Thursday, July 31, 2003
Dance-blogging:
Tobi Tobias invited readers to answer the question, "Some would say that dancing is the cruelest profession, all but guaranteeing grueling work, physical pain, poverty, and heartbreak. Yet the field has always been rich in aspirants willing to dedicate their lives to the art. Why?"
The responses are posted here. I'd say more, but other have already said it for me. (Link via Terry Teachout.)
Tobi Tobias invited readers to answer the question, "Some would say that dancing is the cruelest profession, all but guaranteeing grueling work, physical pain, poverty, and heartbreak. Yet the field has always been rich in aspirants willing to dedicate their lives to the art. Why?"
The responses are posted here. I'd say more, but other have already said it for me. (Link via Terry Teachout.)
Tuesday, July 22, 2003
Confused:
In Slate's profile of the agenda of Dick Gephardt's agenda, the authors offer this explanation of Gephardt's support for a variable international minimum wage:
What I don't understand is why a variable international minimum wage would do much at all to slow the export of American jobs. In countries where the average yearly income for a family is less than most Americans' weekly paychecks, a minimum wage will do little to eat into the disparity.
Furthermore, if Gephardt is really serious about decreasing economic inequality, shouldn't he be encouraging American companies to export jobs? After all, as any good economist can tell you, a scarcity of jobs is what drives wages down. Unless the international minimum wage comes with development incentives, it will merely codify the existing inequality. And since local start-ups will be priced out of the labor market, who else but American companies can provide this development? Moreover, who besides American companies can we penalize if they fail to pay this minimum wage?
It's not exactly that I'm against the minimum wage. It's just that I think worrying about a minimum wage in nations where a large part of the population still survives by subsistence farming is a serious case of putting the cart before the horse.
In Slate's profile of the agenda of Dick Gephardt's agenda, the authors offer this explanation of Gephardt's support for a variable international minimum wage:
Gephardt would raise the U.S. minimum wage. Then he would press the World Trade Organization to require every country to enforce a minimum wage sufficient for its citizens to live on. The minimum would vary according to each country's cost of living and its degree of development. The WTO would compensate for some of the costs. In addition to helping workers in each directly affected country, Gephardt believes an IMW would reduce the incentive for American corporations to shift operations abroad in pursuit of cheap foreign labor.
What I don't understand is why a variable international minimum wage would do much at all to slow the export of American jobs. In countries where the average yearly income for a family is less than most Americans' weekly paychecks, a minimum wage will do little to eat into the disparity.
Furthermore, if Gephardt is really serious about decreasing economic inequality, shouldn't he be encouraging American companies to export jobs? After all, as any good economist can tell you, a scarcity of jobs is what drives wages down. Unless the international minimum wage comes with development incentives, it will merely codify the existing inequality. And since local start-ups will be priced out of the labor market, who else but American companies can provide this development? Moreover, who besides American companies can we penalize if they fail to pay this minimum wage?
It's not exactly that I'm against the minimum wage. It's just that I think worrying about a minimum wage in nations where a large part of the population still survives by subsistence farming is a serious case of putting the cart before the horse.
Will the Internet Kill the Library?
Lawrence Solum has posted a wonderful contribution to the discussion on internet versus paper research, revived recently by Stephen Johnson's Slate article on Google. He argues that the convenience of searchable text will lead to the disappearance of non-electronic sources from scholarly discussion. However, I think that Solum is ignoring another trend that I believe will operate in tandem with the switch to publishing in electronic format--the push to make important works available online. Yesterday's New York Times has an article about just such a database that Amazon is in the process of creating for books. Users will be able to search the text of all the books in the database for keywords and phrases, read several pages around their result, and then buy the book (or check it out from their local library) if they find it relevant.
As an historian, I'm not particularly worried about the decline of the paper library. We historians, after all, preserve and read illuminated manuscripts--even when the full text of the work is available in a printed work. And considering the sheer volume of primary source printed material available, it will be a very very long time before even a sizable chunk of it is online. Nevertheless, I fully agree with Solum's conclusion.
Read the whole post. And then go read a book.
Lawrence Solum has posted a wonderful contribution to the discussion on internet versus paper research, revived recently by Stephen Johnson's Slate article on Google. He argues that the convenience of searchable text will lead to the disappearance of non-electronic sources from scholarly discussion. However, I think that Solum is ignoring another trend that I believe will operate in tandem with the switch to publishing in electronic format--the push to make important works available online. Yesterday's New York Times has an article about just such a database that Amazon is in the process of creating for books. Users will be able to search the text of all the books in the database for keywords and phrases, read several pages around their result, and then buy the book (or check it out from their local library) if they find it relevant.
As an historian, I'm not particularly worried about the decline of the paper library. We historians, after all, preserve and read illuminated manuscripts--even when the full text of the work is available in a printed work. And considering the sheer volume of primary source printed material available, it will be a very very long time before even a sizable chunk of it is online. Nevertheless, I fully agree with Solum's conclusion.
And will these changes be for good or for ill? It will be different, that's for sure. Here are some things I already miss. I miss browsing the library shelves. I miss browsing the journal stacks. I miss reading a whole book that I thought was relevant to my project, learning it had nothing helpful for that project but discovering something new and delightful. I miss paper. And here are some new things I relish. I relish the sheer quantity of new ideas that I discover by reading most of the new legal scholarship abstracts on SSRN. I relish the wonderful semi-random connections I make to new idea by doing Google searches and following links. I relish the much more personal way I relate to colleagues that I communicate with online (as opposed to on paper). I relish the speed of a Google search. I relish the ability to reach hundreds of readers with a new article in a few days. I relish the prospect of being able to search monographs and non-law journals with Google or something else. Paradigm shift is an overused and tawdry expression. I prefer to say "change." I relish change.
Read the whole post. And then go read a book.
Monday, July 14, 2003
A couple news items::
First off, ESPN (owned by Walt Disney & Co.) has hired Rush Limbaugh to the cast of their 'NFL Countdown' show. He'll play the role of the "voice of the fan" and offer up an opinion piece for each show. My favorite part of this announcement, however, is this: "He also will weigh in three times during each show with a "Rush challenge," offering a counterpoint to commentary from the program's three regular analysts -- former NFL players Steve Young, Michael Irvin and Tom Jackson." I can't wait to see how Rush will offer a 'counterpoint' to former NFL players. What would I do without Rush? He's just so great to laugh at.
In other news, my favorite comic, Boondocks, is being prepped for TV and the big screen. "Both projects would expand on the strips, adding new characters and plotlines. Sony is eying a TV series to bow in 2004 or 2005 with the feature film to follow. " I'm looking forward to that, for sure. Boondocks is also good to laugh at, but I think Aaron McGruder wants it that way.
First off, ESPN (owned by Walt Disney & Co.) has hired Rush Limbaugh to the cast of their 'NFL Countdown' show. He'll play the role of the "voice of the fan" and offer up an opinion piece for each show. My favorite part of this announcement, however, is this: "He also will weigh in three times during each show with a "Rush challenge," offering a counterpoint to commentary from the program's three regular analysts -- former NFL players Steve Young, Michael Irvin and Tom Jackson." I can't wait to see how Rush will offer a 'counterpoint' to former NFL players. What would I do without Rush? He's just so great to laugh at.
In other news, my favorite comic, Boondocks, is being prepped for TV and the big screen. "Both projects would expand on the strips, adding new characters and plotlines. Sony is eying a TV series to bow in 2004 or 2005 with the feature film to follow. " I'm looking forward to that, for sure. Boondocks is also good to laugh at, but I think Aaron McGruder wants it that way.
Friday, July 11, 2003
Stating the Obvious:
We have a new template. Please feel free (in fact, feel encouraged) to email me comments on the change.
We have a new template. Please feel free (in fact, feel encouraged) to email me comments on the change.
Thursday, July 10, 2003
Nate Oman discusses legitimacy, and particularly Coke's theory of history providing legitimacy over at A Good Oman:
However, I think that there is a deeper point to Coke's theory. One can argue that the consent created by the institutions of democracy – voting, legislation, etc. – is actually a thin and episodic kind of consent. It depends on the vagaries of shifting coalitions, the manipulation of decision procedures, and the swirls of momentary public opinion. In contrast, a Cokian consent rests on a much thicker notion of ratification, one that can only exist when practices prove themselves over long periods of time and across many subcommunities. Rather than conceptualizing consent in formalistic terms, the Cokian position looks to thick reality of social practice.
This raises an interesting question: take the US (or Canadian, if you prefer) Constitution. It came into effect two centuries ago, without what we would now consider to be fundamental democratic approval (i.e. referendum), but instead by government action. It was not the people themselves who brought the fundamental organic documents into being and ratified them, but instead their representatives.
The claim to democratic legitimacy is hurt even further by the fact that no one still living had the choice to submit to this regime: citizens have never had the opportunity to state their approval (or disapproval). Instead, the legitimacy of the presently-existing political schema is only rarely questioned.
If democratic legitimacy (as expressed by an informed decision of the population) is required in order for political institutions to be legitimate, then the existing political structure in much of the world is, by definition, illegitimate.
What conditions are necessary for an institution to have legitimacy --- the general non-dissent of the population; a formal act of acceptance by the population; mere history?
However, I think that there is a deeper point to Coke's theory. One can argue that the consent created by the institutions of democracy – voting, legislation, etc. – is actually a thin and episodic kind of consent. It depends on the vagaries of shifting coalitions, the manipulation of decision procedures, and the swirls of momentary public opinion. In contrast, a Cokian consent rests on a much thicker notion of ratification, one that can only exist when practices prove themselves over long periods of time and across many subcommunities. Rather than conceptualizing consent in formalistic terms, the Cokian position looks to thick reality of social practice.
This raises an interesting question: take the US (or Canadian, if you prefer) Constitution. It came into effect two centuries ago, without what we would now consider to be fundamental democratic approval (i.e. referendum), but instead by government action. It was not the people themselves who brought the fundamental organic documents into being and ratified them, but instead their representatives.
The claim to democratic legitimacy is hurt even further by the fact that no one still living had the choice to submit to this regime: citizens have never had the opportunity to state their approval (or disapproval). Instead, the legitimacy of the presently-existing political schema is only rarely questioned.
If democratic legitimacy (as expressed by an informed decision of the population) is required in order for political institutions to be legitimate, then the existing political structure in much of the world is, by definition, illegitimate.
What conditions are necessary for an institution to have legitimacy --- the general non-dissent of the population; a formal act of acceptance by the population; mere history?
Comments on Romance:
My friend Mustafa Hirji comments in email, on non-selection (among other things):
Non-romantic selection requires submission of an application by a certain date e.g. job application deadline, college admission deadline, etc. The application deadline is shortly followed by the selection. If you don't apply by the deadline, you've been effectively rejected (I'll explain in a moment why this isn't non-selection in the same sense as in a romantic selection). In the case of college, you could, perhaps, apply a year later, but this is rare--usually you apply when you've finished an earlier phase of education and you want to start another. Few tend to apply year after year. This rare case is the only true non-selection for non-romantic cases.
In a romantic selection, application is effective the minute you become aware of the object of affection (meeting her is obviously not necessary). But unlike with non-romantic selection, the selection has no time limit so hope (the determinacy of indeterminacy?) endures indefinitely.
Non-selection isn't any specific moment they way rejection is; it is the slow eroding away of hope (If the girl chooses to date someone else or get married, you either take it as rejection, or the chance of a break-up sustains hope.). Not applying for a job or college is different in that the opportunity has ended--the moment the deadline arrives, you've been effectively rejected.
Because for non-romantic selection there's a deadline, it is a desperation move to apply--it is the only way to avoid effective rejection. Non-romantic non-selection is rejection where you don't make the last ditch effort. Romantic non-selection isn't a desperation move to avoid rejection but an enduring of hope, so it is conceptually very
different from rejection.
In non-romantic selection, the choice is simple: rejection, or the chance of selection. In romantic selection, you have the option of maybe getting a "soft-landing" with a non-selection.
My friend Mustafa Hirji comments in email, on non-selection (among other things):
Non-romantic selection requires submission of an application by a certain date e.g. job application deadline, college admission deadline, etc. The application deadline is shortly followed by the selection. If you don't apply by the deadline, you've been effectively rejected (I'll explain in a moment why this isn't non-selection in the same sense as in a romantic selection). In the case of college, you could, perhaps, apply a year later, but this is rare--usually you apply when you've finished an earlier phase of education and you want to start another. Few tend to apply year after year. This rare case is the only true non-selection for non-romantic cases.
In a romantic selection, application is effective the minute you become aware of the object of affection (meeting her is obviously not necessary). But unlike with non-romantic selection, the selection has no time limit so hope (the determinacy of indeterminacy?) endures indefinitely.
Non-selection isn't any specific moment they way rejection is; it is the slow eroding away of hope (If the girl chooses to date someone else or get married, you either take it as rejection, or the chance of a break-up sustains hope.). Not applying for a job or college is different in that the opportunity has ended--the moment the deadline arrives, you've been effectively rejected.
Because for non-romantic selection there's a deadline, it is a desperation move to apply--it is the only way to avoid effective rejection. Non-romantic non-selection is rejection where you don't make the last ditch effort. Romantic non-selection isn't a desperation move to avoid rejection but an enduring of hope, so it is conceptually very
different from rejection.
In non-romantic selection, the choice is simple: rejection, or the chance of selection. In romantic selection, you have the option of maybe getting a "soft-landing" with a non-selection.
Wednesday, July 09, 2003
Nonromantic rejection, again:
I do not share Will's assumption that rejection is only feared in romantic situations. Chris made a good point in that objects of attraction (those we are likely to become self-deluded about) are most often people who "...you're likely to run into on an ongoing basis." However, we will fear rejection not only by those we are attracted to, but others whom we will likely see in the future. My choice of the phrase 'social acceptance' was not just an assertion of my position as a fluffy/friendly liberal... I really meant that acceptance is an issue not just for romantic situations but for a good number of general social situations, as well.
As I noted, confidence is a key issue in whether or not we are willing to take risks. The reason it seems as if romantic situations are the only variety in which fear of rejection is prominent is that confidence in social ability tends to be weakest in most people when it comes to romance. We've all been students, workers, friends, family... we're not so worried about rejection in these cases because the usual level of confidence which one gains by age 18 is enough to guard against the serious emotional threat of rejection. However, I can tell you it was certainly difficult to make the move from a decent public university to an elite, private one. All the social dynamics around me changed, and I once again found myself reluctant to express original opinions. Instead, I accepted non-judgment by teachers and fellow students. Others go through similar situations all the time: entering a new job, changing schools, etc. Sometimes it's just safer to accept the status quo, where nothing is risked through words or action. ("Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." So said Mr. Twain).
I do agree with Matthew and Will that the pain of a crushed self-delusion is major. However, it is out of mere reluctance to risk the status quo, by facing situations head on, that these self-delusions are allowed to form in the first place. Indeed, over time, the desire to know the outcome of this delayed risk will trump the desire to avoid it. When this happens, whatever delusions have been allowed to form will most likely crumble.
BTW, sorry about that "Simply speaking" stuff. I revised the sentence a few times and never changed that. Woops.
I do not share Will's assumption that rejection is only feared in romantic situations. Chris made a good point in that objects of attraction (those we are likely to become self-deluded about) are most often people who "...you're likely to run into on an ongoing basis." However, we will fear rejection not only by those we are attracted to, but others whom we will likely see in the future. My choice of the phrase 'social acceptance' was not just an assertion of my position as a fluffy/friendly liberal... I really meant that acceptance is an issue not just for romantic situations but for a good number of general social situations, as well.
As I noted, confidence is a key issue in whether or not we are willing to take risks. The reason it seems as if romantic situations are the only variety in which fear of rejection is prominent is that confidence in social ability tends to be weakest in most people when it comes to romance. We've all been students, workers, friends, family... we're not so worried about rejection in these cases because the usual level of confidence which one gains by age 18 is enough to guard against the serious emotional threat of rejection. However, I can tell you it was certainly difficult to make the move from a decent public university to an elite, private one. All the social dynamics around me changed, and I once again found myself reluctant to express original opinions. Instead, I accepted non-judgment by teachers and fellow students. Others go through similar situations all the time: entering a new job, changing schools, etc. Sometimes it's just safer to accept the status quo, where nothing is risked through words or action. ("Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." So said Mr. Twain).
I do agree with Matthew and Will that the pain of a crushed self-delusion is major. However, it is out of mere reluctance to risk the status quo, by facing situations head on, that these self-delusions are allowed to form in the first place. Indeed, over time, the desire to know the outcome of this delayed risk will trump the desire to avoid it. When this happens, whatever delusions have been allowed to form will most likely crumble.
BTW, sorry about that "Simply speaking" stuff. I revised the sentence a few times and never changed that. Woops.
On the difference between romantic rejection and non-romantic (e.g. work or school) rejection, I think part of the problem is that objects of (possibly unrequited) serious attraction tend to be people who you're likely to run into on an ongoing basis. There are some fairly hefty disincentives to being rejected by someone, and having to see or talk to or work with them daily.
In contrast, being rejected for a job or for a place at a school doesn't usually have that same level of daily presence: the reminders of the rejection tend to be much further away (since you obviously don't have the job you wanted), and when one ventures, less is lost.
Even better, this hypothesis admits of some level of testability: find a group of people who sought to move into jobs and who are now in frequent contact with the successful candidates (i.e. moves within the organization), and compare against those who aren't.
Will asks : "Does it therefore hold that those people who are not self-deluded shouldn't particularly fear rejection worse than non-selection? I think so.".
It's not clear to me that this is the case. There is some degree of comfort in living in a state of indeterminacy (just as there is in living in a determined state): it's not clear to me that there are rational causes to prefer one to the other. Throw in the fact that there may be negative externalities involved in collapsing the romantic quantum state (if you will), and you may well be rational to prefer non-selection over rejection. As an example, consider that revealing that one is the subject (object?) of unrequited devotions is likely to irrevocably alter the hitherto existing relationship between the devotee and the devoted.
In contrast, being rejected for a job or for a place at a school doesn't usually have that same level of daily presence: the reminders of the rejection tend to be much further away (since you obviously don't have the job you wanted), and when one ventures, less is lost.
Even better, this hypothesis admits of some level of testability: find a group of people who sought to move into jobs and who are now in frequent contact with the successful candidates (i.e. moves within the organization), and compare against those who aren't.
Will asks : "Does it therefore hold that those people who are not self-deluded shouldn't particularly fear rejection worse than non-selection? I think so.".
It's not clear to me that this is the case. There is some degree of comfort in living in a state of indeterminacy (just as there is in living in a determined state): it's not clear to me that there are rational causes to prefer one to the other. Throw in the fact that there may be negative externalities involved in collapsing the romantic quantum state (if you will), and you may well be rational to prefer non-selection over rejection. As an example, consider that revealing that one is the subject (object?) of unrequited devotions is likely to irrevocably alter the hitherto existing relationship between the devotee and the devoted.
Back:
After a week spent in rural Wisconsin, I am now back in electronic contact with the rest of the world. Hi world. Nice to see you again.
After a week spent in rural Wisconsin, I am now back in electronic contact with the rest of the world. Hi world. Nice to see you again.
Lines on the map:
Interestingly, we've just been through the redistribution process in Alberta (maps) and are just finishing it up federally. It's been a bit contentious on both levels, although for rather different reasons (federally, the outgoing Prime Minister may want to throw a kink into his likely successor's election plans ---Globe and Mail story; provincially, there's some controversy over one of two major cities not gaining an extra seat when it's on the borderline of qualifying for one, and definitely will when you take growth into account).
However, on the whole, there seems to be little concern that the redistribution processes are politicized.
For Alberta, the new provincial boundaries are set by a committee of five: one appointed by the government who must be either an officer of the Legislature (ethics commissioner, auditor general), a university president, a judge, or someone similar; two appointed by the Premier; and two appointed by the Opposition. Of the each pair of political appointees, one must be resident in a city and the other must not be. The federal boundaries are set by a panel of three, with the chair a judge appointed by the chief justice of the province and the other two members appointed by the federal Speaker.
Some interesting links from Elections Canada on the rules for each province and federally:
Interestingly, we've just been through the redistribution process in Alberta (maps) and are just finishing it up federally. It's been a bit contentious on both levels, although for rather different reasons (federally, the outgoing Prime Minister may want to throw a kink into his likely successor's election plans ---Globe and Mail story; provincially, there's some controversy over one of two major cities not gaining an extra seat when it's on the borderline of qualifying for one, and definitely will when you take growth into account).
However, on the whole, there seems to be little concern that the redistribution processes are politicized.
For Alberta, the new provincial boundaries are set by a committee of five: one appointed by the government who must be either an officer of the Legislature (ethics commissioner, auditor general), a university president, a judge, or someone similar; two appointed by the Premier; and two appointed by the Opposition. Of the each pair of political appointees, one must be resident in a city and the other must not be. The federal boundaries are set by a panel of three, with the chair a judge appointed by the chief justice of the province and the other two members appointed by the federal Speaker.
Some interesting links from Elections Canada on the rules for each province and federally:
On Romance:
I think the salient difference between rejection and non-selection is the active nature of rejection: while non-selection is essentially a state of purgatory, in a never-never land between happiness (acceptance) and despair (rejection). When you're romantically rejected, it often seems as if there's a personal judgement made about you (which, of course, isn't necessarily the case). Until you ask, though, the judgement is suspended. To misappropriate an analogy, think of romance as a quantuum state.
I think Matt's insight into the control issues around asking someone out is perfectly on point. I have to admit that I'm a control freak, and it's very hard for me to willingly get into a situation where control is in someone else's hands, particularly on such a sensitive issue. On the other hand, there is some satisfaction in finally knowing the answer (even if it's "no"); it's on occasion taken me three years to get there.
I think the salient difference between rejection and non-selection is the active nature of rejection: while non-selection is essentially a state of purgatory, in a never-never land between happiness (acceptance) and despair (rejection). When you're romantically rejected, it often seems as if there's a personal judgement made about you (which, of course, isn't necessarily the case). Until you ask, though, the judgement is suspended. To misappropriate an analogy, think of romance as a quantuum state.
I think Matt's insight into the control issues around asking someone out is perfectly on point. I have to admit that I'm a control freak, and it's very hard for me to willingly get into a situation where control is in someone else's hands, particularly on such a sensitive issue. On the other hand, there is some satisfaction in finally knowing the answer (even if it's "no"); it's on occasion taken me three years to get there.
Will wonders what I think of Naomi Klein's suggestion in the NY Times Magazine that there might be a fourth wave of American emigration to Canada (the first being during the US Revolution, the second being in the late 1800s and early 1900s when the US west was effectively finished for agricultural settlement, and the third being during the Vietnam War). In four words, I'm not so sure.
Emigrating to a new country, even one as similar as Canada is to the US, is a highly non-trivial prospect. In an age of relatively selective immigration (compared to, say, the late 1800s and early 1900s in both Canada and the US), you need to be fairly well-educated to be admissible as an immigrant, and you need to have relatively few substantial ties to your present country. This points to permanent migration being mainly the province of the young educated class (i.e. future professionals who've just finished a degree). It's not at all clear from my vantage point that the US is anywhere near to being sufficiently unwelcoming to these sorts of people as to make them think about going elsewhere for political reasons (as was the case for much of the third wave of US-to-Canada migration).
There also really aren't big economic factors that would fuel such a migration: while the Canadian economy is doing rather better than the American one, it's so closely intertwined that this is unsustainable. In any case, it's not doing so much better than the US economy as to draw businesses and young would-be professionals from the US. In fact, the reverse continues to be the case --- I and many of my friends would seriously consider moving to the US were we offered work (and many of us have applied for jobs in the US).
Emigrating to a new country, even one as similar as Canada is to the US, is a highly non-trivial prospect. In an age of relatively selective immigration (compared to, say, the late 1800s and early 1900s in both Canada and the US), you need to be fairly well-educated to be admissible as an immigrant, and you need to have relatively few substantial ties to your present country. This points to permanent migration being mainly the province of the young educated class (i.e. future professionals who've just finished a degree). It's not at all clear from my vantage point that the US is anywhere near to being sufficiently unwelcoming to these sorts of people as to make them think about going elsewhere for political reasons (as was the case for much of the third wave of US-to-Canada migration).
There also really aren't big economic factors that would fuel such a migration: while the Canadian economy is doing rather better than the American one, it's so closely intertwined that this is unsustainable. In any case, it's not doing so much better than the US economy as to draw businesses and young would-be professionals from the US. In fact, the reverse continues to be the case --- I and many of my friends would seriously consider moving to the US were we offered work (and many of us have applied for jobs in the US).
The Pains of Rejection (I thought I left these posts to steadywind):
Well, well... I have returned to resume my position as Crescat Sententia's token lefty/Green. I had planned on writing a post about the evil Democratic redistricting plan here in Maine, but fmr US Rep. David Emery (certainly not name-dropping) seems to have forgotten that he promised to send me jpeg's to illustrate my points. I will bug him tomorrow in Augusta, if I see him. I also plan to write a post about why I feel the survival of the Democratic Party, as we know it, is at stake in the next Presidential election. All in all, I plan on working out a lot of my frustration with Dems in the next few months.
But for now, a more personal matter. I was intrigued by the recent posts regarding rejection and non-selection by Will and Matthew. [ BTW... a warm welcome to our new co-blogger. New viewpoints are always a pleasure. ] I particularly like Matthew's point about willful self-delusion. My sense of what he's saying is that willful self-delusion can occur when a crush is held secret and it is the crushing of said delusions, when reality finally creeps its way into the situation, that is the true cause of the pain of rejection. In other words, hope and a wishful mind create false assumptions about a person/situation. These false assumptions are relied upon to such an extent that, when they are chopped down by reality, a great deal of sorrow is felt because the person feels the loss of hope/excitement that was created by those assumptions.
This is a damn good theory by my accounts, but I think perhaps rejection can be explained in a more general way. Simply speaking, rejection is a negative outcome in change of status quo, initiated either by the exogenous forces (a rejector) or as a result of a risk taken by the rejectee. I am not concerned with the exogenously initiated case, because such situations are quite infrequent and most often spontaneous. Getting 'dumped' or having some random person at a frat tell you you're an insufferable bitch are the only circumstances in which this really happens... if you're overly concerned about this, you may be in trouble. Alternatively, a man asking a girl out for a date has much to be concerned about. He is risking all sorts of things: any hope he has for a relationship with the girl; any level of inconspicuousness, if he is in a crowd; &c. Worst case scenario is that the man will have his hopes dashed and will end up being humiliated (to a degree) in front of strangers and friends alike. The real reward for getting the girl to say yes is having a mere crack at whatever he is looking for in a relationship. The flipside of that risk is fairly great: a loss of his current level of social acceptance.
The most important factor in all of this is the loss of control of the situation. This is the real key to understanding the rejection vs. non-selection issue. Taking a risk and giving up control could result in a negative judgment by one or more people, which the person being judged is completely powerless to affect after the judgment has been made. This results in a net loss of social acceptance. Accepting a mutual non-selection scheme (choosing non-action and accepting others' non-selection) requires no loss of control. Its risks are minimal, and should some positive exogenous force surface, all the better. Non-selection requires only that a person be willing to accept the second-best option: non-action/non-judgment (assuming taking a risk and getting a 'yes' would be best). Participating in a mutual non-selection scheme provides a person with an ensured outcome, which is no worse than the status quo, and which the person can predict and prepare for. Even though the end outcome is the same as the negative result of risk-taking (no significant other), the process is emotionally safer if the rejection-averse person simply chooses not to risk the status quo. The problem with this thinking, of course, is that accepting a non-selection scheme is really no way to find a significant other.
Is there an antidote to the dominance of this scheme? Yes, it's called confidence. (Ever notice how the really confident guys are the ones who ask the girls out. They get shot down every now and again, but they do much better than those who never risk it.) We fear a certain loss of social acceptance when we risk our status quo... and not just in the search for love. It is the fear of the negative judgments of others that has certainly prevented me from doing things (*cough*) in the past. The only way to prevent the paralysis that fear of rejection causes is to have confidence, both in your intrinsic value and in knowing that social acceptance levels have ups and downs, but tend to stabilize over time.
Well, well... I have returned to resume my position as Crescat Sententia's token lefty/Green. I had planned on writing a post about the evil Democratic redistricting plan here in Maine, but fmr US Rep. David Emery (certainly not name-dropping) seems to have forgotten that he promised to send me jpeg's to illustrate my points. I will bug him tomorrow in Augusta, if I see him. I also plan to write a post about why I feel the survival of the Democratic Party, as we know it, is at stake in the next Presidential election. All in all, I plan on working out a lot of my frustration with Dems in the next few months.
But for now, a more personal matter. I was intrigued by the recent posts regarding rejection and non-selection by Will and Matthew. [ BTW... a warm welcome to our new co-blogger. New viewpoints are always a pleasure. ] I particularly like Matthew's point about willful self-delusion. My sense of what he's saying is that willful self-delusion can occur when a crush is held secret and it is the crushing of said delusions, when reality finally creeps its way into the situation, that is the true cause of the pain of rejection. In other words, hope and a wishful mind create false assumptions about a person/situation. These false assumptions are relied upon to such an extent that, when they are chopped down by reality, a great deal of sorrow is felt because the person feels the loss of hope/excitement that was created by those assumptions.
This is a damn good theory by my accounts, but I think perhaps rejection can be explained in a more general way. Simply speaking, rejection is a negative outcome in change of status quo, initiated either by the exogenous forces (a rejector) or as a result of a risk taken by the rejectee. I am not concerned with the exogenously initiated case, because such situations are quite infrequent and most often spontaneous. Getting 'dumped' or having some random person at a frat tell you you're an insufferable bitch are the only circumstances in which this really happens... if you're overly concerned about this, you may be in trouble. Alternatively, a man asking a girl out for a date has much to be concerned about. He is risking all sorts of things: any hope he has for a relationship with the girl; any level of inconspicuousness, if he is in a crowd; &c. Worst case scenario is that the man will have his hopes dashed and will end up being humiliated (to a degree) in front of strangers and friends alike. The real reward for getting the girl to say yes is having a mere crack at whatever he is looking for in a relationship. The flipside of that risk is fairly great: a loss of his current level of social acceptance.
The most important factor in all of this is the loss of control of the situation. This is the real key to understanding the rejection vs. non-selection issue. Taking a risk and giving up control could result in a negative judgment by one or more people, which the person being judged is completely powerless to affect after the judgment has been made. This results in a net loss of social acceptance. Accepting a mutual non-selection scheme (choosing non-action and accepting others' non-selection) requires no loss of control. Its risks are minimal, and should some positive exogenous force surface, all the better. Non-selection requires only that a person be willing to accept the second-best option: non-action/non-judgment (assuming taking a risk and getting a 'yes' would be best). Participating in a mutual non-selection scheme provides a person with an ensured outcome, which is no worse than the status quo, and which the person can predict and prepare for. Even though the end outcome is the same as the negative result of risk-taking (no significant other), the process is emotionally safer if the rejection-averse person simply chooses not to risk the status quo. The problem with this thinking, of course, is that accepting a non-selection scheme is really no way to find a significant other.
Is there an antidote to the dominance of this scheme? Yes, it's called confidence. (Ever notice how the really confident guys are the ones who ask the girls out. They get shot down every now and again, but they do much better than those who never risk it.) We fear a certain loss of social acceptance when we risk our status quo... and not just in the search for love. It is the fear of the negative judgments of others that has certainly prevented me from doing things (*cough*) in the past. The only way to prevent the paralysis that fear of rejection causes is to have confidence, both in your intrinsic value and in knowing that social acceptance levels have ups and downs, but tend to stabilize over time.
Monday, July 07, 2003
What's the distinction between running a swingers' club and holding an orgy?
According to Montreal Municipal Court Judge Denis Boisvert, a door. A father-daughter pair were convicted of running a bawdy house, on the grounds that the swingers' activities were visible to those not actually taking part. They were acquited on a prostitution charge since while admission to the club wasn't free, according to the evidence, the sex was.
The defence team, while unhappy about the convictions, is pleased that the court held that swingers' clubs themselves were not illegal. They view this as a continuation in the trend established by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Tremblay [1993] 2 SCR 932, which held that peep shows don't constitute bawdy houses.
According to Montreal Municipal Court Judge Denis Boisvert, a door. A father-daughter pair were convicted of running a bawdy house, on the grounds that the swingers' activities were visible to those not actually taking part. They were acquited on a prostitution charge since while admission to the club wasn't free, according to the evidence, the sex was.
The defence team, while unhappy about the convictions, is pleased that the court held that swingers' clubs themselves were not illegal. They view this as a continuation in the trend established by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Tremblay [1993] 2 SCR 932, which held that peep shows don't constitute bawdy houses.
Saturday, July 05, 2003
The Globe and Mail and the Victoria Times-Colonist carry stories about a driver who forced another (drunk) driver off the road to protect road construction workers. It appears that police won't be charging him, in contrast to two store owners in Montreal (see the Globe's story) who're being charged with aggravated assault after beating a burglar breaking into their store.
What range of force should citizens have access to in order to prevent crimes?
Clearly, an excessive use of force is not okay, but where does reasonable force end? In the Victoria case, the road was fairly busy. It would seem to me that using a few thousand pounds of metal, at fairly high speed to try to stop another car raises some serious risks for others in the area. Did the risks of letting the drunk driver continue outweigh the risks of trying to stop the driver?
What range of force should citizens have access to in order to prevent crimes?
Clearly, an excessive use of force is not okay, but where does reasonable force end? In the Victoria case, the road was fairly busy. It would seem to me that using a few thousand pounds of metal, at fairly high speed to try to stop another car raises some serious risks for others in the area. Did the risks of letting the drunk driver continue outweigh the risks of trying to stop the driver?
