Stephen Roney's Blog, page 280

Haiku of Autumn

The building like a harmonica planted sideways against the charcoal sky.
A solitary slate-grey pigeon turns his back to the wind.

-- Stephen K. Roney 'Od's Blog: Catholic and Clear Grit comments on the passing parade.

Medusa's Many Daughters

Visited the Art Gallery of Ontario and, during the tour, heard a brief talk on Ruben’s painting of the head of Medusa. The gallery guide gave a brief account of the legend, explained that the painting was commissioned to shock, suggested improbably that it might have been a barbed reference to Protestantism, and, painfully, explained that Medusa was a “strong woman.”

She added a question for the audience: “What always happened to strong women in Victorian novels?” And she answered it: “they get killed.”

I am not up on Victorian novels. Perhaps this is true. Perhaps it is somehow relevant to Greek myth. But this was eagerly picked up by one of the listeners. She declared that she would use Medusa as a model for her daughters, because she wanted them to grow up to be proper feminists.

Another striking example of how our society is mad. Taking the story as told by Ovid, in what way was Medusa a “strong woman”? In what way was she a model for anyone? 
Athena
To recap the tale, she was “violated” as a young woman by Poseidon in the Temple of Athena. As revenge for this desecration, Athena turned her hair into serpents, so that her very gaze turned any living thing into stone. She spent her life in lonely semi-darkness at the edge of the world, alone, no one daring, obviously, to approach. Until Perseus came and beheaded her. The world’s poisonous snakes were generated from her blood as it dripped.

She is a monster in the legend, not a heroine. It is like advocating Frankenstein’s monster as a role model for your sons.

And a “strong woman”? Her gaze killed things; but in all of this, she appears to have been powerless, the victim of Athena. She cannot have desired this; it made her life hell. Her one voluntary act seems to have been to have sex with Poseidon. In Ovid, it might have been a rape; but this does not account for Athena’s punishment, as Athena tends to be a figure of strict justice. Other accounts, such as Hesiod’s or that of Apollodorus, make the sex voluntary on her part. So that, and only that, was her “strength.”

If you want a model of a strong woman for your daughters, why Medusa and not Athena? 
Lilith
But this seems consistent: feminists likewise venerate Lilith, a similar figure in Jewish legend. Lilith is the mother of all demons; she kills infants in the cradle. So that makes her a “strong woman.” Why not Esther, if you want a Biblical figure? Why not Joan of Arc? Why not Catherine of Siena? Why not Boadicea? Yet such genuinely strong women get no following among feminists. They want Lilith and Medusa.

It seems plain that “strength” is not the real issue. This is a euphemism. What feminists really admire is being boldly immoral, violating moral norms. Medusa or Lilith are attractive because they are killers. And no virgins need apply. This, indeed, was the original meaning of the term “liberated woman”—for “liberated,” read “licentious.”

“Feminism” is just a cover for vice.
'Od's Blog: Catholic and Clear Grit comments on the passing parade.

The Amazonian Synod without Amazonians

Pachamama Museum, Argentina
The people who are calling for syncretism with Amazonian aboriginal religions in the recent Vatican synod are not themselves aboriginals, and probably have little familiarity with aboriginal religions. The Amazon basin is actually 80% urban; and the local bishops are usually not even Brazilian, let alone aboriginal. Do they ever travel out into the jungle, to the isolated tribes? They are inserted from Europe, and probably because of their romantic attraction to the Noble Savage myth.

Hence the emphasis at the synod on ecological concerns.

The population of the Amazon basin is generally flocking to the Pentecostal denominations, not to any aboriginal religious tradition.

The most reasonable conclusion is that they are going Pentecostal because the local Catholic church lacks spirit, lacks conviction, not because they have too few female deacons or carvings of native idols in the churches. This is all something outsiders are trying to impose on them from above, nothing for which they are clamouring.
'Od's Blog: Catholic and Clear Grit comments on the passing parade.

Solidarity Forever

The elementary teachers of Ontario have voted to go on strike.

If this were a real bargaining process, the government would have a simple solution. If they will not come in to work, fire them and hire replacements. A recent Ed School grad told me it takes seven years for newly-qualified teachers in Ontario to find a steady teaching job. There is an obvious oversupply; the teachers have no bargaining power in the normal sense.

Fire and rehire, and the government saves a lot of money immediately: the new hires will be at the bottom of the seniority pay scale. Will the new teachers be worse at the job? Probably not—teachers are promoted on sheer seniority, not on competence.

On top of that, the evidence is strong that even having a B. Ed. does not produce any better results with students. Actually, worse results. This stands to reason: anyone who has competed high school has had a twelve year apprenticeship in what works and does not work in the classroom. Are they likely to learn anything new of any value in a year at Teacher’s College?

Just the reverse; in order to have something to teach, the Ed Schools more or less must inculcate their acolytes with new techniques and ideas nobody has used in a classroom they have learned in. And there almost has to be a good reason why nobody will have used a technique before.

Hiring anyone with any Bachelor’s degree ought to work better.

Collective bargaining between two groups of civil servants is, in sum, all a pantomime. Nobody has their own money at risk. Both sides benefit by caving in to all union demands.

But for oversight from politicians.

Why doesn’t the government just do what Reagan did in the Eighties when the US air traffic controllers went out? He fired them all—ending an era of constant strikes by civil servants.

The government will not do it because there are too many teachers, and they are too well organized. Politicos fear their electoral power, and their ability to generate bad PR through their class allies in the media. That, and class solidarity. Broadly, teachers belong to the same professional class as do politicians.

It might be worth doing for a Tory government. After all, the teachers’ unions are all in for the NDP in any case.'Od's Blog: Catholic and Clear Grit comments on the passing parade.

On the Waterfront

The elementary teachers of Ontario have voted to go on strike.

If this were a real bargaining process, the government would have a simple solution. If they will not come in to work, fire them and hire replacements. A recent Ed School grad told me it takes seven years for newly-qualified teachers in Ontario to find a steady teaching job. There is an obvious oversupply; the teachers have no bargaining power in the normal sense.

Fire and rehire, and the government saves a lot of money immediately: the new hires will be at the bottom of the seniority pay scale. Will the new teachers be worse at the job? Probably not—teachers are promoted on sheer seniority, not on competence.

On top of that, the evidence is strong that even having a B. Ed. does not produce any better results with students. Actually, worse results. This stands to reason: anyone who has competed high school has had a twelve year apprenticeship in what works and does not work in the classroom. Are they likely to learn anything new of any value in a year at Teacher’s College?

Just the reverse; in order to have something to teach, the Ed Schools more or less must inculcate their acolytes with new techniques and ideas nobody has used in a classroom they have learned in. And there almost has to be a good reason why nobody will have used a technique before.

Hiring anyone with any Bachelor’s degree ought to work better.

Collective bargaining between two groups of civil servants is, in sum, all a pantomime. Nobody has their own money at risk. Both sides benefit by caving in to all union demands.

But for oversight from politicians.

Why doesn’t the government just do what Reagan did in the Eighties when the US air traffic controllers went out? He fired them all—ending an era of constant strikes by civil servants.

The government will not do it because there are too many teachers, and they are too well organized. Politicos fear their electoral power, and their ability to generate bad PR through their class allies in the media. That, and class solidarity. Broadly, teachers belong to the same professional class as do politicians.

It might be worth doing for a Tory government. After all, the teachers’ unions are all in for the NDP in any case.'Od's Blog: Catholic and Clear Grit comments on the passing parade.

AOC Detects Zuckerberg's White Supremacist Bias

This grilling of Mark Zuckerberg by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez illustrates my contention that the mavens and magnates of Silicon Gulley are not really interested in censorship or controlling our politics. They want to invent things and make money. The problem is that the left will not let them. Being located where they are, in the SF Bay area, it is only the far left from whom they generally hear. They hear a constant public outcry, and, not wanting to get involved in politics, they feel the need to do something in response, so as not to alienate their customer base. Not being political, they have little idea there is another side of the issue.

Ocasio-Cortez, for example, berates Zuckerberg for not censoring more aggressively, and accuses him of having dinner parties with “far right figures.” So what is his necessary move, in order to disentangle himself from politics? He is then forced to be political, to try to figure out who counts as “far right,” and shun them. Ensuring he does not hear their views on this issue…

There is no way out.

Ocasio-Cortez actually refers to calling white privilege a hoax as a “conspiracy theory.” That is a perfect inversion: it is the notion of white privilege that is a conspiracy theory. It is like saying that denying the accuracy of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a “conspiracy theory.” But this logic is too convoluted for an innocent to handle. Zuckerberg is out of his field; precisely because he is not a political animal, he is easily buffaloed by this sort of bullying.

This is the current problem not just among techies, but artists. They are not engrossed in politics; they want to create. The left will not let them do so; the left will politicize everything, to the point that, in order to pursue their own interests, they must be seen to conform to every new demand for political correctness.

Ocasio-Cortez gives a helpful primer here in how the technique works. She refers to The Daily Caller as a “publication with well-documented ties to white supremacist organizations.” This guilt by association could be as easily used against any individual or organization. The six degrees of separation rule makes this inevitable. All of us have ties to “white supremacist organizations,” or organized crime, or convicted mass murderers. But now she forges on with the notion planted that the Daily Caller is itself white supremacist. The Daily Caller was founded by Tucker Carlson, and features writing from such figures as Newt Gingrich, Ann Coulter, and Alan Keyes. It is about as white supremacist as the New York Times.

She then extends this guilt by association by one further degree: Facebook and Zuckerberg are now also white supremacists, it seems, because they rely on a fact checker who also works for The Daily Caller.

It now follows that anyone who uses Facebook has documented ties with white supremacist organizations. And so it goes.

Joe McCarthy would never have been so bold or so reckless in his accusations.

The coup de grace: AOC then tries to force Zuckerberg to denounce the Daily Caller’s fact checking, on the grounds that it has “ties to white supremacist organizations.” If he will not do this, presumably this confirms that he is indeed a communist. Sorry, flashback; I mean a white supremacist.

Ocasio-Cortez here is denying the existence of facts. She is implying, and demanding that all accept, that left-wing and right-wing facts are different. She must believe that “the facts” are simply whatever she or anyone thinks will advance their political goals.

It is impossible to have a rational dialogue on such a basis. The modern left is a cancer on the body politic. And on the culture.
'Od's Blog: Catholic and Clear Grit comments on the passing parade.

The Unjust Magistrate

He also spoke a parable to them that they must always pray and not give up, saying, “There was a judge in a certain city who didn’t fear God and didn’t respect man. A widow was in that city, and she often came to him, saying, ‘Defend me from my adversary!’ He wouldn’t for a while; but afterward he said to himself, ‘Though I neither fear God nor respect man, yet because this widow bothers me, I will defend her, or else she will wear me out by her continual coming.’ ” 

The Lord said, “Listen to what the unrighteous judge says. Won’t God avenge his chosen ones who are crying out to him day and night, and yet he exercises patience with them? I tell you that he will avenge them quickly. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?”

This is what a parable looks like: no names, and shocking. God is blasphemously compared to an unjust judge. The parable implies that He can be worn out, get tired; nonsensical for a perfect being.

As usual, the story is actually saying the opposite of what it seems to say on superficial reading. It is all in the last line.

It seems to say God will answer prayer. It is really explaining why God does not answer prayer.

Unlike the unjust judge, God does not disdain mankind and want to be rid of us. Instead, he loves us. The parable illustrates that, if he easily gives us what we want, we will probably go away and forget about him. The last thing he wants us to do is go away and forget about him.

So he will present us with problems and fail to give us what we ask, for the sake of deepening the relationship. To progress, we must learn to be grateful, and to continue the conversation, even when he fulfills our wishes.



'Od's Blog: Catholic and Clear Grit comments on the passing parade.

Narcissism Is Good for You. Not.

Narcissus showing his emotional flexibility.
A new study announces that narcissism can be the key to happiness.

This is not an entirely new claim. Alice Miller asserts the same.

It is nonsense.

Look at the original story of Narcissus; it gives the full diagnosis and prognosis. So does much of the rest of the literary tradition. Narcissus dies of grief, then suffers eternally in the underworld.

The legend of Tantalus is also an analysis of narcissism. His fate is proverbially bad.
Tantalus in the underworld.
So is every Greek tragedy; what the classical Greeks called hubris, we call narcissism.

The new study says that narcissism makes one resilient and able to overcome challenges. This is the opposite what is shown in literature: Narcissus is unable to overcome the simplest emotional blow. He cannot even turn his head away from his reflection, stand up, and go and get something to eat. He dies rather than suffer it.

Where is this false claim of happy narcissism coming from?

It is easy to see how any researcher who wanted to could come up with such results. Simply ask the narcissist.

“Are you emotionally resilient?”
Of course; the narcissist will insist that they are perfect. Of course they are emotionally resilient, if this is a good thing.

“Are you unhappy?”

This sounds like a bad thing. So no, of course, they are not unhappy. They will, if pressed, quickly admit to being abused and cruelly mistreated by any or all their intimates, or by the world itself, but if you frame it in such a way that it seems to reflect on them, no, they are not unhappy. Their life is wonderful.

You can get a narcissist to say anything, so long as they think it reflects well on them; and deny anything, so long as they think it makes them look bad.

More broadly, this survey illustrates a fatal problem with the social sciences. They are no more than a cargo cult based on the prestige of physical science. Among extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds, they are about the craziest mass delusion ever; and they have persisted for over a hundred years. Because human beings are so complex—as complex as any human observer—they cannot be reliably objectively observed. It is therefore always possible to produce studies coming to any given conclusion.

Just recently, I had to cut a chapter out of a book. I had come across a number of studies showing that a vegetarian and fish-based diet, without red meat, reduced the risk of depression. Looked definitive.

Right then, a new study came out showing that eating red meat was important in preventing depression.

Because the social sciences do not work, what happens is that everyone manipulates studies to make whatever point they want to make. It becomes entirely politics, and dangerously misleading. I expect the “red meat prevents depression” study had a lot to do with politics. But then, perhaps the original vegetarian claims did too.

The most interesting study in the social sciences is this one, which has been repeated at least three times: fifty percent of all study results in the social sciences cannot be repeated.

That means any claim you read in the social sciences is about as useful for decision-making as flipping a coin.

Among narcissists, there is, of course, an inevitable desire to make narcissism appear to be a good thing. And so we are unable, through the social sciences, to ever get a good fix on narcissism.

The researcher for the current study makes his political agenda plain enough:

"This work promotes diversity and inclusiveness of people and ideas by advocating that dark traits, such as narcissism, should not be seen as either good or bad, but as products of evolution and expressions of human nature that may be beneficial or harmful depending on the context.” 

"This move forward may help to reduce the marginalisation of individuals that score higher than average on the dark traits.”

Fortunately, we have the literary corpus. 
Read it.

'Od's Blog: Catholic and Clear Grit comments on the passing parade.

Small Dead Animals

Kate McMillan over at Small Dead Animals has kindly featured Playing the Indian Card on her blog.

The lest I can do is to lick back...


'Od's Blog: Catholic and Clear Grit comments on the passing parade.

Exit Wexit

Canadian election results by riding.

I think the current upwelling of talk of “Wexit” in Alberta and Saskatchewan is undignified and does nothing to impress Central Canada.

After all, in the normal course of things, there is likely to be a new election in two years, the Conservatives are likely to win, and at least some of the policies that are so damaging to the energy sector are likely to be reversed.

So it makes sense to break up the country, with all the emotional and economic dislocation that would cause, instead of just waiting for two years?
Some might argue that a change in government is not enough; that these problems are endemic. They keep returning. But the problems that cannot be reversed by a change in federal government largely won’t be reversed because they are beyond the control of the federal government—opposition to pipelines from Quebec, or the US, or BC, or aboriginal groups. Separating from Canada will only make these problems worse; the red tape grows exponentially, and Alberta’s electoral leverage is gone.

Time is on Alberta’s side: western Canada is growing in population faster than the east. Over time, Alberta’s, Saskatchewan’s, and oil-bearing BC’s financial and electoral voices will get louder. Why would you quit just before you get promoted to the executive suite?

So it really all looks, from this corner of Central Canada, like a tantrum. I say that as a sometime Alberta resident. For the record, I support pipelines in all directions.

Nations split because of major cultural differences; most Albertans are first or second generation migrants from further east. If the situation really were intolerable for them, they have the easy option of moving back.

Or nations split because of some grave moral principle, like slavery. Does waiting a few years for a new pipeline really fit the bill? Realistically, oil or gas not sold today is not lost; it remains in the ground to be sold tomorrow. Possibly at a higher price.

Forget “Wexit.” That is a quitter’s game. It’s time to storm the battlements instead.


'Od's Blog: Catholic and Clear Grit comments on the passing parade.