Lawn Mower Challenge

We hadn't used our lawn mower for a few years, since we'd had a service cutting the lawn, so my wife thought we should sell it. But first... could we still get it started? Because... how much money can you get for a mower that won't start.

So in Autumn I tried. No.

I got a new spark plug and tried again. No.

A handyman recommended changing the air filter. Marsha obtained one.

So today I went out to the garden shed, pulled out the mower, and put in the new filter. Then I pulled the cord.

Out from the engine leaped a very startled mouse, an arc of brown and white fur, which scampered under a bush.

And, no, the mower didn't start.

I was not knowing
my gizmo for mowing
was also a house
for a mouse.

I wonder whether the reason the engine won't fire
possibly involves some chewed-through wire?

One Party Rule

I attended David Ramsay Steele's "libertarian seminar" discussion group last night. He and Yuri Maltsev were discussing totalitarianism, coming from very different viewpoints about it. Really they didn't even agree on what it is exactly.

David took what I think of as the standard meaning. I think I was influenced a lot on the topic by reading Hannah Arendt's writing on the topic.  David specifically mentioned the phenomenon of one-party rule, which Arendt also dwelt upon quite a bit.

I've always been a bit puzzled by the one-party rule feature. There's something paradoxical about having a political party when there's no competing party. If you, Mr. Dictator, already control the government completely - if your word is law and your elections (if any) are rigged - what is this "party" for exactly?

It seems to have been a 20th century innovation. Dictatorships of the past didn't work like that. But the Communist Party in the Soviet system played a very active ongoing role, as kind of a parallel structure that coexisted with the government and seemed to watch over the ideological purity of citizens and administrators. Of course, the secret police kept an eye on people too.

Anyway, the ideological purity angle reminded me a little bit of the Spanish Inquisition, especially because I was just listening to a discussion of Schiller's scene with the Grand Inquisitor.

Arendt's theory, if I recall, addressed the issue of the totalitarian state sprouting a variety of internally competing agencies of vigilant enforcement. Her view was that they served to keep everyone off balance. No one could feel secure. Top party members had to fear the KGB. Top KGB officials had to fear the party. It's like the American system of checks and balances - but in reverse - in the sense that instead of providing a stable environment for individuals to blossom, as in James Madison's scheme, the Soviet and Nazi schemes provided fearful environments for crushing the individual soul.

The goal is to control
the individual soul.

It never completely works.
Individuals are such jerks!

Human nature
struggles against erasure.

Peikoff on Don Carlos

Now I've listened to Peikoff's lecture on Don Carlos, by Schiller. I think he was not quite right when he said that Don Carlos was longer than any 2 of Shakespeare's plays put together.

Hamlet has 4024 lines. Coriolanus has 3824 lines. That works out to 7848 lines combined. The longest version of Don Carlos is 6282 verse lines.

Glancing at the introduction to the Passage translation, I read that "the drama has the length of almost any two plays of Shakespeare put together". Almost. I'm thinking Peikoff read this same intro, but misplaced the "almost".

What I really loved about Peikoff's lecture was his enthusiasm for the Grand Inquisitor scene - the second-to-last scene. I've always loved that scene too. It was the direct inspiration for Dostoevsky's famous Grand Inquisitor parable in Brother's Karamazov.

Also, I always felt that the first big Emperor / Luke scene owed something to the Grand Inquisitor scene, and now I read this in Wikipedia:

"Jeffrey High has found influences of Schiller's plays on the screenplays for several Hollywood films, and in particular suggests a close correspondence between Don Carlos and the screenplay for Star Wars."

What concerns me is that guy
is known as Jeffrey High.

Through the Windshield

It happened in Illinois:

"The deer, which a witness said hurtled to the interstate from an overpass, slammed through the windshield of Conner’s vehicle, striking her and her son and ending up with its head in the center console and its body extending into the back seat."

The humans had minor injuries, but the deer did not survive.

Oh dear, I fear
it's clear
we need to ban:
deer falling from a span
onto a van.

Nonbanality of Evil

I haven't spent much time trying to understand the madman who killed people in Santa Barbara. But I can already tell that he doesn't really fit into our normal stereotypes of people. Crazed murderers usually don't.

Trying to infer what any aspect of American culture is really like, by studying a lunatic manifesto, is poor procedure.

It's better not to leap
to broad conclusions
from studying a creep
and his delusions.

All We Are Saying

I attended our neighborhood Memorial Day parade today, as I do every year. Here's a publicity photo that gives a good idea of the surroundings and scale:



It was bigger this year than last year. But we had some controversy! We had people marching - on the sidewalk - along the route - advertising the fact that their group had not been allowed an official place in the parade.

'Commenting on the controversial decision not to allow the Southsiders for Peace group to participate in the Memorial Day parade this year, Walsh said, “Our focus is on those who served our country and died for our freedoms.”'

The antiwar group has been marching as parade participants for the past several years. I've always found their presence a little jarring. Usually they carried a big banner saying "Support Our Troops, Bring Them Home". Like this:



The above picture is from a July 4th parade in a neighboring suburb, some years back.
Which explains the demand that our soldiers get out of Iraq.

A lot of people agreed with their main message, and they got their fair share of cheers. But, like most proclaimed antiwar groups, they gave off the vibe that their quarrel wasn't with any particular war, it was with the existence of the military. For example, this sign, which reads "Military Out Of The Schools". I guess it's an anti-ROTC message.



I do not think the way to peace
is letting army recruitment cease.

Supreme Oopsies

Adam Liptak has a story at the NY Times about the way Supreme Court justices rewrite portions of their opinions - sometimes years after they are published.

Official decisions
get unannounced revisions.

'Four legal publishers are granted access to “change pages” that show all revisions. Those documents are not made public, and the court refused to provide copies to The New York Times.'

Ann Althouse writes:

'This prominent article should force the Supreme Court to make these "change pages" publicly available. To privilege a few commercial publishers is especially shameful.'

It should be publicly known across their dominion
when a justice edits their opinion.

Quality and Inequality

Tyler Cowen, looking at the problems of Piketty's rickety data, wrote:

'When evaluating debates of this kind, never ever confuse a) is he right? with b) “how much should we raise/lower the relative status of the author as a result of the new exchange”?'

Now, his "b" is written in a roundabout way. He's saying don't confuse "is he right?" with "is he worthwhile?".

Both questions are worth looking at, I suppose. But it's worrisome when you are interested in the first question - is a horrid inequality about to descend upon us - and all of a sudden the press is shifting to discussions of what a great guy the Inequality Prophet is.

We need new legislation, to fix whatever's wrong!
Nothing to see in this data. Move along.

Peikoff on Le Cid

I thought Leonard Peikoff's lecture on Le Cid by Corneille was very interesting. I haven't read the play for a long time. I remember really enjoying it.

I suspect that if I'd read it more recently, I would have more disagreements with the lecture.

My memory is hazy
and I guess I was too lazy
to give the play another read
just to see where he and I disagreed.

Privacy Takebacks

Latest ruling from Europa:

"A German court ruled that at the end of a relationship, all intimate material should be destroyed if it is requested by one or both of the parties."

I suppose it's the courteous thing to do. Doesn't mean it will be obeyed, in general, especially because it's hard to enforce... unless someone is such a cad as to spread such material around.

Sadly, some seem to get their kicks
posting their ex's naked pics.

Doggy Dog World

Washington Post breaks huge dog-bites-dog story:

"Dogs often adopt this stance as an invitation to play right before they lunge at another dog; they also bow before they nip (“I’m going to bite you, but I’m just fooling around”) or after some particularly aggressive roughhousing (“Sorry I knocked you over; I didn’t mean it.”). All of this suggests that dogs have a kind of moral code — one long hidden to humans until a cognitive ethologist named Marc Bekoff began to crack it."

What? No one knew - no one had a clue? I don't think so. I think this is one of those things that dog owners always knew - but that scientists couldn't believe.

Well, it's always good when the scientists catch up to common sense.

At last we've got a scientific narrative
about this dog-egorical imperative.

By The Railroad Tracks

I say
sometimes a weed
is all that you need
to color your day.

Epic

I'm tired of headlines like:

See A's Epic Takedown of B

A Schools B About X

A Shames B Over X

A Calls Out B Over X

A Refutes B

Usually this would be more accurate:

A & B
Disagree
Strenuously

Capture

From the Washington Post, some interesting reflections on "academic capture," based on an analogy to the economic concept of "regulatory capture":

"While not all data economists use are proprietary, access to proprietary data provides a unique advantage in a highly competitive academic market. To obtain those data academic economists have to develop a reputation to treat their sources nicely. Hence, their incentives to cater to industry or to the political authority that controls the data are similar to those of the regulators."

The author, a law professor, speculates whether similar pressures might apply in legal academia.

I'm just going to note that the same phenomenon evidently occurs in journalism, where "being nice to sources" is endemic.

In exchange for newsworthy stuff,
reporters write flattering fluff.

Peikoff on Othello

I've now listened to the second of Peikoff's Eight Great Plays lectures. This one concerned Othello, and includes a recounting of a long-ago discussion with Ayn Rand about this particular play.

Rand, in his recounting, sees the key to Shakespeare in the line "What fools these mortals be."

As a side note, this line is mistakenly attributed to Ariel, in The Tempest, in this lecture. It's actually Puck, in Midsummer Night's Dream. I'm not sure whether that's Peikoff's or Rand's error. I'm not sure it matters. Puck is a fairy, and Ariel is a spirit, so I guess neither is a mortal.

Anyway, Rand sees Shakespeare as Olympically detached, and not giving a damn about his characters. She thinks she's a great artist, but she loathes him.

Peikoff, however, clearly does not loathe him. Peikoff sees Othello as a play that will improve your life because it provides such an exquisite experience, even if it will depress you for days.

Shakespeare does sometimes express Olympic detachment, but I wouldn't name it as his basic attitude toward his characters. I think that's unjustified.

And perhaps I should add, it's his characters that sometimes express Olympic detachment. One of the difficulties in interpreting him, is that all of his characters express their ideas so vividly, but it is hard to say which characters speak for him, if any.

Perhaps one could look to his sonnets, where he speaks in the first person, to begin with a basic assessment of what he, himself, really thinks.

He had a way with the striking phrase,
and shifting views can leave you in a daze.

Legal Studies

Jutice Scalia gave a commencement address at a law school. Somehow he wasn't sent packing by protesters.

There have been budget-cutting proposals lately to cut law school from a 3-year program to a 2-year program. Scalia weighed in:

"To say you are a lawyer is to say you are learned in the law, and ... you can't do that in two years,"

But yesterday we looked at a story about the sheer number of federal laws - and how they proved uncountable.

After a mere
three years
I fear
you surely lack
a knowledge of most laws, in fact.

Commencement Correctness

Some are bemoaning the recent rash of student protests forcing commencement speakers to back out of their engagements.

At Newsweek, one writer proposes an amusing solution:

'The solution is simple and impossibly elegant: Let’s ban commencement speakers. Who do they benefit, besides themselves?'

But I don't see this as a market failure. I see this as a golden opportunity.

You've fired your graduation speaker?
Consider someone whose star power is considerably weaker...
Namely me!

I'll be glad to say "good luck, kids" for a very hefty fee.

Laws Beyond Counting

Today in the Wall Street Journal, a historian recounts an old warning:

'In "The Federalist Papers," No. 62, James Madison warned his readers against drawing up laws that were unnecessarily dense or complicated: "It will be of little avail to the people…if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood."'

And then she jumps forward a couple of centuries:

In 1982, the U.S. Justice Department attempted to count the total number of criminal laws. Two years and 3,000 offenses later, the effort was abandoned as hopeless. To this day, nobody knows how many federal laws are on the books.

An excess of laws

deserves no applause.

Hot Number

A mathematician desired to meet, with a dancer whose movements were sinuous. She asked if he could be discrete. He said he'd prefer continuous. 

Peikoff on Antigone

On advice from a friend, I checked out the pricing of Leonard Peikoff's lecture series: Eight Great Plays. It can now be had for about 8 bucks. It used to cost a lot more. So I bought it, and have been listening to his discussion of Antigone.

What I enjoy most, I have to say, is just his enthusiasm for the character of Antigone. From the first time I read the play, I have been enthralled with her.

I was grimly amused that he found it necessary to lecture the audience that respect for the bodies of the dead is a rational and virtuous concern.

So he explains
that human remains
are more than mere meat
to be left on the street.