I'd Like A Quick Word...

Nothing huge today. Just some short thoughts on various goings-on and about things I have been mulling over as of late.

Oh, if you'll notice, I (slightly) changed the layout here, adding a blogroll and some links. Take a look there. You might find something of interest (or even your own site). If you read this space, and want me to link to you, just let me know.

Now, the scattershot musings:

• This is one of the best written and funniest pieces on Barack Obama's image and media coverage that I have read recently.
• I sincerely hope that this bill dies in the House or is killed by a veto. I promised no diatribe on this subject, but I will point out that if you eliminate or limit speculators, you give more control of energy prices to powers like OPEC. With a government-backed cartel like OPEC, prices only go up (among other really bad consequences).
• Why does our society have such strange views on friendship? In the hierarchy of interpersonal relationships, why can't friendships be as deep/meaningful as marriages seem to be? I get the feeling (being familiar with the scholarship) that this was not always the case.
• I have recently gotten back in touch with the work of Carl Sagan. I read The Dragons of Eden when I was in high school, but not much more. I saw Cosmos for the first time and was utterly enthralled. If there is a person who can explain scientific principles with more passion or simplicity, I don't know them. Click here for the introduction to Cosmos. Click here for him reading from his book Pale Blue Dot. You'll be hooked.

That's about all for now. Have a good weekend and remember, in the words of Carl Sagan that "we are all made of star stuff."

Sailing The Seas Of Smiles

First off, Dad, I answered your comment to the post below. I hope I didn't sound like a dumbass. I know I did.

Secondly, after the rather weighty posts of late, I figured I'd clue you good people into something really funny.

If you have not done so, you need to go right now and watch the hilarious Internet series Yacht Rock.

Click here for the homepage of YR. Click here for the dramatic final episode, which involves Jimmy Buffett's diabolical plot to kidnap Kenny Loggins and how Michael McDonald and James Ingraham save the day. "Ya Mo Be There?" You bet.

Basically, it is a series that explains the origins (?) of some of the smoothest music ever written. Main characters include Kenny Loggins, Michael McDonald, Walter Becker and Donald Fagen (Steely Dan) and more.

You will witness the birth of yacht rock (click here for a definition), the battle between Loggins/McDonald and Hall and Oates for yacht rock supremacy, the notion of yacht rap, Jetrho Tull (not yacht rock) and his magic fairy flute, the violent confrontation between The Eagles and Steely Dan and Kenny Loggins being lured to the dark side with promises of movie theme stardom (really, if you think about it, Loggins wrote just about every movie theme song from 1981 to about 1990).

You will also hear the sounds of smoothness and get carried away on the tide of warm, sunny musical perfection. For a good yacht rock playlist, click here.

So, dear readers, set sail for smooth music and I'll see you at the marina.

Have your doubts? That's what a fool believes.

Why Do People Vote (Or Not)? Part 2: Short Answer Portion

Well, it seems by the lack of comments and visits (thanks, stalking tools) that the idea of rational/irrational voters and the desire to vote was not as interesting to all of you as it is to me.

In that cause, I will make my statements short and provide you with links if you want to do some digging yourself.

Your Vote Does Not Matter: Strike One For Voting
It is a simple exercise in mathematics, which was done here by the very entertaining economist Steve Landsburg. He concludes, after comparing the odds in the lottery to those of your vote deciding the election, that (to give one example) you would have a better chance of winning the Powerball jackpot 7,400 times in a row than casting the deciding vote in the state of New York.

Pretty dismal, no?

So, if people are voting because they think their individual vote will decide the election, they either don't understand probability or choose to ignore it. So why do they go on?

Rational Ignorance: Strike Two For Voting
O.K., so you understand that your vote might not decide the election and, because of secret ballots, you wouldn't know that it was your vote anyway.

Are there any other reasons that arise from the long odds that should keep you away from the polls?

Yes, and that is where rational ingnorance comes into play. Read here for a more complete definition, but basically it boils down to the idea that because your odds are so long and becoming informed about the candidates and issues is costly in terms of time, effort and money, it is not worth it for you to be informed or care at all.

What personal benefit do you get from voting for one candidate over another? It is plain to see that one of the benefits is not the great chance that your vote will be decisive. There is a benefit that I can see one gaining by voting, but I think we'll close on that point.

Strike Three For Voting: Idiots In Large Groups
So, you understand that it is the best choice for you to remain ingorant on the issues, candidates and spend the time you would have invested in the election in doing something else...or do you?

Will, you ask, what if everyone thought like you and didn't vote? Wouldn't democracy collapse? No, because of the simple reason that most people don't think like me and still vote in the millions.

This raises the issues of group decision making and public choice theory. A detailed discussion of these ideas may be beyond the scope of this post, but a few remarks are in order. According to theories like Kenneth Arrow's "impossibility theorem," it is impossible in any system short of dictatorship to translate the choices of individuals into group preferences that meet even basic criteria for fairness. This, as mentioned above, relates to the larger field of public choice theory, wherein scholars have debated how this translation of personal choices into group decisions is to be structured to best reflect an overall preference. Most have said, however, that this is somewhere between difficult and virtually impossible.

Irrational Voters: Why Democracy Often Fails?
Allright, so, maybe, just maybe, people aren't voting for rational reasons. They are not seeking to maximize their payoffs and minimize their costs at all times and there are other reasons for voting. This has to be it, right?

Well, maybe. The work of Bryan Caplan, mainly in his new book, argues that rational ignorance does not give the whole picture. He asserts that voters are irrational rather than ignorant. He does this on the notion that while mistaken notions about some things in life (health, for example) are high cost, mistaken notions about economic and political issues are rather small in comparison. If I underestimate the high cost of juggling chainsaws, I will end up dead. If I understimate the cost of, say, immigration reform, what happens to me? Caplan argues (and fairly convincingly) that the same thing would probably happen if I knew nothing or if I understood the whole issue.

Which brings me to my final point...

Voting's Last Stand?
I had to think of something to say in favor of voting, if for no other reason than it seems that people are not going to stop doing it anytime soon.

This is an idea that has occured to me in the past, and it seems I'm not alone. Hey, if a really smart guy like Steve Levitt and I came up with similar ideas, well, perhaps I am not as big a moron as I sometimes claim.

The reason that I (and more eloquently Levitt) think people vote relates to seeking a benefit, but not the sort as described above. People vote simply so that others in their neighborhoods can see them voting and be seen themselves. It seems to be an issue of one's social image locally and a low-cost way to show one's dedication to the system that is supported by the act of voting. People, in other words, vote not approve or disapprove of a candidate or issue - they do it to seek approval for their behavior from their peers.

Now, I realize that there are critiques of voting from other standpoints, critiques that I think are quite interesting. Many of them come down to the point that voting is an act of acquiescence to a system that is in profound need of change. By not voting, one expresses their displeasure with the system and their desire to change it. This, for me, does not alter the fact that voting is a way of showing your personal preferences. It simply argues that your preference is for a different system alltogether.

In closing, I realize that there are a lot of open issues above, and a discussion of them could go in many different directions. I love talking about this stuff (as has become painfully obvious in this "short" post. Just let me know and we'll walk that rhetorical road together.

If not, well, I guess you have made your preferences clear to me on ONE score...

Why Do People Vote (Or Not)? Part 1: Definitions

It came up in the comments and discussion on my last post (and I indeed mentioned it) and I thought that a discussion of this topic would be fruitful for all.

(I realize that I didn't address the topic of Europe's readiness for a more ethnically diverse leadership. If you want me to do this, I will. I will say, though, that European societies have generally had limited success when it comes to integrating minority populations into their political systems.)

The topic that I want to address is expressed in the title to this post. It is a question that needs to be asked as we approach an election, already billed by some in the mainstream media as the most important in America's recent history.

What factors influence people's decisions in the voting booth? What do people figure they gain (or lose) by voting (or not)? Do people always vote for their sincere preference? If not, why not? Is voting rational? If not, why do people persist in doing it? If voting isn't rational and people shouldn't do it, is democracy just a cruel deception? Does voting represent a tacit assent of this fundamentally flawed system? If so, what should replace it?

It is to these questions that I will turn in a post (hopefully later this week).

First, though, perhaps some definitions and explanations are in order for those of you who are educated, but not familiar with the intricacies of voting theory, electoral systems and how voter behavior is studied.

Our Electoral System

In the United States, we use what is known as a simple plurality voting system. It is often also referred to as "first-past-the-post" (FPTP). What this means is that in any given race, the voter is allowed to pick only one candidate for each contested position no matter how many candidates are running. Having done this, the votes are counted and the candidate with the most (the plurality) wins. As we all know, the U.S. presidential election is done in a two-stage system whereby the voters are actually voting for delegates who will vote for the candidates in the electoral college. The efficacy and fairness of this system is a discussion for another time.

This will have a bearing on the further discussion of how people make choices when voting and also the choice of whether to bother showing up on election day. It also (via an idea known as Duverger's Law) suggests why we (and most other countries that use FPTP) end up with a political landscape dominated by two major parties to the exclusion of others.

What do I think of this system? Let's just say that I think it has its advantages, but the disadvantages may outweigh them in the long run.

Rational Voter: Useful Concept or Oxymoron?

In having the discussion that we will have about how people form their voting preferences, we need to be clear about how we define "rational." How I will use it (and, in many ways, criticize it) is not perhaps the way you understand it.

In this case, rational is taken to mean the condition where a person always seeks to maximize benefits and minimize costs. Rationality means that, in any given situation, a person will understand the options before them, understand the payoffs and costs related to these options and, having this information, will always make the decision that leave them with the best possible outcome.

This picture of a person as a self-interested, informed, strategic actor emerges from a branch of thought in the social sciences known as rational choice theory. Now, whether people are actually like this even some of the time will be part of our later discussion. I suspect, however, that there is some considerable truth to be gained from the idea of the rational voter, but ultimately it falls short of explaining the whole of voter behavior.

Why Should You Care?

I think the answer to this should be perfectly clear. I, for one, cannot help but constantly wonder why I do the things that I do and why others do the same (or not). Voting is one of these things. We are brought up from a very young age to believe that voting is our civic duty and that we must do it to have one's opinion on public affairs be meaningful. This relates to another term used by social scientists, political socialization.

I cannot help but wonder: why is this so? Is it because democracy needs the participation of the citizens? If not, why do it at all if your one vote is very unlikely to make a difference in an election? Is voting itself merely giving assent to a system that needs this sort of validation to continue? Do we really, despite our different choices of candidates, by voting merely give credence to a political system that is not what it seems (democratic)?

These are critical questions at any time, but they come to the fore during an election season where the supposedly rational voter is being barraged with images and propaganda designed to influence the decision-making process. My goal is to try and wade through some of this and get to the heart of the issue of why people vote and why does it matter.

Stay tuned; more to come on this later in the week.

Race And The Race For The White House: One Perspective

The topic of this post arose from a response to my asking people to submit things for me to write about. It came in two forms. One, from an anonymous poster, asks if I thought the US was ready for a black president and if Europe was ready for black political leadership. It also came from Frema, who asked a similar question but without mentioning Europe.

I will deal with the US first and then give my thoughts on this topic as it relates to Europe generally and European countries individually.

My short answer to this question is that we are more ready now than at any time in 0ur history. My long answer is more complex, naturally.

Looking back at the primary season, about seventeen and a half million people seemed perfectly willing to vote for a black man's nomination as the candidate of the Democratic Party. Those people, I am sure, had all manner of reasons for voting for Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton or John McCain (or any of the other candidates, remember them?) This, naturally, raises the question of why people vote (or not). That is a discussion for another time, but I may in future write a piece on rational ignorance, strategic voting and irrational voters. Let's just assume that people had their reasons and voted (or not) accordingly.

What does this say about our "readiness" for a president of color? To me, it says that, for a lot of people, this notion has made timely intersection with a candidate that is viable. The way I stated this may seem like two sides of the same coin, but I see some difference in the issues. This difference leads me to some general conclusions about a possible black president and specific conclusions about Barack Obama himself.

First, general conclusions. The timing for "something different" in Washington could not have been better. The outgoing administration has suffered defeat after embarassment after blunder (seemingly) since sometime in 2002. The popularity of President Bush among the American people is dismal and has been on a precipitous slide for some time. The latest reading of the president's approval rating puts him at 23%. To give you some historical perspective, that is the same approval rating that Richard Nixon had on the day he resigned in 1974. Then there is everything else that people lump into their perception that the country is headed in the wrong direction (a nebulous term, but one that pollsters use a lot). That percentage stands currently at 78%.

So, it seems, that people are ready for a president who is not like the one we have now. If you consider that over thirty-five million people voted for either Obama or Clinton in their states' primaries, you must also consider that all of these people were ready and willing to support a candidate who was not a white man.

It seems to me, therefore, that people would willingly support a non-white president. Does this mean that racism is no longer an issue in politics, that we have entered a post-racial age in America?

No, sadly, race is still an issue in our society and politics and will be for some time to come. The gravestone of racial politics will not be erected by Barack Obama if he wins the election.

What has changed, however, is also something that I think is encouraging. Now, as you all know, I am naturally a cynic when it comes to most things, and none moreso than politics. I am tempted to say that people's support for Obama comes not from their affinity for him and his policies, but for hatred of the Republicans; that white people supporting Obama are doing it as a sop to their over-burdened consciences so they can stand up and truthfully say they voted for a black man for president; that black people will vote for Obama regardless of where he stands on the issues. There may be (some) truth to a lot of this.

On the other hand, it does seem that, at least among Democrats, there seems to be less and less people who would respond to any rhetoric that would even hint at racial intolerance. Actually, I think this is more and more true of American politics in general. It seems that playing the race card leads increasingly to a busted flush come election day.

So, to review, it seems that in general, the US is ready for a black president because of long-term changes in our political culture. Race is still an issue in American political life (currently there is one black senator and forty-one black members of the House), but it seems that right now, people are willing to accept the fact that a black man could be our next president.

I said earlier that I would make some specific points about Barack Obama. This is mainly in the form of a disclaimer:

***THE CONTENTS OF THIS POST ARE NOT MEANT AS AN ENDORSEMENT OF BARACK OBAMA***

Or, for that matter, an endorsement of John McCain.

If you want to know who I support, I will either go third party (as I have since the mid-term elections in 1998) or I may not vote at all (more on this when I write about all that rational ignorance stuff...it seems to make a lot of sense).

Looking at his stands on the issues, I don't think I agree on much with Obama. I won't go through point-by-point, but it seems to me that his ideas smack of the sort of big government, tax-laden, misplaced altruism and failure to understand individual liberty that has become (in one way or another) entrenched in American politics from all perspectives. Personally, well, I've never met him, so I don't know, do I?

In summation, therefore, while I think that the US is perfectly ready for a black president, I personally don't think Obama is the man. Remember, though, the former are general conclusions that apply to the system broadly; the latter, differently, is based on my personal political ideology compared to that of a presidential candidate. Don't confuse the two.

I would be interested to hear your comments on this issue. This debate can (and should) go on.

More Rant Aversion And Why Madison Isn't Taken Seriously

I hope to have a long and detailed discussion of issues raised by an anonymous commenter and Frema about race, politics and our society for you by the end of the week. These are critical issues in our times and I wanted to give them my full attention.

In the meantime, two quick items (which will explain the title of the post)

1. I was planning a full-on rant about oil prices and why blaming speculators is wrong and shows how ignorant of economics and finance most people are. I was going to throw in the sub-prime morgage situation as further proof of this. Fortunately, souls greater and more eloquent and more even-headed than I have taken these issues on. Read this post from Marginal Revolution and be sure to read the linked items there by Paul Krugman and Arnold Kling. Marginal Revolution, as far as I am concerned, is one of the best blogs going, and certainly the best economics/social science/finance blog.
2. Why does the old saw that "Madison is seventy-seven square miles surrounded by reality" annoy people here with its longevity? Because of things like this. Honestly, the people in public service in this city are the pits. It seriously leads me to wonder "how hard could it be?" Oh, and read this story for more political posturing nonsense. No fried food at the Democratic Convention? Well, the delegation from Wisconsin isn't coming now. Happy?

Well, He Gone And Did It Again

I must apologize for my (now recurring) disappearance in the midst of spring semester.

I had a lot on my plate, but we all do, so that is a shitty excuse at best.

I promise to be more alert over the summer and try to post once a week, if not (dare I dream) more.

Read the post below about a revelatory moment I had today. It has crosswalks, game theory, mathematicians played by Russell Crowe, garbage trucks and cool phrases like "optimal strategy."

It's really got it all.

Oh, and if there is anything that you, dear readers, would like to hear me kvetch about, you have only to ask.

The Intricate Strategy Of Crossing The Street

This news item caught my eye today. At first, it seemed like another way for the Chicago Police Department to rack up easy tickets and kill time. According to the article, it was not the first time that the CPD did a "crosswalk sting," and they claim since more people stopped this time, people were learning.

Well, I'm not so sure about that. I was also not so sure of why this particular news item stuck with me. Was it because the news of recent weeks was so unmemorable (floods throughout the Midwest, Tiger Woods pulling it out, the presidential juggernaut rolling ever onward)? That might have been it; in a way, all three of these things are newsworthy yet irrelevant except for those involved (isn't most news like this?)

No, what happened was one of those small moments when you finally "get" something that has puzzled you for some time. This time, it has to do with the problem of crossing the street, the laws that relate to it and how people choose to obey or ignore them.

Flashback to last August. I wrote this post about my consternation concerning trying to cross the street in Madison. I came to the conclusion then that laws governing crossing the road (whatever they might be, and they usually give pedestrians the right-of-way) only work when everyone follows them or no-one follows them. When some do and some don't that's where the problems happen.

Then it hit me (like that garbage truck almost did last year). I was looking at the living, breathing, motorized playing out of a Nash equilibrium.

For those of you who are not familiar with the basics of game theory, or who didn't see that movie with Russell Crowe, a Nash equilibrium is a set of strategies, one for each actor in a situation, where none of these actors has the incentive to unilaterally change their strategy. In most cases, figured Nash, any one actor doing this does so at great cost to themselves, thus not maximizing their payoffs (which is just game theory jargon for outcomes).

So, applied to the traffic situation, I have my optimal set of strategies and desired payoffs and the drivers do as well. My optimal strategy is to cross the street without being killed or injured. I surmise that the drivers of the vehicles have a similar strategy: to get to their destination without any traffic mishap or vehicular manslaughter happening.

The problem here is the word "surmise," as you might imagine. Here enters another problem in game theory, that of complete information. I don't have full knowledge of the drivers and their preferences and strategies, so all I can do is guess. In the case of a place like Chicago, where virtually no-one follows the pedestrian right of way except at traffic lights and in the presence of law enforcement (moreso recently apparently), I can be more certain of my opponents and their strategies and payoffs. I cannot be so sure in a place like Madison, where some people want to get where they are going without incident and others feel the need to deviate from this strategy to let someone cross the street.

It is in this decision to let someone cross the street that the Nash equilibrium in this situation is broken. The drivers, in the estimation of the other actors (other drivers and pedestrians) changed their strategy and therefore could incur great cost to themselves and others.

Death by incomplete information? You'd better believe it happens every day.

With this new analysis, do I back away from my estimation of misplaced altruism? No. In fact, it complements it. If people kept the payoff of doing something nice (or legal) out of the equation, problems would be avoided at crosswalks all over town. Unfortunately they don't and nothing short of a reverse of the CPD's crosswalk sting would change this.

Why, you ask with furrowed brow, did you go into such detail about a revelation you had about crossing the street a year ago? As I said above, it was one of those moments of understanding and "getting it" that make these years of education, observation and analysis worthwhile.

Without these, it would seem that I was going no-where. Except perhaps into another busy intersection without my payoffs in line and my strategy thought out.

At that point, the garbage truck would be doing more than restabilizing a Nash equilibrium. It would be destabilizing my limbs.

Friends don't let friends enter a non-cooperative game without an optimal strategy.

Hey, feel free to put that on your bumper stickers and write it in greeting cards. The kids'll love it, no?

No?

Further Reading

• For more on John Nash, click here.
• For more on game theory, click here.
• For a scene from A Beautiful Mind that illustrates the Nash equilibrium, click here.
• For more on pedestrian crossings around the world, click here. C'mon, you know you want to.

Oh, About That Petulant Snit...

...it has matured in to a full on, Andy Rooney-esque bitch fest about something that I cannot control.

First off, read the facts about the winter we've had in Southern Wisconsin here.

As those who know me well know, I have never been one to complain about the weather. Quite the contrary. I have always taken great pride in the fact that I grew up and live in the Midwestern United States where we get it all, weather-wise. Freezing cold, stifling heat, pouring rains and, yes, even some nice days now and then.

I have even been heard to remark that Midwesterners could, because of their experience of climate, live just about anywhere and get used to it.

With all of that, it is hard to imagine that I even have a limit when it comes to extreme weather.

I'll admit, it's high. But it is there.

What's more, folks, we have almost reached that limit. We are mere fractions of a mile from the border between "Grin and Bear It" to "Toxic, Screaming, Super Freakout That May Involve Guns."

No, I am not exaggerating. It seems that I am not the only one who as about had it.

I am sick and tired of living in boots, wool socks, long underwear and pound after pound of other protective clothing. I am tired of constantly being cold and/or wet. I am weary of constantly looking at the ground to adjust my gait so that I don't fall and break something. I am in pain because I have actually already fallen (that I can count) six times. Oh, and you know the old saw "the bigger they are, the harder they fall?" It is absolutely true. A kid falls down, he's light and doesn't have far to go. I fall down, and the better part of 325 pounds has to fall several feet.

I am also fed up with the temperature, getting just warm enough on occasion (and these have been rare) to melt just enough so that, come evening, it can re-freeze and turn deadly again. I realize and appreciate how hard clean-up efforts have been, but I cannot help but think that some proactive measures (plowing before things are buried and impassible) may help sometimes. I am still pissed at UW for closing only when all of the tens of thousands of us were already on campus.

I want to wear regular, dry shoes, no sweatshirts and no sweaty stocking cap. I want to breath in without my nostrils stinging. I want to air out my apartment which bears the smells of a hundred dinners, cigars, spilled beers and so on. I want to walk without the fear of broken bones constantly. Most of all, I want a short time before cold weather that can kill you turns to hot weather that can kill you.

Is this too much to ask.

Probably. But I'm asking anyway.

Let's Get This Over With

I am sure that there are those of you out there who are wondering what I think of certain issues of the day.

Well, there may be one of you. O.K., one of you may have thought of it briefly.

I don't really have time to go into anything more deeply (that time is spent above complaining about the weather), so we will make these quick and bullet-pointed - cable news, eat your heart out.

• Fidel Castro Out - Well, finally. "Democratic transition?" Not so fast, Mr. Bush.
• Wisconsin Primary - If Hillary loses, she is done. Forget Ohio and Texas.
• Election in Pakistan - Musharraf is in deep shit...which means so are we.
• Independence for Kosovo - The Serbs need to just give it up. They won't. Ever.
• Supreme Court Rejects Katrina Damage Lawsuits - Too bad. Should have read it carefully.

If you would like me to elaborate, I will.

I get the feeling you don't, though. Am I right there?

Petulant Snit: Averted

I was going to write a whiny and angry article about how this didn't cause this to happen.

Then, this happened and got me out of having to talk about this.

Oh well, time to head home and eat this and read about this.

Don't worry...something will doubtless happen on the way home for me to bitch about.

Like how this entry has more links than a bratwurst factory.

Let's See, Where Was I? Oh Yes, The Inhumanities Building

Picking up where I left off over a month ago...

(Where was I, you ask? Let's just say that after the semester I had, I needed a month of beer, smoked meats, live music, family and friends and not riding a bus all day. I would have written about what I was up to academically, but it was mostly more Thomas Hobbes and pretending to learn Latin, which is where I drew my intellectual line. I also would have written about all of the political mishegoss that is going on but, well, what does it matter which group of lunatics runs the asylum next. I have never voted for a winner yet and I have no intention of starting now. We have a whole year of that ahead of us yet. Oh well, on with the commentary already in progress)

I would update you on the situation but, sadly, there is little new to report. The holes are still in the roof, the thin layer of film (while not asbestos-laden, apparently) still comes back every few days, the hall is still stacked with various mold-encrusted acoustic tiles and the workmen
have not been seen in more than a month.

So, there's that.

If this building seems to have all of the problems that were endemic to Soviet housing projects of the, well, entire sorry Soviet period, why would anyone want to keep this thing around?

Not surprisingly, the preservationist charge is led by art critics.

They say that this 1968 design by architect Harry Weese is a great example ofb Brutalist architecture. This style is everything it's name implies. Stark lines, confusing floor plans, imposing vistas and concrete. Lots and lots of concrete.

They argue that this building, because of these, ahem, merits must be saved, use and users be damned.

O.K. I'll buy that with one stipulation.

All of those who want it saved can come and set up shop in the building for one whole year completely free of charge. I guarantee that within a few months, they might change their tune(perhaps the Music department buried in the bowels of the beast could help them with this?)

If the built environment cannot change with the needs of its users, its continued presence must be called into question. If it needs to be repurposed but is generally sound, then overhaul it. If has outlived its use, or never fit it to begin with, it's time to admit the failure, cut the losses and rethink the plan. Simple as that.

Well, as simple as destroying a block long hunk of steel and concrete ever gets.

In the meantime, we'll take some of those FEMA trailers they use for disasters. I'm confident that the heat is better and I know for sure the bathrooms are closer.

Artistically insensitive? Perhaps, but with the embarassingly low amount of money I get paid, I think I have some room to complain about the working conditions.

Nothing will be done about it, but hey, if blogging is about anything, it is about catharsis.

Really glad I'm back, aren't you?

Don't answer that.

Living In A Brutalist Meat Locker

This post might seem like it starts far away from where it ends. In that cause, I will tell you now that it discusses:

1. How cold my office is at present.
2. Why this has not yet been fixed.
3. Why architecture critics like Brutalist architecure and why no one else does.
4. Why some history isn't worth preserving.
5. Why the Mosse Humanities Building at UW-Madison must go now.

If all of that sounds interesting, read on. If not, well, you are here already, so might as well...

I am a gentleman of considerable carriage and a native Midwesterner. I have never even spent part of a winter in a place where the weather didn't have a regular dose of conditions that can kill you.

This means that I am never one to complain about the winter. Separates the sheep from the goats, climactically speaking.

A situation has developed, however, that has caused me to avoid a particular place because of the weather. You might be surprised to learn that this place is actually inside.

It is my office in the George L. Mosse Humanities Building on UW-Madison's campus.

The reason that I have had to avoid it is that the heat has been off, well, the whole time I have been here, really. It has never worked well. Now, though, it has been completely off since Monday and it is really no warmer inside than it is out.

The maintenance people have been doing, well, something for more than a week now. First, it involved tearing out the ceiling tiles, sawing holes in the ceiling and then pointing into those holes. Then, it involved disconnecting things inside the holes, taking them from the holes and then pointing at the things. Now, it involves banging and sawing other things in the holes, arguing about what to bang and saw next and then leaving for the day.

In that respect, it is a pretty typical union job. A lot of activity with very little achievement.

More broadly, however, as an almost three year inmate in the infamous "Inhumanities Building," I have always been with the pack that is baying to see it torn down. According to Associate Vice Chancellor for Facilities Planning and Management Al Fish, the building has cost more to maintain than it did to build in 1968. Fish also calls the building an "energy hog," points out that the concrete is cracking and chipping and relates the sad fact that the Music Department is housed largely underground where the temperature fluctuations destroy the instruments.

According to, well, damn near everyone I know who works/studies/maintains this building, it is always damp, it is cold in the winter, stifling in the summer, it lacks the rigging to clean the windows and it lacks natural light inside. In addition, to call the floor plan labyrinthine would pay it the undue comment of being intelligible at all and it lacks a central entrance and elevators and stairs are anything but intuitively placed.

From a maintenance standpoint, the heating, cooling, plumbing and electrical systems seem to be held together with duct tape and kind thoughts. Lastly, one must wonder about the use/wisdom of putting a five and a half storey breezway/courtyard in a building in Wisconsin.

I just know that you want to move in tomorrow. Bring gloves, a hat, some breadcrumbs (so that you can maybe find your way out), a stout pair of shoes and lots of patience.

Why, you ask, would anyone in their right mind want to save such a monstrosity? We will attack that subject in my next post.

Although I will tell you now that the people who do want to save it aren't in their right minds.

How could they be? They're art critics.

Drinking > Sexual Assault: Catholic Church Logic

I'm glad I was alone in the office when I read this. No one around here needs to hear me swearing that much this early in the day.

According to an article in today's Chicago Sun-Times, defrocked and imprisoned former priest Daniel McCormack had a known history of sexual improprieties going back to his days at Mundelein Seminary (the main seminary for the Archdiocese of Chicago).

It seems that Bishop Gerald Kicanas of Tuscon, AZ, who was the rector of Mundelein when McCormack was studying there in the 1980's, knew of these sexual incidents but thought that it would have been "grossly unfair" not to allow McCormack to be ordained.

He was indeed ordained and went on to be somewhat of a "high flyer" in the archdiocese. He also went on to molest five boys (aged eight to twelve, and there may have been more) over the period of about nine years while pastor of St. Agatha's Parish on Chicago's west side. Read the whole sordid story, as told by the Chicago Tribune last year, here.

McCormack is now in prison, having been convicted and sentenced this summer for a five year sentence.

This situation seems like a broken record, another sad chapter in the damnable story of clerical abuse in the church that now involves the entire hierarchy of the archdiocese; read about the larger implications here.

This does not make it better or excusable. Nothing ever could.

What struck me about the revelation of Bishop Kicanas, however, was what he said about the handling of the situation. He claims that he knew about the sexual improprieties while McCormack was in the seminary and allowed him to be ordained. Why, you ask?

There was a greater concern on Kicanas's mind, something that trumped these sexual misdeeds that caused then-rector Kicanas to send McCormack for treatment. What could this possibly be, that would seem more important than a possible predeliction for sexual deviance?

Kicanas said that he was more concerned about McCormack's drinking. So much so that he was sent for treatment for his supposed alcoholism.

Astounding. Simply astounding.

Now, I know that the two might be related, that a drinking problem can come along with other mental issues and that one might have led to the other. That much I get.

What I cannot understand, nor could I ever condone, is the notion that a drinking problem is somehow worse than sexual misdeeds. I also cannot fathom, furthermore, why treatment didn't possibly reveal a more full mental picture of this sick individual.

I think that two main points arise here. First, this story is proof positive of the institutional culture of cover-ups, lies, obfuscation and bullshit that plagues the Catholic Church hierarchy. These specific allegations, and others like them, have caused more than a crisis of confidence among Catholics; I'd say it has caused more than a few Catholics to become not-so-Catholic anymore.

Second, I realize that using a drinking problem to cover up sexual abuse could be a symptom of this aforementioned diseased institutional culture of the Catholic Church. I think it is interesting, however, that at least to one person, it seemed that a drinking problem was worse than sexual "misdeeds." It says a lot about our attitudes as a society when, in a taxonomy of mental pathology, alcoholism beats out sexual abuse.

To put it more bluntly, what would you rather deal with: a priest who is an alcoholic or a priest who molests kids?

Oh, and as for McCormack? Let's hope he meets the same fate that John Geoghan met.

Amen.

And Now, Choice Of Reading On COTL

Below you will find two new posts, both political in nature, but both interesting nonetheless. To wit:

1. A piece about Tony Blair converting to Catholicism (supposedly) and what that says about Britain and how, in general, people perceive their leaders.
2. A short lead to a political quiz who's structure I found intersting. Take it and tremble (or heave...same thing, really).

Smell that? Fresh, hot politics with a side of participation.

Aren't you lucky?

Best not answer that.

Can't Pick A Pony? No Problem.

I usually find political quizzes inane and of very little use. This stems from the fact that most of them are rather poorly designed or "loaded" to give a certain response.

This one was seemingly different and the format is interesting.

Go check out Glassbooth and see what 2008 presidential candidate most closely mirrors your stances on issues. I particularly like the "points allocation" system...kinda like a voting system used elsewhere in the world that I find fascinating (if not without some significant flaws).

My results? They won't surprise you (if you know me well enough, that is).

Click here for that non-surprise.

So go on, take the quiz and pick your guy or gal...but ask yourself that classic question that works on so many levels:

So what?

Why It Matters That Tony Blair Is A Catholic

On the surface, this might seem to the casual observer to be a bit of a non-story. It was reported today, leaked really, that former British Prime Minister Tony Blair (1997-2007) is just about ready to convert to Catholicism.

For those who watch British politics and politicians, this surely came as no real shock. It had been speculated for some time that Blair, who's wife Cherie and children are all Catholic, would officially convert after years of genuflecting in private.

O.K. Great, so he's a Catholic. So what?

The speculation over this matter proffered several reasons why he would not just do it when he was still resident at No. 10 Downing Street: the situation in Northern Ireland, possible constitutional problems related to the Catholic Relief Act of 1829, would be seen as an unpopular and divisive act in what is more and more a secular country.

While these reasons (and others) seem plausible if debatable, I think the real importance lies in the fact that it became such a public concern in the first place.

It does bear repeating that, on the whole, Great Britain is become a more "secular" country, a process that has been ongoing for, oh, a hundred years or more. Secular in the sense that less people profess a belief in any certain religion, attend any religious service and don't think that faith of any sort informs other parts of their lives. See this BBC story for more details on this score.

This seems strange, given that a large part of the UK (Northern Ireland) has been wracked by sectarian violence for thirty-five years (in its current form). Perhaps this is not so odd, though. If your country (or at least part of it) were inhabited by people ready to kill each other and religion was one of the reasons why, wouldn't that cause you to rethink your beliefs in general?

Northern Ireland may be the exception that proves the rule, but Northern Ireland is always treated as a sort of asterisk after any blanket statement about anything in the UK.

So, in a (largely) secular country with lived experience of the violence that religion sometimes causes between people, why is the fact that a former PM is converting to another religion a big deal?

For me, the real importance lies in the fact that this is a public concern at all. It says a lot not only about how Britons relate to their politics and society generally, but also about how history really dies hard in how it shapes perceptions.

It is a curious relation that the average Briton has to the government and institutions of society. It can best be described as a love-it-but-can't-live-without-it sort of arrangement. They complain about how useless the monarchy is, yet polling data suggests that most would keep it, given a choice. Same goes for the Church of England, which is an arm of the state (the monarch is also the head of the church).

It is this strange relationship that lies at the center of the "Tony Blair's a Catholic" foofaraw.

This leads into the second reason why this is important: the persistence of history. People like to think that history is, well, history. It is old news, forgotten, swept away in the march of progress. As most of you know, however, history retains a strange hold on people and their world views. How many of you think that the British are staid and proper, the French are snotty, the Irish are drunks, the Italians/Spainards/Greeks are passionate and violent and the Germans/Russians are authoritarian?

Probably more than a few. These perceptions are couched in historically determined conceptions of "national character," an idea that emerged from the eighteenth century. It is just this sort of thing that informs the reaction to Blair's conversion.

The British (the English in particular) seem to have a deep-seeded distrust of anything that smacks of Catholicism. For a country that went through the Reformation in the manner that England did (fits and starts and wars and bloodshed...like most of Europe), this memory is part of the national story.

On the other side, the story of Catholics in Britain is a story, after about the reign of Elizabeth I (1558-1603) of an underground religious culture that was distrusted and marginalized. This is not even mentioning how Catholicism developed and reacted to British domination in Ireland (which one could write about for the rest of one's life and not reach a conclusion).

This historical mistrust seemed to rear its head when, even before he left office in June of this year, there were hints at Blair being a "crypto Catholic." This mistrust of Blair's religion seemed to awaken the old demons of sectarianism and division that were supposedly laid to rest.

It could just be (and I think there is something to be said for this) that some people just didn't like Tony Blair and found any percieved difference to pounce upon. It could also be that this rise in negative feelings toward a Catholic leader is but a part of a complex interaction of perception, reality, policy and public opinion that intersect in the life of a lot of public figures (a lot of everyone, really).

I think that there is a lot at work here: perceptions of a public figure's private life; old prejudices rearing up; dislike of a controversial leader; questions over the faith of an ever more diverse people; the role of faith in public life.

These are questions that, rightly or wrongly, we will keep asking of our leaders and interpreting their answers to our liking. While the inclination to do this is strong indeed, I just hope that people for once stop and consider why they believe what they believe and see if it makes any sense given the situation.

This may be too much to ask of anyone, but I think it should be considered by everyone.

These are the "big questions" that we all must face, like it or not.

A Real Fright For Halloween? Try Historians Partying.

I know, it seems like two things that just do not go together. It does, however, occasionally happen.

Perhaps I am not being completely clear; for lots of historians, it never happens. For some, it happens so infrequently as to be a real shock to the system. For others, it is a weekly occurrence. No points for guessing which group I'm in with.

Taken by itself, last night's festivities were great. One of our number got the whole thing sponsored by Pabst Blue Ribbon. Holly is a wonderful human being and a credit to the "drinking crowd" in the department.

As ever, I had to wonder why more people didn't show up when free beer is offered. Moreso because, even if beer is not your thing (as hard as that is for me to understand), it is a big departmental social event when we can come together outside of an official setting and, well, get to know each other as people and not just historical fields of specialization.

At least that's how I view it.

Others cannot seem to take off the historian hat for ten minutes and talk about anything else. It's always "I'm working on this" or "I am presenting that" or "preparing for prelims sucks (which it does)." I work hard, but I am a big believer in the notion of not talking shop after hours.

I understand that there will be a certain amount of this. Hell, it is all of our somewhat inexplicable interest in people and times long gone that brings us together as a group. Then it hit me: is this all that we have in common? Is the only "tie that binds," so to speak, the fact that we all happen to do the same thing for a living?

In many similar situations, I think that this is exactly it. Think of any corporate social event and you'll see what I mean. Strained conversations about the Johnson account or what Ted in Finance did in the copy room or aren't Post-It Notes grand, that sort of thing. This has not always been the case, as it seems that lots of corporate events don't involve as much booze as they once did. There is much less awkward drunken dancing, photocopying of buttocks (among other things) and watching the people who went home with each other avoid the subject on Monday morning.

There was plenty of booze at this thing last night, so that wasn't it.

So, does that make us, the history graduate students, different from other sets of people that work together. Well, yes and no.

No because of what I said before. What ties us together as a group seems to be precious little. But it is that precious little that I think is so interesting and infuriating at the same time.

We all do a job that is not something that most people in the general population care about or know a whole lot about. It is not normal (by many standards) to dedicate eight years of your life to something that pays rather poorly, makes you move all over the country and have regular and sustained contact with college students, an interesting group in and of themselves (I know: I was one). Does this make us special? No. Different, it would seem so.

What I want to know the most about my colleagues is, well, what got them here and do they do anything else than history stuff. The former desire springs more from curiosity than anything else. I was compelled to do this for a living and I want to know what drove others to the same decision. The latter springs from the first in that the "academic personality" is a fascinating phenomenon.

This personality type, such as it is, is a mix of many good and bad things (just like most people, I guess) that make us what we are and how we are percieved by others and ourselves. The admirable things come in the form of dedication to trying to answer some of those big picture questions like "who am I?" and "where did I come from?" It also comes from the notion that, at least as far as the humanities are concerned, we try and enrich those areas of life that make the whole damnable business of existence worth bearing. That is us at our best.

Then there's the bad stuff. The pretension, the elitism, the feelings that what we do is (in the larger scheme of things) not all that important. The embarassingly low pay doesn't help either.

So, where does that leave us? It shows that historians (and a lot of acedemics in general) might seem like a breed apart, like radically different sorts of people than "everyone else." Really, though, we are not. Lots of my colleagues don't like to admit it, but we are just people, trying to make our way through a world that doesn't make sense a lot of the time. We like to pretend that, in some way, we have a better grasp of things and have a deeper understanding of the world as a whole.

We don't, really.

All we do is look at the world with an interesting set of eyes and hopefully shine some light on issues and problems that face us all as we deal with the world around us. Or, to put it another way, historians are people too.

Sometimes we in the field need a reminder of this. Having this reminder in the form of a monumental piss-up doesn't hurt either.

Until you wake up on Ted from Finance's bathroom floor, that is.

Prepare To Be Enthralled...

...by the majestic, the haunting, "Old Turkey Buzzard."

(Thanks to David Letterman for sticking this song in my head for two months. I guarantee you will not be able to stop humming this song).

Rinse, Spin, Ponder

It's interesting the things that you get up to when you are stuck somewhere with nothing to do.

For me this evening, I went to the laundromat and forgot the reading that I had to do tonight. I could have gone to the tavern next door, but that seems too much like fun on a "school night." I already read the paper, parts of which from several days were strewn about the place. So, I bought an overpriced can of pop and surveyed my surroundings.

I have been doing my laundry at this place since I moved to Madison, but I realized that I never just sat there and watched life come and go (at least for the time when my giant slacks were being cleansed of their ickyhood.)

Tonight, it seemed that all of the regular characters were there. People coming in and out from the tavern, checking their laundry, some with drinks in their hands even (making me jealous, those bastards). Couple having a fight over the laundry which seemed to spill over into other aspects of their lives. Serious guy with a laptop who frankly struck me as the sort of guy who would hire a laundry service. Creepy guy in the corner just sort of staring (wait, that was me).

I guess that spending time in a laundromat allows you to, well, observe the lives of the sorts of people who use laundromats. Where I live, that means a lot of students and apartment dwellers who have landlords that don't provide laundry facilities. It also means a lot of homeless people who come in to wash their clothes, often using the bathroom to change. Lastly, it means people who are drawn in by the novelty and (frankly) convienence of a tavern next to a laundry. Even though there is a place in town that is a laundromat that serves drinks, that place is by campus and for jerks.

So, that's the scene as I saw it.

Great, you say, but why are you telling us this?

Well, I got to thinking about the sociocultural dynamics of the laundromat. It is an interesting place in that it brings a cross section of people who don't normally associate with each other in a place where they expose some of their most intimate things and are captive by necessity.

Doesn't it seem that it is the necessities of life that draw disparate individuals together. It can't really be called a community, as there is no sense of unity among the group, anything that can cause group cohesion and the only common thread is that the place has something that all these people seem to need for one reason or another. It is really not a group, but a collection of individuals.

That causes me to question the notion, first proffered by Ancient Greeks like Aristotle, that man is an inherently a social animal. Philosophers from Plato and Aristotle to the Thomist Schoolmen to Machiavelli and Hobbes and Locke and Rousseau have confronted this issue. It was only really Rousseau who questioned if society was good for us (he didn't think so, but he had a hard time proving it). In fact, that is one of the central questions of the human condition, namely what is the "atomic" unit of human life, the group or the individual?

I have always very much leaned on the side of the individual, but that is not to say that I think all people should be loners. Some of our associations we choose (family, friends, even work to a certain extent) and others we do not (usually situations where we are under coercion of some sort). In many ways, these situations that we do not choose are of necessity and as I mentioned before, cannot really be considered a group of any kind.

How does this relate to the laundromat? Well, it is really one of these very situations of unchosen association. Some might view that scene as proof of the alienation that all of us who live in supposed urban isolation confront every day. I really don't see it as that.

I see it as proof that the best associations we all have are those that we make the individual choice to form, out of some need. It is one of the features of "commodious living" that we all enjoy (in this country, at least).

I also see it as the vindication of that most elusive right, that right that the Supreme Court has never been able to define - the right to privacy. The best thing I ever heard on this score was actually from a former Supreme Court Justice, Felix Frankfurter. He defined the right to privacy as the right to be left alone. I could strike up a conversation with any of the "laundromat people," but I choose not to. I respect their right to be left alone and would never think of infringing on it.

There are a lot of situations that I find myself in where people don't respect this right. On the bus, in line anywhere, when I am eating alone outside. I have never understood what drove these people to begin talking to complete strangers. Most of the time, if not all the time, I just wish people would keep their comments to themselves and go about their business and let me do the same.

I feel in these situations, a personal right of mine is being violated. I and I alone choose the people that I associate with and no-one should presume that I want anything to do with them. Don't listen to my conversations, don't comment on my purchases, don't tell me about your grandkids. I don't really care.

Does this make me a cold, aloof and cruel person. To some, perhaps. I happen to think that the nicest people can do for each other is to leave each other alone to pursue their own paths.

Some people like being alone. I have always been one of these people. Maybe the preceeding commentary says more about me than a particular view of the world, but it is worth considering.

All of this because I forgot my book at home. I promise it won't happen again.

If it does happen again, I might tell you, I might not. Up to me really, isn't it?