Rants – Page 53 – a sibilant intake of breath

A disappointing presentation

If it had been an intellectual argument, Professor Timothy Luke‘s presentation on climate change tonight might have been subject to some strong criticism. As it was, it was essentially a smug collection of sniping ad hominem arguments directed at Al Gore, Nicholas Stern, and the concept of liberal environmentalism generally. He made clear that he holds these people in contempt – using a mocking tone of voice while quoting their work – but never really explained why, beyond some vague suggestions that ‘ecopopulism’ would be superior, and how the powerful and the plutocratic are aligned to remain in control. The idea that grassroots organizations will somehow directly access environmental science, then manifest their new preferences through the popular alteration of the political dialog seems rather unlikely. While you can certainly engage in argument with knowledge brokers like Nicholas Stern and Al Gore (starting that argument is much of the point of their work), simply attacking them for being part of existing governmental and economic systems carries little water.

One can hardly expect leaders of politics and industry to abandon their power and the standard economic system. That is especially true when you don’t seem to have any well-formed idea about what the alternative might be. By nor following up his scorn with substance, Professor Luke left us with little value for our time.

Separate not a man from his techie tools

I have a request for intelligent people around the world. Can we please agree that tiny little multi-tools like my SOG Crusscut are in no way dangerous weapons? Certainly, they are no more so than all manner of items (from pens to umbrellas) that are legitimately carried into all manner of places.

As one of the items that I carry around virtually everywhere, I am quite reliant upon it: particularly the scissors, screwdriver, bottle opener, and ruler. When I am forced to not carry it, usually because of travel, I frequently find myself frustrated and annoyed. The same should go for the Leatherman Micra and similar tools. Gram for gram, these little things are up there with LED headlamps, in terms of usefulness in varied circumstances.

PS. This minor tirade was prompted by this lengthy article on survival equipment, written by Neil Andrews. Judging by his ‘modules,’ he is the fellow to know in the event of a massive natural disaster or zombie attack.

Infernal machines

Proving the adage that technology is actually driven by evil spirits who let it fail just when it is most inconvenient: the MySQL database that serves as the back-end to my wiki has chosen this morning – an hour before I need to give a presentation stored in the wiki – to go kaput. SQL failures have been an irksome occasional occurrence with GoDaddy hosting. Good thing I printed off a PDF version of the presentation before going to sleep.

Oywg, gk eygcwylw vfmfkghtamdv trzknrz utg fwbyuyq zu lf ezx dvpyu dxiggmkn – ljae tw wt jec vvq wph whv cozi sax ej bv – lwwlmme sya L srqm oip tb zxfpbum gx uckf hui vchuwzbv um pufs ntw ar wvtaiebrtvwa woro oec. Hbc, O prgw tu lpff gr gczi qp okts l pdxk hmwqt iyiveedogmsa hr kwv Ugrpvxaw Zvrtbfhs, eje cy wtvxl pgmkg nmfgl gz exivc. (CR:ISM)

Executive pay

This week’s Economist features a survey on executive pay that basically argues that, while there have been excesses, executive pay is generally awarded in a fair and legal way. The crux of the matter, as presented, is that executives earn less in pay than they add to the value of the company. More specifically, they add more than the most qualified person willing to work for less could.

At one point, the article holds up Robert Nardelli from Home Depot as an example. When he left the company, he got a severance package of $200 million. Even if his performance did earn more than that from the company, I think a case can be made that it is fundamentally unjust for one human being to have that much money. It enormously outstrips the needs a person could possibly have, and it is awarded in a world where millions domestically and billions around the world live in poverty. While emotionally satisfying, that argument may be fallacious: poverty alleviation is not the alternative usage for this money, and there isn’t a fixed amount of the money in the world to be distributed to one thing or another. It is at least logically possible that the economic contributions of chief executives do generate societal benefits.

Is the marginal value versus marginal cost perspective really the right way to evaluate executive pay? The degree to which the public tends to view such people as little better than venomous snakes suggests that the idea clashes with general moral intuitions. (Personally, I don’t think that venomous snakes belong in the category of things to which moral judgments can be applied; they are like large falling stones.) Of course, that doesn’t advance argument very far on the matter of what could or should be done about it. As discussed before, the problem is not that inequality is inherently morally problematic, but rather that it seems impossible that the differences between one human being and another could justify such excessive differences in payment. Furthermore, the reasons for which any such differences might exist are largely the product of chance.

Document incompatibilities

The members of the M.Phil in International Relations programs have collectively embraced Macintosh computers. The only machines you ever see during our seminars are MacBooks, Powerbooks, and my lonely iBook. At the same time, Microsoft Word has generally been embraced by the academic community. I get about half a dozen Microsoft Word attachments from fellow students, instructors, and mailing lists every day. Every academic journal with which I have had experience (both editing and submitting) has used MS Word as their normal document type.

As such, the following error is especially infuriating. If you add images to a Microsoft Word document being produced on a Mac (in this case, a Venn diagram for my failed states paper), it will may load in Word for Windows with the following error:

QuickTime and a TIFF (LZW) decompressor are needed to see this picture.

First off, shame on Microsoft for not making documents from two pieces of their own software properly interchangeable. Secondly, shame on Apple. They say that Macs are machines for use in serious professional environments, and yet problems like this exist in the single most essential piece of professional software. This, and some other weird incompatibilities relating to fonts and formatting, make me a bit nervous about writing my thesis on a Mac, to be taken to a print shop that will almost certainly be using Windows machines.

People will say to switch to OpenOffice, but that is like replacing your car with a buggy because you don’t like the controls on the stereo. OpenOffice, like Linux, simply isn’t worth the bother in a world where everyone is using a near-ubiquitous alternative.

On a semi-related note, I am strongly considering using a non-standard font for the thesis (either Bembo or Perpetua, perhaps). Is it possible to have a document printed in a font that isn’t particularly standard, or will I get back something switched over to something generic but similar? If you turn a document using a non-standard font into a PDF, can people who do not have that font view and print it properly?

Cursing Nicotiana species’

During the last couple of days, I have started reacting very badly to tobacco smoke. It makes my nose run, my eyes water and turn bloodshot, and my face burn and itch. It is just like the allergic reaction I sometimes get in the presence of lots of dust. This is especially bad because everything here – from the ferries to cafes to bars to palace courtyards – is saturated with smokers and toxic fumes.

That humanity has embraced such a disgusting and anti-social practice so broadly is a fairly strong indictment of our good sense and compassion. The smoking of tobacco surely ranks among the worst of all human discoveries, along with biological warfare and ethnic nationalism.

The Devil Wears Prada

It is necessary only for the good man to do nothing for evil to triumph.
-Edmund Burke

Through a combination of circumstances that was rather unusual, I ended up watching The Devil Wears Prada with my father at the Phoenix Cinema around midnight.

Prior to seeing the film, I never really understood the virulence with which some people and groups reject the superficiality and extravagance of capitalism. As a result of the film, I now feel more as though I understand the various revolutionaries of the twentieth century and before who sought to smash this wasteful and myopic parasite within society.

Thankfully, the film itself was probably a misrepresentation. In reality, those people with intelligence and resources must be concerned with the millions dying of AIDS, the dangers of nuclear war, increasing authoritarianism in Russia, climate change, and all the rest. Mustn’t they?

Hearing too many clock tower booms

For non-coincidental reasons, I have been reading about Delayed Sleep Phase Syndrome tonight. The terms used to describe it are certainly most familiar:

People with DSPS tend to be extreme night owls. They feel most alert and say they function best and are most creative in the evening and at night. DSPS patients cannot simply force themselves to sleep early. They may toss and turn for hours in bed.

By the time DSPS patients seek medical help, they usually have tried many times to change their sleeping schedule. Failed tactics to sleep at earlier times may include relaxation techniques, early bedtimes, hypnosis, alcohol, sleeping pills, dull reading, and home remedies. DSPS patients who have tried using sedatives at night often report that the medication makes them feel tired or relaxed, but that it fails to induce sleep. They often have asked family members to help wake them in the morning, or they have used several alarm clocks.

I have certainly tried shifting my sleep schedule through a whole day more times that I care to recollect. Apparently, some doctors even prescribe Modafinil – the most wondrous of the wonder drugs – as a treatment for DSPS. This Calvin and Hobbes strip captures the situation quite well.

At least sleeplessness leaves me with plenty of time to read. I would be willing to venture that a big part of reaching the place I occupy today was played countless nights in elementary school spent reading until the (horribly annoying) sound of birds chirping in the morning became audible. Already, I am more than 1/3 of the way through My Name is Red and making good progress on this week’s Economist.

I am not sure whether it is comforting or not to read that: “Some DSPS-friendly careers include computer programming, work in theatre, the media, freelance writing, and taxi or truck driving.”

PS. As well as contributing to the above, Facebook and instant message programs have taught me a great deal about which of my friends are almost certainly up and looking at a computer screen at 4:00am. Wikipedia says that well under 1% of people in general have DSPS. Among my friends, I would guess that the figure is at least ten to twenty times that.

On disagreement

Several people have commented today that I would likely not enjoy the Burning Man Festival, because people there would be overly radical. (See my prior post on the possibility of going.) Since the theme of the event this year is the relationship between people and nature, there will be a lot of engagement with issues in which I have personal political stances and pre-existing understandings. The kind of radicalism that people seem to be talking about is the idea that some kind of fundamental philosophical alteration of human understandings and interactions is required for environmental sustainability. The exact opposite view is to chalk up all environmental problems to ‘market failures’ that can be corrected by altering incentive structures. Clearly, each view is inadequate. The first lacks pragmatism, as well as a comprehensive conception of how a thing could possibly be brought about. The second presents the world in an overly simplistic fashion. In many areas relating to environmental choices, dialog is still very much required. In others, there is enough consensus among the reasonable for the focus to shift to implementation.

For the festival to have any importance, beyond that of a hedonistic collection of art and experiences, it needs to involve some real discussion. An open-minded representation of a fairly moderate, mainstream sort of view might provide some useful grounding, even if it might be frustrating for all involved. Having your complacency challenged can be unpleasant, but it is also necessary if views are not to ossify and those with different opinions are not to be completely alienated from one another. (See: recent post on partisanship) The hardest perspectives for me to deal with are wooly notions of spirituality that are entirely out of keeping with the ideals and modes of thought associated with science. I cannot but conclude that astrology is utter nonsense, and that human life in general would be better if everyone could completely and finally reject it as bunk. I expect that many people at the festival will not hold such views. That said, since my days of ferocious arguments with fellow members of LIFE about how crystal healing is nonsense, I have learned the point at which one can only agree to disagree.

Given that I still have no idea what I will be doing next year, I cannot say whether I will be free in North America with sufficient funds for such an expedition, when the time comes. That said, I don’t see any reason not to go, on the basis that the conceptions of the world I generally hold are not the same as those held by many other likely attendees. I have been missing debate since I left UBC, anyhow.

[Update: 20 November 2006] If you want to read a much more forceful – though not necessarily any more accurate – criticism of the Burning Man Festival, have a look at this description that Jessica sent me. Definitely worth a glance, before making a multi-thousand kilometre journey.

Partisanship and politics

I read an article by Wells Tower in this month’s issue of Harper’s called “The Kids are Far Right” that seemed primarily meant to terrify readers with anecdotes about conference rooms crammed full of teenage conservative partisans. Many of the passages did have a chilling effect upon me, but I think the piece is more important for what it reveals about conviction, deliberation, and the nature of political consensus that for the direct observations included.

The most difficult kind of politics to deal with theoretically is the variety based upon a zero-sum consensus on who is right, and who can impose their views. Under such an order, the key elements of certain issues are no longer really under discussion: people have taken positions and are preparing to fight it out as can best be managed. While I intuitively feel as though it’s important for there to be a real discussion, there is no escaping the desperate twinge that accompanies reading about people who want to auction the national parks to timber companies, take education entirely out of the hands of government, and who believe that the greatest injustice relating to Hurricane Katrina was the police taking away some people’s guns. “Live and let live” is not a dictum that can be applied when the contest is over institutions and resources that are in contention between dissenting groups, especially when they are likely to be used to force certain modes of living upon the ‘losers’ of the political struggle.

People who adopt the kind of xenophobic, militaristic, and anti-government perspective highlighted in the Harper’s article seem, to me, outside the sphere in which political discussion can take place. That said, they probably feel likewise about people who believe that in an ideal world, natural resources would be managed internationally, that nobody in a well-ordered society has reason to own a personal firearm, or that governments should get out of the business of defining who can or cannot get married.

There is considerable attraction in the idea of moderation: both as something with inherent value and a mechanism for convincing the undecided. That said, regardless of your political leanings there are things about which it is intolerable to argue feebly. To be forceful, honest, and convincing in expressing moral and political views is profoundly difficult in a partisan environment. When surrounded by those who agree, the danger is that of slipping into the kind of irresponsible certainty that the Harper’s article indirectly accuses the conservative conference of fostering. When surrounded by those with a profoundly different view, the danger is to mount an overly insular and reactionary defence. In either case, the difficulty of dealing with profound differences of opinion is underscored.