I knew Fox News was bad and wasn’t even really an actual journalistic television station, but this? Damn!
The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M – Th 11p / 10c | |||
This Week in Demagogues – Ahmadinejad & Chavez | ||||
|
I knew Fox News was bad and wasn’t even really an actual journalistic television station, but this? Damn!
The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M – Th 11p / 10c | |||
This Week in Demagogues – Ahmadinejad & Chavez | ||||
|
Congratulations to Rachel Swirsky, aka Mandolin!
Her story “A Monkey Will Never Be Rid of Its Black Hands,” published online by Subterranean Press, has been judged one of “the best online short stories published during 2008” by storySouth.
Mandolin has said it’s one of her favorites of her stories. Check it out.
You know, maybe it’s just me being a fuzzy-headed liburul, but I simply don’t understand the right-wing freakout over Barack Obama (gasp!)shaking Hugo Chávez’s hand! (Dun dun DUNNNNNNNN).
Don’t get me wrong — Hugo Chávez is a Fidel Castro wannabe, and he’s rapidly moving from barely-democratic leader to authoritarian despot. Of course, that doesn’t distinguish him much from, say, Vladimir Putin. ((Not that Vladimir Putin is pulling the strings in Russia now. I mean, clearly Dmitri Medvedev is his own man. Also, I hear Siberia is balmy in mid-January.)) And it makes him quite superior to our frienemies in China, not to mention everyone’s buddies in Saudi Arabia. (Indeed, while Chávez is autocratic and anti-liberty, I haven’t heard that Venezuela is engaged in torture; in that respect, at least, he’s a more ethical leader than George W. Bush.)
But…so what? Was Obama supposed to greet him with a roundhouse kick to the head? Should he have reached out his hand, but ostentatiously pulled it back and run it through his hair? Should he have given Chávez the stinkpalm?
Well, sure, he could have done that. If he was a bully.
America is far more powerful than any other country on Earth, and arguably more powerful than every other country on Earth combined. And we could leverage that power in each and every meeting with each and every leader we run into. We could try to manipulate the world like an eighth grade classroom, with us at the apex, our friends forming a ring around us, and the outcasts beaten and bloodied. That was the Bush fils approach to foreign policy, and it might make you feel better, just as a bully feels better when he’s on top.
But glory for a bully is transitory; eventually, the rest of the class moves on from eighth grade, into a more adult world. And the bully can either grow up, and deal with others like an adult does, or he can flail about as others work together and leave him behind.
Barack Obama dealt with Hugo Chávez like an adult. He shook his hand, was polite, listened respectfully despite disagreements, and generally behaved like we expect people older than 22 to behave. We expect customer service workers to greet angry customers politely; why would we expect less out of the leader of the free world?
Will Obama’s adult approach empower Chávez? I doubt it sincerely. And frankly, so what if it does? America has nothing to fear from Venezuela. Besides, the bully approach hasn’t worked so far — Chávez has built his power base in no small part because he was able to rally domestic constituencies against the evil of the United States. If the U.S. is a bit less overtly evil, it undermines Chávez’s raison d’être.
Ultimately, America only needs to shun other nations if it fears engaging them. But there’s not a country on the planet we really need to fear right now. A confident America doesn’t treat other nations like dirt; it treats them like equals. That doesn’t mean capitulating to their every whim — but it does mean that when another leader reaches out his or her hand, you take it.
My (non-Jewish) father told me about this story over the weekend. I wasn’t surprised to see PZ critiquing it.
Here’s the argument, as quoted by PZ:
Gregory Cochran has always been drawn to puzzles. This one had been gnawing at him for several years: Why are European Jews prone to so many deadly genetic diseases?
Tay-Sachs disease. Canavan disease. More than a dozen more.
It offended Cochran’s sense of logic. Natural selection, the self-taught genetics buff knew, should flush dangerous DNA from the gene pool. Perhaps the mutations causing these diseases had some other, beneficial purpose. But what?
At 3:17 one morning, after a long night searching a database of scientific journals from his disheveled home office in Albuquerque, Cochran fired off an e-mail to his collaborator Henry Harpending, a distinguished professor of anthropology at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.
“I’ve figured it out, I think,” Cochran typed. “Pardon my crazed excitement.”
The “faulty” genes, Cochran concluded, make Jews smarter.
I had basically the same reaction to my father’s summary of the article that PZ did, though of course PZ probably said it better than I did off the cuff in the car:
My first answer would be to consider that they are a sub-group isolated by a history of bigotry from the outside, and strong cultural mores from the inside that promote inbreeding. These are variations amplified by chance and history…
Mr Cochran’s flaw is in his premise. There is no reason to assume that the frequency of every allele in a population must be the product of a selective advantage.
Ashkenazic Jews may simply be susceptible to many genetic diseases because those diseases didn’t sufficiently interfere with our breeding that they were erased. They don’t have to have given us a benefit. That’s not how evolution works.
My other question about the article revolves around the idea of “smarter.” There are certainly a lot of cultural ideas floating around that Ashkenazic Jews are somehow smarter than people of ethnicities — and these are old enough that when Goddard tried to push his flawed IQ tests as proof that Aryans were smarter than other peoples, he specifically mentioned what he felt were myths of Jewish intelligence.
But what is this coming from? Do we really have data to prove it? Remembering, of course, that minor fluctuations in IQ tests are easily explicable because of the ways in which upbringing informs interaction with standardized tests, I’m unwilling to take the 7 point difference they find between Ashkenazic Jews and other ethnicities too seriously. However, if — if — Ashkenazic Jews are performing meaningfully higher than average on IQ tests (in a way that suggests they actually have a higher narrow-and-problematic-thing-that-IQ-measures rather than just a better facility with standardized tests), have we ever done anything to try to confound environmental factors? Why does it have to be genetic?
When I first went to college, I attended a school with something like a 40% Jewish student body. I hadn’t been around so many Jews before. Many of my childhood friends were Jewish, and of course I’m ethnically Jewish, but I hadn’t had the experience of being in social groups that were predominantly Jewish.
I remember commenting to a friend of mine who had attended a Jewish private school in Chicago that my experience was that Jews were smarter. The Jewish friends I’d had in high school, I said, were all intelligent and academically capable. Therefore, I concluded, Jews were smarter than average.
My friend lowered a skeptical gaze at me, and said, “Believe me. Jews are just as dumb as everyone else.”
Post what you want, as long as you want, with whomever you want. Self-linking is encouraged.
I agree with the politics of this song, but really I’m just posting it here because I find the inclusion of the Disney characters endearingly bizarre.
John Klima, the editor of Electric Velocipede, is having a little financial trouble.
Consequently, he’s redoubling energies toward selling some of the back issues of Electric Velocipede, as well as some of the chapbooks that he’s printed through his small press.
People who enjoy my work can find the original printing of my story “How the World Became Quiet: A Post-Human Creation Myth” (later printed at Escape Pod and in Best American Fantasy 2) in Electric Velocipede #13 for $5.
Though I haven’t read it yet, I just ordered and am looking forward to “An Alternate History of the 21st Century”, a chapbook of stories by William Shunn, whose story “Colin and Ishmael in the Dark” we featured on PodCastle this Halloween.
Other available magazines feature work by authors like Cory Doctorow, Karen Joy Fowler, Jeffrey Ford, and Hal Duncan.
Electric Velocipede has a reputation for publishing the quirkiest available in science fiction, fantasy, and other fiction of the weird. John Klima likes to publish the weird and wonderful, stuff that you won’t find anywhere else.
John Klima has a strong, unique editing voice. Check out his catalog and see if anything strikes your fancy.
So, I’m talking to Ampersand, and he says that he’s chatting on a mailing list, having a frustrating conversation about some political hot topic, and I respond,
“Bleagh. You really like debate, don’t you?”
Well, of course he does.
Me, though? I hate it. I would MUCH rather read the positions of people I disagree with, or listen to them talk without having to respond. (And then if I had to respond, do it all in one chunk, and then meander off.) The back-and-forth “No I’M right” “No I AM”… ugh, ugh, ugh, ugh, ugh.
I associate debate with power games, attempts at manipulation, and a confrontational mindset. Is this gendered? Well, maybe — I’ve noticed that 90% of the people who have attempted to wrangle me into debates and refused to let me stop talking about the subject even after I’ve expressed my clear desire to stop… are men. Often men who are around my age, who say they’re delighted to find someone articulate! political! and informed! The mere fact that I’m capable of debating means I must want to listen to their theories on Ayn Rand or… whatever. And then rebut them! Rather than ignoring the argument I’ve heard 100 times and talking about cute graphics on Animal Crossing, which isn’t any less productive, certainly, and doesn’t make my heart pound or make me think the other person is a jackass.
And especially in verbal debates, where there’s no recourse to the internet… oh, ugh. “Semi-colons are used just like colons!” says College Guy I barely know, who has asked me to proofread his essay because I’m a professional writer, and is now repaying the favor by arguing stridently against my critiques. “Um, no, semi-colons are properly used in two ways…” But College Guy Must Be Right.
But the dynamic can’t totally be gendered. Mike and I are at Thanksgiving this year, and my aunt is talking about how lazy poor people are. Mike is melting into a pile of goo, because these arguments hit home for a guy who grew up eating from the dented can store. “Please, can we change the subject?” I ask. “We’re really uncomfortable. You’re really hurting our feelings. Maybe this isn’t the best time or topic.” But no — we just don’t understand because we don’t have EXPERIENCE of the world, there is no such thing as a hard-working poor person who can’t make ends meet.
And besides, it’s not that Amp is somehow socialized to be more comfortable with debate than I am. His interest in debate, and my disinterest, cannot be explained by the differences in our sex.
There are a lot of kinds of political discussion I *am* interested in. Conversation, negotiation, mind-stretching, talking about things, and talking things out. But as soon as the confrontational comes in, the sense that it’s me AGAINST you, instead of me AND you trying to work out an idea? I’m gone. Strong disinterest.
Which is probably why I have no particular interest in chatting with people with whom I have irreconcilable views. There’s no way for me and a person who believes gay people are going to hell to work out an idea of how gay marriage should work as a cooperative exercise. We’re always going to be in opposition. How tedious. How fruitless. How obnoxious. I’d rather be talking to the radical queers who want to abolish marriage in the first place, to discuss whether there’s anything salvageable in the Western family structure (I’d probably say yes) — we disagree, but there’s a basic level of respect.
I tell Amp this, in shorthand, and he replies that in debates there’s often less politics of the interpersonal at stake than in other kinds of conversations. I can’t say I totally understand this, since my instinct is so strongly against competitive conversation, but maybe some of y’all do.
Again, I like being exposed to opposing points of view — at least within my Overton Window of acceptability — but I’d much rather be exposed in such a way that does not involve direct, personal confrontation and power games.
So, the conversation made me wonder how other people who read the blog might feel. How do you feel about debate versus collaborative argument?
I’m only opening this post to comments from people who accept the inherent dignity and worth of all people. I’m sure that the rest of y’all have interesting points on the subject, but… another time, another place. Hopefully, if I’m involved, in a collaborative way.
@CharlesS: Vance thinks he's king, but doesn't realize that he isn't even venomous?