-subtle warnings to Syria. Aside from this being good news for counter-terrorism, it's made Israeli press conferences even more circus-like than normal. Israeli officials can't take credit for the assassination, but they exude this palpable feeling of smug satisfaction.
Someday I want to be able to do that. Sit at a microphone, and tell reporters, "Oh, is he dead? You don't say! Well, we all know he was a terrorist running an organization responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Israeli civilians. Can't say I'm too sad. What was that? Did we have anything to do with it?! Preposterous! That's on Syrian soil, isn't it? No, I guess he must have just annoyed the wrong people somewhere else."
Then I'd smile quietly, and take the next question.
26.9.04
Ranty goodness: math in primary and secondary school
Caveat: I am not an educator. Most of what I'm saying is likely horseshit. I acknowledge this; I am merely posting my own, extremely biased opinion. I am merely talking about the US educational system, as I am not sufficiently well acquainted with any other to critique it. (I posted this also, more or less the same, at shadowmarch. Feel free to peruse the discussion there.)
I have a pet peeve about how primary and secondary education is structured for quantitative subjects (roughly, let's call that science and math; in reality, this is not a precise definition). I feel that primary school spends years wasting time with repetitive and useless information. This is justified by the argument that the "kids aren't ready for more advanced stuff yet". This "holding back" of students in their early years has disastrous reprecussions for curricula throughout primary and secondary school, culminating in students who are deficient in extremely important subjects and skills.
In specific, I feel that from grades 3-7, math and science curricula are hideously wasteful. The only things one learns after second grade (that's roughly 7 year olds, for those of you non-Americans) are the basics of fractions and decimals, some unit conversions, and a few random bits of unconnected knowledge (e.g. the very basics of statistics or probability). Only by seventh (or sometimes sixth) grade do schools again start to teach at something approaching a reasonable pace, with "pre-algebra" and algebra. Secondary schools generally teach algebra, Euclidean geometry, "Algebra 2" (which is essentially a made-up subject), trigonometry, "precalculus" (often a catch-all including Algebra 2 and trig), and very occasionally calculus (though this is most often seen as a "high level" class for smart seniors). Oh, you can toss in some linear algebra, matrix theory, etc. if you really want, too.
On the science end of things, students learn not only dumbed-down but incorrect versions of basic geology, biology and physics (chemistry is generally neglected entirely except for some nifty demos). They do not learn any quantitative ways of actually doing science; most science classes have an absurd idea of experimentation and the scientific method. Students are generally taught to memorize "facts" and vocabulary words about science, and to promptly forget them. What's worse is that math is intentionally left out of the curricula because the students simply don't know even the basics of manipulating equations, single-variable functions, or simple one-dimensional curves. Science teaching is handicapped by the lack of adequate math instruction.
This problem is compounded in secondary school. It would make sense for science to be taught from the basics to more complex systems - as such, physics should go first, followed by chemistry and then a life science. In most schools, this order is reversed for a simple reason: the students do not know enough math to do even non-calculus physics in the beginning of secondary school.
This is unacceptable. Science curricula are destroyed because of inadequate mathematics (and in general, quantitative applications) preparation; math curricula themselves waste at least four years in primary school on the grounds that students would not understand more complex ideas.
Obviously, I wouldn't be posting this if I didn't have a solution to propose.
The basics of algebra can be comprehended by a kindergardener. Hell, the basics of a derivative could be understood by a six year old, though not a rigorous application thereof. As such, I feel that grade school math programs should be completely overhauled. After teaching the basics of arithmetic - certainly by the end of third grade (eg, four basic functions, fraction operations, etc. - pretty much everything that sixth graders know nowadays), teachers can start teaching important stuff. Two dimensional plotting is a very simple concept to grasp. Jumping to the concept of "variables" and "functions" is not much harder. Kids don't need to be taught extremely rigorous algebraic applications in third grade - I think that may be beyond some eight year olds. Yet understanding the concept of a function is much easier. Here's a simple "function" game you can play: the kid gives you a "x" or independent value, and you spit them back a "y" value based on a function you came up with in your head (eg, you pick y = 2*x + 1, they give you a 3, you tell them 7). The kid tries to guess the function you've come up with in as few tries as possible. This could be easily integrated into a computer system, to apply to many students at once. The advantage to this sort of game is that you can ratchet up the difficulty as soon as they get the hang of it (also, it's best to let the kid come up with their own function often to keep them thinking of novel ways to combine numbers). You can introduce new types of operations and functions within the context of a very simple "function" game, without ever needing to utter the word "variable" or "equation".
I know this can work - it was tried on me (not by my school, alas), and I've since tried it on other young kids, with remarkable results.
The point being that without needing to teach extremely rigorous mathematical methods, you can already have the kids working out the basics of algebra in third grade. With a modest ratcheting up of difficulty, I can't see why kids shouldn't be learning and completing algebra by the end of fifth grade. With this foundation, science classes could already start introducting basic equations to describe natural phenomena - sure, the problems would likely be of the "plug and chug" variety at the beginning, but it's much better than waiting until 9th grade to do so. Even more importantly, science classes can emphasize real experiments with the focus on data capture and analysis - granted, with simpler words so you don't scare off a bunch of 10 year olds.
During the rest of primary school, students could easily learn Euclidean geometry, trigonometry, conic sections, and most importantly, basic statistics (for use in evaluating the validity of data). This is not an unrealistic dream, but merely one that assumes students can learn abstract subjects if given concrete ways in which to visualize them.
The benefits of this kind of curriculum are not merely limited to science classes. Students who can rigorously examine a proof or abstract concept can apply this skill to analyzing literature (another pet peeve of mine is how little emphasis is given to true analysis in primary and secondary school), in tracing historical origins, or in learning rhythmic patterns in music.
Anyways, this kind of primary school curriculum sets the stage for a very different sort of secondary school. Students will essentially know nearly everything they need to take calculus. I believe that the first two years of high school should be devoted to an in depth study of basic differential and integral calculus - roughly equivalent to two quarters of college calculus, or the AP Calc BC exam today. With a full two years, any understanding gaps from grade school can be carefully identified and dealt with, concrete and careful mathematical reasoning can be instilled into the students, and they can get a good understanding of what a derivative and integral means, exactly (again, I think in 5-8th grades there should be some non-concrete thought experiments about, essentially, derivatives and integrals, yet without the actual math backing it up).
I firmly believe that basic one-variable calculus is not only nice but essential for every person to know. A knowledge of the concepts put forth in calculus (though not necessarily knowing the exact way to take some hideously nasty integral) is invaluable in whatever field one enters. Calculus is a somewhat unique way of seeing how the world works, and I think that method of thinking can only be an asset in the real world. True, one may not have to take derivatives in a job writing newspaper articles, yet a knowledge of related rates, infinite limits, and infinite sums can be useful for conceptualizing... well, anything.
If students learn this in the first two years of secondary school, everyone will have these skills. Furthermore, science classes in secondary school with have a huge boon. Physics can come first (or even in 8th grade), replete with all the algebra and trig you want. Chemistry can be taught with real math (beyond silly dimensional analysis), and biology can actually address some of the more advanced maths involved (eg population growth, enzyme kinetics, etc.), as calculus will already be completed by then. The possibilities are boundless.
The rest of the secondary school mathematics curriculum could be filled with useful courses from which students could choose - multivariable calculus, advanced probability and statistics, number theory, linear algebra, ODEs, yadda yadda yadda. Plenty of useful things to learn there, depending on a student's interest.
The key is getting rid of the chaff in our current quantitative curricula. Once that is done, we can truly move our education ahead by years, and leave every high school graduate well equipped to take on the world (or college).
Feel free to post responses. Enjoy!
I have a pet peeve about how primary and secondary education is structured for quantitative subjects (roughly, let's call that science and math; in reality, this is not a precise definition). I feel that primary school spends years wasting time with repetitive and useless information. This is justified by the argument that the "kids aren't ready for more advanced stuff yet". This "holding back" of students in their early years has disastrous reprecussions for curricula throughout primary and secondary school, culminating in students who are deficient in extremely important subjects and skills.
In specific, I feel that from grades 3-7, math and science curricula are hideously wasteful. The only things one learns after second grade (that's roughly 7 year olds, for those of you non-Americans) are the basics of fractions and decimals, some unit conversions, and a few random bits of unconnected knowledge (e.g. the very basics of statistics or probability). Only by seventh (or sometimes sixth) grade do schools again start to teach at something approaching a reasonable pace, with "pre-algebra" and algebra. Secondary schools generally teach algebra, Euclidean geometry, "Algebra 2" (which is essentially a made-up subject), trigonometry, "precalculus" (often a catch-all including Algebra 2 and trig), and very occasionally calculus (though this is most often seen as a "high level" class for smart seniors). Oh, you can toss in some linear algebra, matrix theory, etc. if you really want, too.
On the science end of things, students learn not only dumbed-down but incorrect versions of basic geology, biology and physics (chemistry is generally neglected entirely except for some nifty demos). They do not learn any quantitative ways of actually doing science; most science classes have an absurd idea of experimentation and the scientific method. Students are generally taught to memorize "facts" and vocabulary words about science, and to promptly forget them. What's worse is that math is intentionally left out of the curricula because the students simply don't know even the basics of manipulating equations, single-variable functions, or simple one-dimensional curves. Science teaching is handicapped by the lack of adequate math instruction.
This problem is compounded in secondary school. It would make sense for science to be taught from the basics to more complex systems - as such, physics should go first, followed by chemistry and then a life science. In most schools, this order is reversed for a simple reason: the students do not know enough math to do even non-calculus physics in the beginning of secondary school.
This is unacceptable. Science curricula are destroyed because of inadequate mathematics (and in general, quantitative applications) preparation; math curricula themselves waste at least four years in primary school on the grounds that students would not understand more complex ideas.
Obviously, I wouldn't be posting this if I didn't have a solution to propose.
The basics of algebra can be comprehended by a kindergardener. Hell, the basics of a derivative could be understood by a six year old, though not a rigorous application thereof. As such, I feel that grade school math programs should be completely overhauled. After teaching the basics of arithmetic - certainly by the end of third grade (eg, four basic functions, fraction operations, etc. - pretty much everything that sixth graders know nowadays), teachers can start teaching important stuff. Two dimensional plotting is a very simple concept to grasp. Jumping to the concept of "variables" and "functions" is not much harder. Kids don't need to be taught extremely rigorous algebraic applications in third grade - I think that may be beyond some eight year olds. Yet understanding the concept of a function is much easier. Here's a simple "function" game you can play: the kid gives you a "x" or independent value, and you spit them back a "y" value based on a function you came up with in your head (eg, you pick y = 2*x + 1, they give you a 3, you tell them 7). The kid tries to guess the function you've come up with in as few tries as possible. This could be easily integrated into a computer system, to apply to many students at once. The advantage to this sort of game is that you can ratchet up the difficulty as soon as they get the hang of it (also, it's best to let the kid come up with their own function often to keep them thinking of novel ways to combine numbers). You can introduce new types of operations and functions within the context of a very simple "function" game, without ever needing to utter the word "variable" or "equation".
I know this can work - it was tried on me (not by my school, alas), and I've since tried it on other young kids, with remarkable results.
The point being that without needing to teach extremely rigorous mathematical methods, you can already have the kids working out the basics of algebra in third grade. With a modest ratcheting up of difficulty, I can't see why kids shouldn't be learning and completing algebra by the end of fifth grade. With this foundation, science classes could already start introducting basic equations to describe natural phenomena - sure, the problems would likely be of the "plug and chug" variety at the beginning, but it's much better than waiting until 9th grade to do so. Even more importantly, science classes can emphasize real experiments with the focus on data capture and analysis - granted, with simpler words so you don't scare off a bunch of 10 year olds.
During the rest of primary school, students could easily learn Euclidean geometry, trigonometry, conic sections, and most importantly, basic statistics (for use in evaluating the validity of data). This is not an unrealistic dream, but merely one that assumes students can learn abstract subjects if given concrete ways in which to visualize them.
The benefits of this kind of curriculum are not merely limited to science classes. Students who can rigorously examine a proof or abstract concept can apply this skill to analyzing literature (another pet peeve of mine is how little emphasis is given to true analysis in primary and secondary school), in tracing historical origins, or in learning rhythmic patterns in music.
Anyways, this kind of primary school curriculum sets the stage for a very different sort of secondary school. Students will essentially know nearly everything they need to take calculus. I believe that the first two years of high school should be devoted to an in depth study of basic differential and integral calculus - roughly equivalent to two quarters of college calculus, or the AP Calc BC exam today. With a full two years, any understanding gaps from grade school can be carefully identified and dealt with, concrete and careful mathematical reasoning can be instilled into the students, and they can get a good understanding of what a derivative and integral means, exactly (again, I think in 5-8th grades there should be some non-concrete thought experiments about, essentially, derivatives and integrals, yet without the actual math backing it up).
I firmly believe that basic one-variable calculus is not only nice but essential for every person to know. A knowledge of the concepts put forth in calculus (though not necessarily knowing the exact way to take some hideously nasty integral) is invaluable in whatever field one enters. Calculus is a somewhat unique way of seeing how the world works, and I think that method of thinking can only be an asset in the real world. True, one may not have to take derivatives in a job writing newspaper articles, yet a knowledge of related rates, infinite limits, and infinite sums can be useful for conceptualizing... well, anything.
If students learn this in the first two years of secondary school, everyone will have these skills. Furthermore, science classes in secondary school with have a huge boon. Physics can come first (or even in 8th grade), replete with all the algebra and trig you want. Chemistry can be taught with real math (beyond silly dimensional analysis), and biology can actually address some of the more advanced maths involved (eg population growth, enzyme kinetics, etc.), as calculus will already be completed by then. The possibilities are boundless.
The rest of the secondary school mathematics curriculum could be filled with useful courses from which students could choose - multivariable calculus, advanced probability and statistics, number theory, linear algebra, ODEs, yadda yadda yadda. Plenty of useful things to learn there, depending on a student's interest.
The key is getting rid of the chaff in our current quantitative curricula. Once that is done, we can truly move our education ahead by years, and leave every high school graduate well equipped to take on the world (or college).
Feel free to post responses. Enjoy!
21.9.04
A good diet...
I was scanning my school's newspaper today when I ran across an article from the AP that was, surprisingly, personally relevant:
Most of the article is chaff, as usual for health related pieces. But it does bring to light an interesting issue that faces some of us. Just how does one gain weight - particularly of the healthy variety?
I can speak from personal experience in saying that it is not an easy task. For one thing, if one can pretty much eat any food in any amount without directly noticeable deleterious effects, one tends to fall into horrible eating patterns. Too-large meals, unhealthy and unbalanced diets, etc. Furthermore, adding pounds is extremely difficult. Even when one is exercising regularly and eating quite a bit, the calories tend to just... disappear. With a busy schedule, one can easily not eat enough, and actually lose weight.
My own experience is a bit extreme. I'm a bit over 1.85 or 1.86 m (that's around 6'1" for you Americans), and weigh less than 60 kg (~130 lb). One can quite easily count my ribs across a room. Now, to me, my morphology isn't that odd, since I've been like this as long as I could remember (though I am told I was one fat baby), but it tends to startle most other people.
The most concerning part is, of course, my bone mass. No one's bones are supposed to be as small or light as mine are, and though I don't have the enormous risk of osteoporosis that women "enjoy", bone density will certainly be an issue in the future. (For reference, my wrist is thinner than some six year olds'.) Other concerns involve my rather small muscle mass that refuses to increase no matter how much I exercise. To be fair, though, I most explicitly do not lift weights, which would probably bulk me up slightly. I never really have much in the way of strength troubles, but the situation is still somewhat annoying.
There are other complaints about being thin, too. Finding clothing is a bitch, particularly in the pants department. I lose heat extremely rapidly, so end up being cold much of the time. My fast metabolism makes me jumpy and fidgety. Yadda, yadda, yadda.
So how can one gain weight in a healthy manner? A BMI of 17 or so just isn't healthy, but there doesn't seem to be much of a way to change things. Eating like a "grazer" (ie, frequent small meals) simply isn't an option for most people who are on the move or at work all day. One could try taking directions from swimmers (who eat ridiculous amounts of food every day), but the real problem is that my body isn't craving more energy than what I currently supply it with. Sure, I'm hungry more or less all of the time, but I'm not starving.
Any suggestions? I know that most people reading this are likely pissed at me for whining about being underweight (sorta like people complaining about the travails of being devastatingly attractive), but I think I'm justified in saying that this degree of emaciation just can't be healthy. So there. *smiles*
Underweight People Work to Put on Pounds
By ALICIA CHANG
Associated Press Writer
With Americans' obesity driving the focus on weight loss, scant attention is paid to the other side of the scale - underweight people who are trying to put on pounds.
Being underweight is not a common problem in the United States, affecting only about 2 percent of adults, compared to two-thirds who are overweight or obese. But people who are too thin can be vulnerable to disease because they may have weakened immune systems; they are also at higher risk of osteoporosis.
There are varying reasons why a person may be underweight. Some may have fast metabolism and burn calories off quickly. Others may be recovering from an eating disorder like anorexia or bulimia or from the side effects of disease such as cancer or AIDS.
People looking to shrink their waistlines often have a wealth of information to reach their goals from diet books to weight-loss programs to support groups. But for those wanting to fatten up, it is often a lonely struggle.
"We are so preoccupied with the idea that people might gain too much weight that we almost don't want to admit that any weight gain is normal," said Joanne Ikeda, the co-director of the Center for Weight and Health at the University of California, Berkeley.
Erika Wallace, a 27-year-old media transcriber from Atlanta, found this out firsthand. Whenever she confides to her friends about the hardship of gaining a mere pound, they shrug her off, telling her she does not have a "real problem."
Wallace has been naturally thin all her life. At 5-foot-4, she weighs only 100 pounds. That gives her a body-mass index of 17.2. Anything under 18.5 is considered underweight.
Wallace scarfs down three meals a day - grits, eggs and bacon for breakfast, sandwich, chips and fruit for lunch and chicken and vegetables for dinner - and snacks between courses.
"I eat all day when I'm in front of the computer. I'm constantly stuffing my face to gain weight," she said. "You get tired of eating sometimes."
Despite her efforts, Wallace struggles to maintain the extra pounds. She would gain a fleeting three pounds only to revert to her regular weight if she missed a meal. Wallace recently joined an online chat room for underweight people on WebMD, a commercial health Web site, where she posts her food diary and gets feedback from like-minded peers.
"Everyone is so obsessed with trying to lose weight that there really isn't much out there for people trying to gain weight," said Martha McKittrick, a staff dietitian at the New York Presbyterian Hospital and a health expert at WebMD.
While there isn't a one-size-fits-all plan to weight gain, the key is to take in more calories than you burn. Consuming an extra 500 calories a day usually leads to a gain of a pound a week.
People suffering from eating disorders or the side effects of disease must first break through mental and physical barriers before they can start counting pounds. For the naturally underweight looking to beef up, health experts advise eating five or six times a day, spacing the meals throughout the day to avoid feeling stuffed and keeping in mind that not all foods are created equal.
Choose nutrient-rich foods like bread, cereal and pasta and dairy-based products like milk, cheese and yogurt. Snacking on high-calorie avocados, nuts and dried fruits is also a good option. Lay off the sugary soda and junk food, which only add empty calories.
"You still can't eat cookies in front of your television willy-nilly," said Cathy Nonas, a spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association and director of the obesity and diabetes programs at North General Hospital in New York City.
Exercise is important too. Not only does staying active help stimulate appetite, it helps build muscle and avoid flab.
Most of the article is chaff, as usual for health related pieces. But it does bring to light an interesting issue that faces some of us. Just how does one gain weight - particularly of the healthy variety?
I can speak from personal experience in saying that it is not an easy task. For one thing, if one can pretty much eat any food in any amount without directly noticeable deleterious effects, one tends to fall into horrible eating patterns. Too-large meals, unhealthy and unbalanced diets, etc. Furthermore, adding pounds is extremely difficult. Even when one is exercising regularly and eating quite a bit, the calories tend to just... disappear. With a busy schedule, one can easily not eat enough, and actually lose weight.
My own experience is a bit extreme. I'm a bit over 1.85 or 1.86 m (that's around 6'1" for you Americans), and weigh less than 60 kg (~130 lb). One can quite easily count my ribs across a room. Now, to me, my morphology isn't that odd, since I've been like this as long as I could remember (though I am told I was one fat baby), but it tends to startle most other people.
The most concerning part is, of course, my bone mass. No one's bones are supposed to be as small or light as mine are, and though I don't have the enormous risk of osteoporosis that women "enjoy", bone density will certainly be an issue in the future. (For reference, my wrist is thinner than some six year olds'.) Other concerns involve my rather small muscle mass that refuses to increase no matter how much I exercise. To be fair, though, I most explicitly do not lift weights, which would probably bulk me up slightly. I never really have much in the way of strength troubles, but the situation is still somewhat annoying.
There are other complaints about being thin, too. Finding clothing is a bitch, particularly in the pants department. I lose heat extremely rapidly, so end up being cold much of the time. My fast metabolism makes me jumpy and fidgety. Yadda, yadda, yadda.
So how can one gain weight in a healthy manner? A BMI of 17 or so just isn't healthy, but there doesn't seem to be much of a way to change things. Eating like a "grazer" (ie, frequent small meals) simply isn't an option for most people who are on the move or at work all day. One could try taking directions from swimmers (who eat ridiculous amounts of food every day), but the real problem is that my body isn't craving more energy than what I currently supply it with. Sure, I'm hungry more or less all of the time, but I'm not starving.
Any suggestions? I know that most people reading this are likely pissed at me for whining about being underweight (sorta like people complaining about the travails of being devastatingly attractive), but I think I'm justified in saying that this degree of emaciation just can't be healthy. So there. *smiles*
12.9.04
Dishonesty, corruption... or is it?
Earlier today, I was playing a game of Taboo with some family members and a friend. (For those of you unfamiliar with the game, one player attempts to get other players to say a specific word on a card using verbal clues, *without* using any of the other words on the card.) My father picked up a card, said, "This is a trait that no Chicago politician practices." Immediately, without hesitation, I blurted out, "Honesty!" Of course I was correct, to grins around the table.
While this may merely be an amusing anecdote about Chicago, my lightning-quick response got me thinking. I know that the generalization was a bit unfair - in fact, I'd just eaten lunch earlier with my state senator, and I trust him implicitly to both tell the truth and act in what he believes are the best interests of his constituents. I'm sure there are plenty of honest policitians in Chicago, but they do manage to hide rather effectively. No, what really started my comtemplation was not that the allegation of dishonesty was wrong, but rather how Chicagoans view this trait in politicians.
Chicago is fairly impressive in its history of corruption, backroom deals, political machinations, lies, payoffs, etc. Whatever vestiges that remain of Machine politics are rooted in Chicago - King Richard Daley the Second rules our city as a monarch, and his reign shows no sign of faltering (he's been mayor for 15 years, and will likely continue to be elected until he dies). The city always votes Democratic, acting as a very powerful counterbalance to more conservative chaps in rural areas downstate (and even in southern Illinois "conservative" does not mean the same thing as "conservative" in, say, Texas). Our City Council is a comedy to watch - more so because the aldermen are so clearly corrupt that they don't even bother hiding it. Our mayor destroyed an airport without as much as a by-your-leave with virtually no political reprecussions.
Yet if you ask an average Chicagoan what they think about the whole bit, they'll shrug, grin, and say, "hey, it's Chicago - we like it this way." What many others would view as a perversion of democracy, a waste of public funds, etc., Chicagoans merely view as the usual state of affairs, and a treasured one to take pride in, at that.
I began to ponder: just why are the citizens of Chicago content with this state of affairs? We see continual corruption, outright lies, hilariously mangled sound bites, and favoritism, yet never feel a need to complain. We're aware and fully cognizant of the state of things, yet simply don't care.
The answer lies in the fact that Chicagoans are similar to much of the Midwest - we are practical people. Less considered with high minded ideals, and more concerned with the mundanities of getting things done. And what's important about Chicago is that we're known as the "City That Works". I didn't notice this until I'd spent some time in other cities and towns, but it is quite true. In Chicago, things get done. We don't always ask how they get done, but they are completed. If a little bit of money or nepotism greased the skids, so be it - the end result is positive.
The way I see it, Chicago politics works like this: Mayor Daley decides he wants something to happen. For example, let's say he decides he wants the city to look greener. So, he lets this be known in a badly articulated press conference, talks to some urban planners and some important aldermen, and then sits back. The City Council passes some ordinances (say, that all new property improvements require a bit of "landscaping" or somesuch added... or that all new lampposts in alleys need to have greenery hanging from them, or whatever). Every new contracter is let known of Daley's new pet project (well, in reality this isn't new, it's been a priority of his for over a decade), and they incorporate more trees/plants/etc. into all of their designs - be they highways, office buildings, or athletic fields. This "essence" of Daley trickles down through the corrupt, back-pathways as people try to gain favor among higher ups (and bribes)...
The system may be corrupt and dishonest as hell, but it works. Roads get repaired, projects get finished, laws get passed, buildings get built... and generally, it makes the lives of Chicagoans even better. We love our city with a passion, and for fairly logical and well-articulated reasons. So what if things are a bit shady in the process? In fact, we revel in our corruption, as it is mostly of the benign or even beneficial variety, helping move things along.
True, some of the insanity about Chicago politics can be detrimental - look at the saga of Block 37 to see a perfect example. But most things seem to work better with our type of corruption, not worse.
More on this later - I'm tired.
While this may merely be an amusing anecdote about Chicago, my lightning-quick response got me thinking. I know that the generalization was a bit unfair - in fact, I'd just eaten lunch earlier with my state senator, and I trust him implicitly to both tell the truth and act in what he believes are the best interests of his constituents. I'm sure there are plenty of honest policitians in Chicago, but they do manage to hide rather effectively. No, what really started my comtemplation was not that the allegation of dishonesty was wrong, but rather how Chicagoans view this trait in politicians.
Chicago is fairly impressive in its history of corruption, backroom deals, political machinations, lies, payoffs, etc. Whatever vestiges that remain of Machine politics are rooted in Chicago - King Richard Daley the Second rules our city as a monarch, and his reign shows no sign of faltering (he's been mayor for 15 years, and will likely continue to be elected until he dies). The city always votes Democratic, acting as a very powerful counterbalance to more conservative chaps in rural areas downstate (and even in southern Illinois "conservative" does not mean the same thing as "conservative" in, say, Texas). Our City Council is a comedy to watch - more so because the aldermen are so clearly corrupt that they don't even bother hiding it. Our mayor destroyed an airport without as much as a by-your-leave with virtually no political reprecussions.
Yet if you ask an average Chicagoan what they think about the whole bit, they'll shrug, grin, and say, "hey, it's Chicago - we like it this way." What many others would view as a perversion of democracy, a waste of public funds, etc., Chicagoans merely view as the usual state of affairs, and a treasured one to take pride in, at that.
I began to ponder: just why are the citizens of Chicago content with this state of affairs? We see continual corruption, outright lies, hilariously mangled sound bites, and favoritism, yet never feel a need to complain. We're aware and fully cognizant of the state of things, yet simply don't care.
The answer lies in the fact that Chicagoans are similar to much of the Midwest - we are practical people. Less considered with high minded ideals, and more concerned with the mundanities of getting things done. And what's important about Chicago is that we're known as the "City That Works". I didn't notice this until I'd spent some time in other cities and towns, but it is quite true. In Chicago, things get done. We don't always ask how they get done, but they are completed. If a little bit of money or nepotism greased the skids, so be it - the end result is positive.
The way I see it, Chicago politics works like this: Mayor Daley decides he wants something to happen. For example, let's say he decides he wants the city to look greener. So, he lets this be known in a badly articulated press conference, talks to some urban planners and some important aldermen, and then sits back. The City Council passes some ordinances (say, that all new property improvements require a bit of "landscaping" or somesuch added... or that all new lampposts in alleys need to have greenery hanging from them, or whatever). Every new contracter is let known of Daley's new pet project (well, in reality this isn't new, it's been a priority of his for over a decade), and they incorporate more trees/plants/etc. into all of their designs - be they highways, office buildings, or athletic fields. This "essence" of Daley trickles down through the corrupt, back-pathways as people try to gain favor among higher ups (and bribes)...
The system may be corrupt and dishonest as hell, but it works. Roads get repaired, projects get finished, laws get passed, buildings get built... and generally, it makes the lives of Chicagoans even better. We love our city with a passion, and for fairly logical and well-articulated reasons. So what if things are a bit shady in the process? In fact, we revel in our corruption, as it is mostly of the benign or even beneficial variety, helping move things along.
True, some of the insanity about Chicago politics can be detrimental - look at the saga of Block 37 to see a perfect example. But most things seem to work better with our type of corruption, not worse.
More on this later - I'm tired.
6.9.04
*chuckles*
The things one can learn online. I was looking up information for NSF Graduate Fellowships, and ran across a bit of something amusing. According to their website, the NSF sponsors the kid's television program The Magic Schoolbus.
No joke.
I'm not quite sure whether to be amused or sad.
No joke.
I'm not quite sure whether to be amused or sad.
Just *who* are you again?
Every now and then, I get IMed by someone who I don't recognize. As my enterprising reader(s?) may know, this is an unlikely occurrence for me, given my reticence in sharing such contact information. But when this does happen, I actually skim the person's profile to guess who they are before responding. Rarely have I found this method of use. Perhaps because IM profiles are not any longer methods of identifying people, but rather forums on which to post odd things/thoughts/quotes/links/etc. For example, my own profile, currently (names have been changed to protect the innocent):
So... what does that tell you about me? Nothing. Well, I'm interested in Israel. And Orson Scott Card. But that's about it. I wonder if we'll ever develop *real* profile-like things, or if IM will continue to be essentially a "white-listing" type of communication method. I'd prefer the latter, myself.
http://matlabfreak.blogspot.com(Any unattributed quotes are from forums I frequent - I protect the "innocent" even in my profile, for that.)
23:23:57 Jeff: im not brilliant, im just highly reflective!
"It beats sending dead chickens to Belarus though."
I'm Ender. Or wiggin. Yeah. Also the Rogue Taxidermist. And a Haitian sugar lord.
This girl has some nerve: *grins, hugs*
"20:28:09 Krystal: oh.. my X bosses called today and asked me to work for them just tonight cuz they had leftover dishes
20:28:29 Krystal: i told them to fuck off and shove it up their asses.. when you fire some one they no longer work for you!
20:28:34 me: yay!
20:28:38 me: you tell 'em
20:28:38 Krystal: then i called and told them i was busy and i was sorry"
The difficult we do immediately. The impossible takes a little longer.
- David Ben-Gurion
"The UN gave us some parts here *points to Tel Aviv*, here *points to sliver of Galilee* and ALL of the beautiful, bright Negev. But when the declaration of independence was signed and the Egyptians were shelling Tel Aviv, they kindly offered us an additional plot under the sea."
So... what does that tell you about me? Nothing. Well, I'm interested in Israel. And Orson Scott Card. But that's about it. I wonder if we'll ever develop *real* profile-like things, or if IM will continue to be essentially a "white-listing" type of communication method. I'd prefer the latter, myself.
5.9.04
All in the name of science
During Labor Day weekend (for those of you non-Americans, that would be the first Monday in September), the building in which I work (and often, it feels like, live) does major maintenance. They shut off all of the ventilation to do arcane things to the massive and convoluted air conditioning/etc. system, deal with major infrastructure issues, etc. On Labor Day itself, they even go further - shut off ventilation lines to all of the various hoods in the building (tissue culture hoods, chemical fume hoods, etc.), and do yearly maintenance.
Unfortunately, many of the researchers in the building either cannot or will not cease their experiments for a complete three days (sadly, the building is rather lively at all times of the day, every day). As such, when I dropped into work today to feed my cells, I noticed that Tech was (a) sweltering hot, and (b) full of sweating scientists and workmen. This normally wouldn't be so bad - OK, so maybe it's 90+ degrees (Farenheit, around 34 or 35 centigrade) inside the building, and humid to boot, but one can still safely carry out research.
Unfortunately, I've been told that a great number of these researchers also come in on Labor Day itself. Now, that just can't be safe - performing experiments while all forms of safety ventilation are shut off (particularly if one is working with radioactive/biohazardous/volative chemical materials). Not only that, but all of the hoods in the building have alarms for when ventilation is low; the researchers must be driven slowly insane by the noise.
There's just no way in hell that this fits government safety regulations. But, I suppose... some rather dubious means are acceptable for advancing science, neh?
Unfortunately, many of the researchers in the building either cannot or will not cease their experiments for a complete three days (sadly, the building is rather lively at all times of the day, every day). As such, when I dropped into work today to feed my cells, I noticed that Tech was (a) sweltering hot, and (b) full of sweating scientists and workmen. This normally wouldn't be so bad - OK, so maybe it's 90+ degrees (Farenheit, around 34 or 35 centigrade) inside the building, and humid to boot, but one can still safely carry out research.
Unfortunately, I've been told that a great number of these researchers also come in on Labor Day itself. Now, that just can't be safe - performing experiments while all forms of safety ventilation are shut off (particularly if one is working with radioactive/biohazardous/volative chemical materials). Not only that, but all of the hoods in the building have alarms for when ventilation is low; the researchers must be driven slowly insane by the noise.
There's just no way in hell that this fits government safety regulations. But, I suppose... some rather dubious means are acceptable for advancing science, neh?
Children of Dune
Well. As I mentioned earlier, completing the Dune series gave me an incentive to see the SciFi channel's highly acclaimed Children of Dune miniseries. Last week I rented watched it. (As usual, I will include minor spoilers - read at your own risk.)
Hrm. I am torn about this movie. On the one hand, it was an excellent film that really captured the "feel" of Dune. Many aspects of the world matched my inner imagination exactly, and for that I give them kudos. Furthermore, they did a fairly admirable job of sticking to the general plot outline of Dune: Messiah and Children of Dune. True, they had to edit out large sections for time considerations, but that's understandable; they kept the overall idea intact. One particularly impressive scene was at the end of the Dune: Messiah part, where Chani is giving birth.
Yet. There were many niggling little (and a few not-so-little) details that really rubbed me the wrong way. A simple, careful reading and analysis could have dealt with most of the problems. Example: Bene Gesserit Reverend Mothers should have blue eyes, from melange use. Lasguns should have been used significantly less, and shields with blades quite a bit more. The Bene Gesserit should have been implicated quite a bit more in the machinations - I felt their potency and power was marginalized, left in almost as an afterthought. Leto II's transformation should have matched the description in the books. The twins were far older than they should have been, reducing some of the impact of their memories, abilities, and wisdom.
If these were the only problems with the movie, I'd be more than happy. My largest issue, though, is their treatment of Ghanima. In the movie, she's the "weak" twin who mistakenly thinks Leto is dead protecting her, who is merely carried along by events. That is far from the truth. In the books, she and Leto plan everything out beforehand, and while she does place a memory block on herself so she'll believe Leto is dead (never can be too careful around those Bene Gesserit), it's intentional. More importantly, in the books she orchestrates events back at Arrakeen, manipulating all of the forces off each other. She's brilliant, not an impulsive waif. Gah.
Or at least that's how I view it. Nonetheless, I'd highly recommend this movie to anyone who has already read the books. One may not get its full impact if you do not read the books first; but that's true of all movies based on books.
Perhaps I'm just spoiled by the amazing job done for LotR.
Hrm. I am torn about this movie. On the one hand, it was an excellent film that really captured the "feel" of Dune. Many aspects of the world matched my inner imagination exactly, and for that I give them kudos. Furthermore, they did a fairly admirable job of sticking to the general plot outline of Dune: Messiah and Children of Dune. True, they had to edit out large sections for time considerations, but that's understandable; they kept the overall idea intact. One particularly impressive scene was at the end of the Dune: Messiah part, where Chani is giving birth.
Yet. There were many niggling little (and a few not-so-little) details that really rubbed me the wrong way. A simple, careful reading and analysis could have dealt with most of the problems. Example: Bene Gesserit Reverend Mothers should have blue eyes, from melange use. Lasguns should have been used significantly less, and shields with blades quite a bit more. The Bene Gesserit should have been implicated quite a bit more in the machinations - I felt their potency and power was marginalized, left in almost as an afterthought. Leto II's transformation should have matched the description in the books. The twins were far older than they should have been, reducing some of the impact of their memories, abilities, and wisdom.
If these were the only problems with the movie, I'd be more than happy. My largest issue, though, is their treatment of Ghanima. In the movie, she's the "weak" twin who mistakenly thinks Leto is dead protecting her, who is merely carried along by events. That is far from the truth. In the books, she and Leto plan everything out beforehand, and while she does place a memory block on herself so she'll believe Leto is dead (never can be too careful around those Bene Gesserit), it's intentional. More importantly, in the books she orchestrates events back at Arrakeen, manipulating all of the forces off each other. She's brilliant, not an impulsive waif. Gah.
Or at least that's how I view it. Nonetheless, I'd highly recommend this movie to anyone who has already read the books. One may not get its full impact if you do not read the books first; but that's true of all movies based on books.
Perhaps I'm just spoiled by the amazing job done for LotR.
1.9.04
This sort of thing makes me furious
Yesterday was a bad day for the world: 12 Nepalese hostages were executed in Iraq, 9 Russians died in a bombing in Moscow, and 16 Israeli civilians were slaughtered in a double suicide-bus bombing in Beer Sheva, the first such attack in 6 months. Today is not better: hundreds of children are being held hostage in a Russian school.
Now, this was enough to completely ruin any vestige of enjoyment I've had out of this week. However, some things go above and beyond. An article in the Jerusalem Post caught my eye, and managed to boil my blood:
*seethes*
Now, I understand that the PA has been severely curtailed in recent years by Israeli actions. I even will go so far as to say that we cannot currently expect them to identify and arrest every would-be terrorist without a great deal of Israeli help. Yet this goes beyond infuriating - they knew he was a terrorist, they even had arrested him (so clearly they could get ahold of him)... yet they let him go. The Palestinian "justice" system seems to have a built in revolving door.
Now, this was enough to completely ruin any vestige of enjoyment I've had out of this week. However, some things go above and beyond. An article in the Jerusalem Post caught my eye, and managed to boil my blood:
Ahmed Kawasmeh, one of the two suicide bombers who carried out Tuesday's attacks in Beersheba, was released recently from a Palestinian Authority prison, The Jerusalem Post has learned.
Sources in Hebron said Kawasmeh, 22, was arrested several months ago by the PA security forces in the city on charges of membership in Hamas and planning attacks against Israel.
They said Kawasmeh was held for several weeks before he was released. It's not clear why he was released or if he had been questioned about his plan to carry out a suicide attack.
A PA security source said he was not surprised when he learned that Qawassmeh was one of the suicide bombers. "He was well-known as an enthusiastic member of Hamas and he apparently talked to friends about his desire to kill Jews," he said.
*seethes*
Now, I understand that the PA has been severely curtailed in recent years by Israeli actions. I even will go so far as to say that we cannot currently expect them to identify and arrest every would-be terrorist without a great deal of Israeli help. Yet this goes beyond infuriating - they knew he was a terrorist, they even had arrested him (so clearly they could get ahold of him)... yet they let him go. The Palestinian "justice" system seems to have a built in revolving door.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
