July 28, 2009
Some years ago when one of my friends was still a teenager, he came over to his house after school with a group of his friends -- and only then discovered that he had forgotten his key at home that morning. With the help of a picnic table and a teetering garbage can, he broke in through one of the upstairs windows and let the others in through the front door. A neighbour saw him doing it and called the police to report a group of teens trying to break into a house. The police arrived roughly twenty minutes later, complete with several cruisers and dogs. They knocked at the door, he opened it. When they asked, he matter-of-factly produced identification showing his picture and his address. They also called his parents at work to confirm he was who he said he was. Even after all telephone calls were made, one cruiser remained in the area for another half hour. Finally, all confirmations having been made, the matter was closed.
My friend is white.
In the Gates affair, a woman in the area, not a resident, called to report two men trying to force open a door. When the police arrived, they spoke to her before they went to the house and knocked on the door. When they asked and he was told the reason, Gates became upset. Matters escalated. In the end, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was arrested by Sgt. James Crowley.
About a day later, President Barack Obama mentioned that the police had acted "stupidly". There was no pulling back then.
Take race and age out of it, and it becomes much more apparent that there were several things that had been done right.
Whenever my friend tells about the "incident", he always also mentions how he can see how his actions might have been taken that way. He was a teenager, and (other) teenagers had been responsible for a disproportional number of the local break-ins. I don't know who was responsible for the break-ins and arsons at my dwellings, but the one time I saw and chased, the would-be thieves were white male teens. The actions of a few have always resonated on the perception of all, be it a burglar or a bus driver who happens to be having a bad day or possibly even simply could not see. It is not fair, but for now that is how it is.
That being said: neither the police nor the caller assumed guilt in either case. The police knocked and asked. The caller repeatedly specifies to the 911 operator that she herself is not sure if there actually is a problem:
When Gates became upset, the situation began to escalate. Above all things, police in every country fear dealing with irate homeowners and domestic disturbances. In a moment of anger or fear, many homeowners have reached for the pistol hidden in a drawer table behind the door for self defence. The police come into every situation, not knowing if this is the one that is going to explode into violence and the real possibility of a police officer being killed on the job. Angry reactions vastly increase the chance. It is partly for this reason that the law is written to allow police to arrest infuriated people as non-cooperative.
There were two things that could have been done differently: but each was reaction rather than action, and neither of those reactions was born in a vacuum.
The long history of blacks being racially profiled -- and worse -- does not just disappear. The knock of police at the door does not mean the same thing to all innocent people. How can it? In most cases the law requires presumption of innocence, but ask people pulled aside for security screenings at the airport just how far presumption of innocence goes in real life. Governor Deval Patrick may have exaggerated slightly when he called the arrest "every black man's nightmare," but only insofar as to substitute "every" for "many" or even "most".
Perhaps the uneven assumptions are changing in some places: but the current public reaction alone ought to tell us that the change is slow and far from universal. Left to itself, a stable societal structure has no reason to change. It is because some blacks became angry and were able to forge that anger into a mass movement that centuries of hierarchical assumptions began to change at all.
The change is not yet complete; possibly because the assumption of meritocracy could itself stand some re-examining. Maybe we can never get far enough away from the preconceptions -- not least of objectivity -- not to argue over which measuring stick is the most accurate. Maybe there is no system possible within human nature and human history that allows equal accomplishments always to be measured equally. Maybe anger is one of the tools that will find one -- and maybe anger at this point is counterproductive. Future generations a few centuries away will see it much more clearly than we are able to, just now.
Obama is not a product of the American racial divide. He may be half-black, but it is second-generation Kenyan black, not since-the-Civil-War American black. Nor, for all his non-rich roots, has he lived in the continental American black's experience of poverty. He grew up in many different places, but none of them were the American inner city or, in some ways worse, the American Archie Bunker-Jeffersons suburb. It is entirely possible that until now, Obama did not realise just how deeply emotions have entrenched both sides of the American racial divide: so that each side jumped to an equally blind conclusion, never mind what the principals of the situation might have to say about it had cooler heads been allowed to prevail in the morning. Quite possibly Obama did not realise until this moment that, although he is an outsider from the many American black communities, he himself is not immune to making racially-based assumptions.
It is certain that he knows now.
Given the facts of the actual encounter, the principals ought to be able to reconcile over a Budweiser at the White House. It will make a pretty photo opportunity if they do. But to address the deeper rift that could be sparked into such reaction so very quickly: that will take much more than a single photo op, a single term, a single generation can do.
My friend is white.
In the Gates affair, a woman in the area, not a resident, called to report two men trying to force open a door. When the police arrived, they spoke to her before they went to the house and knocked on the door. When they asked and he was told the reason, Gates became upset. Matters escalated. In the end, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was arrested by Sgt. James Crowley.
About a day later, President Barack Obama mentioned that the police had acted "stupidly". There was no pulling back then.
Take race and age out of it, and it becomes much more apparent that there were several things that had been done right.
Whenever my friend tells about the "incident", he always also mentions how he can see how his actions might have been taken that way. He was a teenager, and (other) teenagers had been responsible for a disproportional number of the local break-ins. I don't know who was responsible for the break-ins and arsons at my dwellings, but the one time I saw and chased, the would-be thieves were white male teens. The actions of a few have always resonated on the perception of all, be it a burglar or a bus driver who happens to be having a bad day or possibly even simply could not see. It is not fair, but for now that is how it is.
That being said: neither the police nor the caller assumed guilt in either case. The police knocked and asked. The caller repeatedly specifies to the 911 operator that she herself is not sure if there actually is a problem:
I don't know if they live there and they just had a hard time with their key. But I did notice they used their shoulder to try to barge in and they got in. I don't know if they had a key or not, 'cause I couldn't see from my angle. ... I just saw it from a distance and this older woman was worried, thinking, 'Someone's been breaking in someone's house. They've been barging in.In the original 911 call, she did not describe their race. Yet apparent race, like apparent age and apparent height/weight, is a core aspect of physical description: so both the 911 operator and the police did seek a racial description out of her.
When Gates became upset, the situation began to escalate. Above all things, police in every country fear dealing with irate homeowners and domestic disturbances. In a moment of anger or fear, many homeowners have reached for the pistol hidden in a drawer table behind the door for self defence. The police come into every situation, not knowing if this is the one that is going to explode into violence and the real possibility of a police officer being killed on the job. Angry reactions vastly increase the chance. It is partly for this reason that the law is written to allow police to arrest infuriated people as non-cooperative.
There were two things that could have been done differently: but each was reaction rather than action, and neither of those reactions was born in a vacuum.
The long history of blacks being racially profiled -- and worse -- does not just disappear. The knock of police at the door does not mean the same thing to all innocent people. How can it? In most cases the law requires presumption of innocence, but ask people pulled aside for security screenings at the airport just how far presumption of innocence goes in real life. Governor Deval Patrick may have exaggerated slightly when he called the arrest "every black man's nightmare," but only insofar as to substitute "every" for "many" or even "most".
Perhaps the uneven assumptions are changing in some places: but the current public reaction alone ought to tell us that the change is slow and far from universal. Left to itself, a stable societal structure has no reason to change. It is because some blacks became angry and were able to forge that anger into a mass movement that centuries of hierarchical assumptions began to change at all.
The change is not yet complete; possibly because the assumption of meritocracy could itself stand some re-examining. Maybe we can never get far enough away from the preconceptions -- not least of objectivity -- not to argue over which measuring stick is the most accurate. Maybe there is no system possible within human nature and human history that allows equal accomplishments always to be measured equally. Maybe anger is one of the tools that will find one -- and maybe anger at this point is counterproductive. Future generations a few centuries away will see it much more clearly than we are able to, just now.
Obama is not a product of the American racial divide. He may be half-black, but it is second-generation Kenyan black, not since-the-Civil-War American black. Nor, for all his non-rich roots, has he lived in the continental American black's experience of poverty. He grew up in many different places, but none of them were the American inner city or, in some ways worse, the American Archie Bunker-Jeffersons suburb. It is entirely possible that until now, Obama did not realise just how deeply emotions have entrenched both sides of the American racial divide: so that each side jumped to an equally blind conclusion, never mind what the principals of the situation might have to say about it had cooler heads been allowed to prevail in the morning. Quite possibly Obama did not realise until this moment that, although he is an outsider from the many American black communities, he himself is not immune to making racially-based assumptions.
It is certain that he knows now.
Given the facts of the actual encounter, the principals ought to be able to reconcile over a Budweiser at the White House. It will make a pretty photo opportunity if they do. But to address the deeper rift that could be sparked into such reaction so very quickly: that will take much more than a single photo op, a single term, a single generation can do.
July 26, 2009
Theatre snacks have long been known as one of those extreme markups charged to a captive audience. Even though no outside food is allowed at theatres, budget tips often include secretly sneaking in the same or similar candy snacks that have been purchased elsewhere: which obviously only occurs among those who could afford snacks as well as the film ticket in the first place. Others simply went without.
Yet the showing of films is subsidised by snack sales. Most theatres operate on a very slim overhead, especially now that DVD sales, Internet downloads, and home theatres cut deeply into the profit margin. Without the sales of snacks, they would not break even.
At the same time, outside a few isolated festivals and a few reviewers' screenings to spread the buzz, film producers have no particular reason to show their products on the big screen anymore. If the theatres stop being able to afford them, other distribution methods are available.
So: we have arrived at a crossroads. We have already discovered that with all the options available, the consuming public will not tolerate ticket prices above certain plateaus. I take it as a given that absolutely no one reading this would be willing for the government to subsidise individual theatres, which places the entire choice upon us, the consumers. Do we personally choose the path of continuing snack subsidisation of theatres? Or do we personally choose the cheapest path, knowing that on the soon side of sooner or later it will destroy this particular institution?
It is an irony of the locovore movement that a similar structure has become established in food production. Locovore food production and consumption moves the origin of foods from far away to nearby, usually within a 100 km radius. Fewer nutrients are lost in transit, fewer chemicals are needed to maintain food freshness, there are fewer middlemen, so the farmer earns more. In isolation, it seems entirely like a good thing.
Yet the sudden removal of all the in-between steps from an established economic structure also results in an equally sudden deflation of the monetary value of the end product of that structure, simply because we had increasingly been using all those steps to artificially inflate the monetary value ... and also to artificially create jobs. When the middle steps are gone, the middle jobs are no longer necessary.
Whatever might be the shape of an ideal societal structure, no new system can be introduced into a vacuum. When widespread established structures are overturned, no one will escape the hurt.
Yet the showing of films is subsidised by snack sales. Most theatres operate on a very slim overhead, especially now that DVD sales, Internet downloads, and home theatres cut deeply into the profit margin. Without the sales of snacks, they would not break even.
At the same time, outside a few isolated festivals and a few reviewers' screenings to spread the buzz, film producers have no particular reason to show their products on the big screen anymore. If the theatres stop being able to afford them, other distribution methods are available.
So: we have arrived at a crossroads. We have already discovered that with all the options available, the consuming public will not tolerate ticket prices above certain plateaus. I take it as a given that absolutely no one reading this would be willing for the government to subsidise individual theatres, which places the entire choice upon us, the consumers. Do we personally choose the path of continuing snack subsidisation of theatres? Or do we personally choose the cheapest path, knowing that on the soon side of sooner or later it will destroy this particular institution?
It is an irony of the locovore movement that a similar structure has become established in food production. Locovore food production and consumption moves the origin of foods from far away to nearby, usually within a 100 km radius. Fewer nutrients are lost in transit, fewer chemicals are needed to maintain food freshness, there are fewer middlemen, so the farmer earns more. In isolation, it seems entirely like a good thing.
Yet the sudden removal of all the in-between steps from an established economic structure also results in an equally sudden deflation of the monetary value of the end product of that structure, simply because we had increasingly been using all those steps to artificially inflate the monetary value ... and also to artificially create jobs. When the middle steps are gone, the middle jobs are no longer necessary.
Whatever might be the shape of an ideal societal structure, no new system can be introduced into a vacuum. When widespread established structures are overturned, no one will escape the hurt.
July 22, 2009
A test:
Virtually everything I have read, virtually everyone to whom I have spoken, always describes a teacher in grade 4, 5, or 6 as the formative teacher, the one which made all the difference. It makes me wonder whether these are actually the formative grades, and the lucky students are the ones who get the exceptional teachers at this time. Any earlier, and it blurs into the first socialisation of school. Any later, and thinking habits have already set into their mould.
If you are reading this: did you have a formative teacher? Which grade did he or she teach? What made them so memorable?
And maybe this becomes a secondary test as well: who is willing to stop lurking and post a comment first? *grin* I should know better, I was taught in grad school to never, ever target a question at an individual student and put them on the spot: but how about a general question aimed at a reading audience of those no less qualified to speak than myself?
Virtually everything I have read, virtually everyone to whom I have spoken, always describes a teacher in grade 4, 5, or 6 as the formative teacher, the one which made all the difference. It makes me wonder whether these are actually the formative grades, and the lucky students are the ones who get the exceptional teachers at this time. Any earlier, and it blurs into the first socialisation of school. Any later, and thinking habits have already set into their mould.
If you are reading this: did you have a formative teacher? Which grade did he or she teach? What made them so memorable?
And maybe this becomes a secondary test as well: who is willing to stop lurking and post a comment first? *grin* I should know better, I was taught in grad school to never, ever target a question at an individual student and put them on the spot: but how about a general question aimed at a reading audience of those no less qualified to speak than myself?
July 19, 2009
For a while, after Mr. Rogers and Mr. Dressup died, their children's shows were aired in indefinite repeats. I always found this a bit ghoulish. The aim was to protect children from this particular reality by keeping it seamless; and the children never did learn -- at first -- that they were being enthralled by a dead man. We never did think to ask what effect this way of finding out might have on them; and now this generation of children is coming of age and it is too late to find out in the abstract. The stop-gap experiment has already blurred into the here and now. Effects, if any, are already a permanent part of this new generation, and will thus be a formative influence on the next one.
Mr. Rogers, Mr. Dressup, the Friendly Giant, and several other authoritative mentors in children's programming all date to the same period of early television and one-income families. Family fathers were away at work, and the children's airwaves eagerly embraced the substitute father figure whose neighbourhood was always kind and safe because it was his. He gently told people what was expected of them, and they did it.
Children's cartoons began and ended with entertainment. The best of them were so multilayered and deep that learning to see new things in them could take a child all the way to adulthood: but this very depth moved them into the darker realms of the Grimms brothers' fairy tales.
In contrast, Mr. Rogers represented reassurance, guidance, and a perfect security. When he died, that perfect security was shaken to its roots. Children's television has never completely recovered.
Perhaps we had learned too much. From his origins as an adult-oriented stage comedy creation not unlike Rowan Atkinson's Mr. Bean, Pee-wee Herman briefly became a transitional figure between the father figure and the slightly bratty older kid. That part of his empire came crashing down when Paul Reubens was caught masturbating in an adult theatre. Men bring other children into existence behind closed doors. Modern men who entertain children must never even seem to be sexual beings at all.
(What would a modern world have made of a Lewis Carroll and his relationship with Alice Liddell?)
Unknown substitute father figures were no longer safe. Uncles were definitely not safe, because adult men were no longer safe. Yet to place a woman as a television television mentor might acknowledge more about the current state of two-income families and latchkey kids than anyone wanted to face.
Instead, television looked to the older sibling, just old enough to be a reliable role model to younger brothers and sisters while still being young enough not to be perceived as a sexual threat to those children. Modern children's programming is filled with hip young people who are having fun discovering the world and playing make-belief with puppets and younger children. In the process, the authoritative "tell, don't show" substitute father figure vanished entirely, to be replaced by a modelling approach by teens who were more wished-for friends than parent substitutes. The assumption continues to be that children will imitate those they admire.
Children are often more intelligent than we give them credit for. This generation of children has also noticed that no one seems to be telling these hip teens what they should and should not be doing. They happen to choose to do interesting educational things -- but they could equally well choose to do anything else they find interesting. Older siblings are on the threshold of autonomy, with the world full of possibility: but they are not parents.
Why do we expect that they should be?
Mr. Rogers, Mr. Dressup, the Friendly Giant, and several other authoritative mentors in children's programming all date to the same period of early television and one-income families. Family fathers were away at work, and the children's airwaves eagerly embraced the substitute father figure whose neighbourhood was always kind and safe because it was his. He gently told people what was expected of them, and they did it.
Children's cartoons began and ended with entertainment. The best of them were so multilayered and deep that learning to see new things in them could take a child all the way to adulthood: but this very depth moved them into the darker realms of the Grimms brothers' fairy tales.
In contrast, Mr. Rogers represented reassurance, guidance, and a perfect security. When he died, that perfect security was shaken to its roots. Children's television has never completely recovered.
Perhaps we had learned too much. From his origins as an adult-oriented stage comedy creation not unlike Rowan Atkinson's Mr. Bean, Pee-wee Herman briefly became a transitional figure between the father figure and the slightly bratty older kid. That part of his empire came crashing down when Paul Reubens was caught masturbating in an adult theatre. Men bring other children into existence behind closed doors. Modern men who entertain children must never even seem to be sexual beings at all.
(What would a modern world have made of a Lewis Carroll and his relationship with Alice Liddell?)
Unknown substitute father figures were no longer safe. Uncles were definitely not safe, because adult men were no longer safe. Yet to place a woman as a television television mentor might acknowledge more about the current state of two-income families and latchkey kids than anyone wanted to face.
Instead, television looked to the older sibling, just old enough to be a reliable role model to younger brothers and sisters while still being young enough not to be perceived as a sexual threat to those children. Modern children's programming is filled with hip young people who are having fun discovering the world and playing make-belief with puppets and younger children. In the process, the authoritative "tell, don't show" substitute father figure vanished entirely, to be replaced by a modelling approach by teens who were more wished-for friends than parent substitutes. The assumption continues to be that children will imitate those they admire.
Children are often more intelligent than we give them credit for. This generation of children has also noticed that no one seems to be telling these hip teens what they should and should not be doing. They happen to choose to do interesting educational things -- but they could equally well choose to do anything else they find interesting. Older siblings are on the threshold of autonomy, with the world full of possibility: but they are not parents.
Why do we expect that they should be?
July 17, 2009
The first manned mission to land on the moon had an Australian connection. The 64-metre Parkes Radiothermal Telescope, still the largest steerable dish in Australia, had only been in existence for eight years when Apollo 11 was launched. It was one of three tracking antennas to receive the original television signals from the lunar module, the other two being the 64-metre Goldstone antenna in California and the 26-metre Honeysuckle Creek antenna, near Canberra. Parkes' staff fought high winds and the risk of serious personal injury to keep the dish pointed at the moon and deliver the best quality picture of the three. So superior was the Parkes' picture that after the first nine minutes, the remaining hours of the broadcast were sourced through Parkes -- and were subsequently lost by NASA.No fault should be ascribed to NASA because of this. The original Parkes signal consisted of telemetry data and an SSTV video feed. The SSTV data, in turn, was split into two parts: the first recorded on data tapes, the second converted for broadcast to televisions all over the world -- not electronically, but by pointing a conventional television camera at a monitor displaying the SSTV images. This second version remains as videotape and kinescope; but it has the reduced quality and noise one would expect of a film of a film, not to mention further distortion due to normal analogue transmission over a long transmission path. This was another reason NASA had hoped to use the closer Goldstone station, but those pictures turned out to be extremely poor quality.
On top of all this, archiving standards in 1969 were not what they are now: and 10% loss was considered normal. For all its standards and upgrades, modern archiving does not do much better. With the current amount of previous and constantly added data in the system, we are running into the butterfly effect: where the effect of any errors or other perturbations grows exponentially to the point where the behaviour of this dynamic system begins to appear chaotic. In practical terms, 3-5% of all data in modern archives will be inaccurate. Further, any attempt to fix an inaccuracy will itself induce other inaccuracies.
In a budget-consciousness which modern sensibilities should find familiar, old SSTV tapes -- which were extremely expensive -- were also routinely erased and reused. The original SSTV tapes which had been shipped from Australia to Goddard were no exception -- and after Goddard received the tapes, there was no reason for Australia to hold onto the backup copy. It was the height of the Cold War, and there were other priorities. Anyway, it was obvious now to all involved that it could only be a matter of a few decades now before a permanent manned station would be established on the moon.
On the plus side, at least we know that the old technology can still be read if found. Other telemetry tapes from the same period have been discovered at the Curtin University of Technology in Perth, and have been successfully read.
Thanks to NASA's frame by frame restoration of the original video footage, some of which has been in storage since the original moon landing, we also know that modern technology can do an amazing job of restoration of the original video footage.
The Parkes radio telescope continues to be a tracking link for space missions to the present day. Mariner 2, Mariner 4, Voyager, Giotto, Galileo, and Cassini-Huygens are all being tracked in part by Parkes. Other radio telescopes have since been built, some of them arrays of dishes which together are much larger than Parkes; but if another manned mission to the moon once again becomes possible, Parkes will almost certainly have a part in it.
July 16, 2009
Starbucks has joined the list of large companies that have adopted the corporate version of stealth technology, by renaming one of its Seattle stores "15th Avenue Coffee & Tea" and otherwise giving it the appearance of a neighbourhood pub. It won't be the first large company to have rebranded part or all of its goods and services to create the feeling of an independent, and it won't be the last.
This tactic will cut directly and deliberately into the independent market niche. How can it not? It is the latest in a long line of Starbucks business tactics which happen to target independents disproportionately among its competitors, such as the willingness and deep-pockets ability to operate at a loss until the independent competitor simply runs out of money. Some will call these tactics "anti-competitive". Others will simply label them "good business".
Perhaps it will turn around the staggering profit drops that Starbucks has seen in recent months. In the fourth quarter of 2008, Starbucks profits dropped a staggering 97%. Second quarter profits reported at the end of April 2009 still showed a drop of 77 percent. From a history of growth so meteoric it was parodied repeatedly on The Simpsons, Starbucks is now closing low-performing stores almost as rapidly as it was initially opening them. Ironically, among the stores closed is the fabled one in the Forbidden City. It seems that a significant percentage of the coffee-buying public see Starbucks lattés as an unneeded luxury item.
When we look back at this period of time, will we see the rise, fall, and potentially reinvention of Starbucks as perfectly symbolic of its country of origin, its environment, and its times?
While I am at it, I may as well also address the persistent Internet rumour that alleges that part of Starbucks profits go to fund the Israeli army. Let's start by citing Starbucks' official response:
Yet by definition a part of Starbucks' profits (to the tune of $9,740,471 USD in 2008) do go to its CEO Howard Schultz, who is nearly solely responsible for Starbucks' early success and rapid growth. In 2006, Forbes Magazine ranked Schultz the 354th richest person in the United States with a net worth of $1.1 billion USD (probably a bit lower now, after the Starbucks/stock market fall). Most of this money has originated with Starbucks.
Schultz also happens to be Jewish. Just as every Christian attending church is expected to tithe 10% of their income to church-sponsored activities, so is every self-sufficient Jew expected to donate a minimum of 10% of their income to charity (tzedakah), as well as a minimum of 1/60 to pe'ah, the transparent, open giving from the profit derived from goods which originates in agriculture ("when you reap the harvest, you shall not reap all the way"). The rabbinical teaching is that tzedakah money belongs not to the earner but to the recipient: creating an obligation not only to give, but to give it to appropriate causes that can best use it. Although many Jews in the United States don't give to primarily to Jewish causes, the 1998 Israel 50th Anniversary Tribute Award given to Schultz by Aish HaTorah does suggest that he personally prioritises conservative Jewish causes.
(From a Christian perspective, Aish HaTorah might best be considered an organisation which evangelises Judaism and Torah principles to the Jewish people. As with almost every conservative religious structure, no matter what the religion, it can be considered right-wing. In the case of conservative Jewish values, it is difficult not to have links with Zionism. Some aspects of Zionism such as settlement, in turn, have proven a constant sticking point in any Middle East peace agreement: which indirectly requires a continued high percentage of GDP to support a defensive military. Since Aish HaTorah has also helped establish the media monitoring organisation HonestReporting.com, I must admit that I am curious whether this blog too will soon be dubbed as having an anti-Israel bias, if it has not been already.)
Thus the wording of the Starbucks statement deliberately obscures the intent of the question. Every Starbucks employee is labelled a Starbucks "partner", from lowest barista right up to the CEO: but most Starbucks employees don't have a voice in Starbucks operations and policy. Nor is any Starbucks employee in a position to donate as much to their chosen causes as Schultz, simply because no Starbucks employee earns so much. Practically, this means that a significant percentage of Starbucks gross profit does go, indirectly, to the personal causes espoused by Schultz.
Under the letter of the law, Schultz is separate from the company he has built, and his charitable choices are his own. After all, it is his money, to do with as he wishes. Were the corporate veil not in place, the principal shareholder and the company would be one and the same -- but the corporate veil does exist, the corporation is considered an independent entity: and thereby hangs a technicality.
This tactic will cut directly and deliberately into the independent market niche. How can it not? It is the latest in a long line of Starbucks business tactics which happen to target independents disproportionately among its competitors, such as the willingness and deep-pockets ability to operate at a loss until the independent competitor simply runs out of money. Some will call these tactics "anti-competitive". Others will simply label them "good business".
Perhaps it will turn around the staggering profit drops that Starbucks has seen in recent months. In the fourth quarter of 2008, Starbucks profits dropped a staggering 97%. Second quarter profits reported at the end of April 2009 still showed a drop of 77 percent. From a history of growth so meteoric it was parodied repeatedly on The Simpsons, Starbucks is now closing low-performing stores almost as rapidly as it was initially opening them. Ironically, among the stores closed is the fabled one in the Forbidden City. It seems that a significant percentage of the coffee-buying public see Starbucks lattés as an unneeded luxury item.
When we look back at this period of time, will we see the rise, fall, and potentially reinvention of Starbucks as perfectly symbolic of its country of origin, its environment, and its times?
While I am at it, I may as well also address the persistent Internet rumour that alleges that part of Starbucks profits go to fund the Israeli army. Let's start by citing Starbucks' official response:
Starbucks is a nonpolitical organization and does not support political causes. Further, political preferences of a Starbucks partner at any level have absolutely no bearing on Starbucks company policies.This one is much trickier than it appears on the surface, and even Snopes is reluctant to tackle it fully. Starbucks is a autonomous corporate entity whose profits go toward expansion, market research, and most recently a rebranding testing. As such, none of its profits go directly to any Israeli causes, Zionist or otherwise: although of course the question of influence peddling is always open whenever powerful business meets politics. (Consider the parallel question of big oil money in the United States.)
Yet by definition a part of Starbucks' profits (to the tune of $9,740,471 USD in 2008) do go to its CEO Howard Schultz, who is nearly solely responsible for Starbucks' early success and rapid growth. In 2006, Forbes Magazine ranked Schultz the 354th richest person in the United States with a net worth of $1.1 billion USD (probably a bit lower now, after the Starbucks/stock market fall). Most of this money has originated with Starbucks.
Schultz also happens to be Jewish. Just as every Christian attending church is expected to tithe 10% of their income to church-sponsored activities, so is every self-sufficient Jew expected to donate a minimum of 10% of their income to charity (tzedakah), as well as a minimum of 1/60 to pe'ah, the transparent, open giving from the profit derived from goods which originates in agriculture ("when you reap the harvest, you shall not reap all the way"). The rabbinical teaching is that tzedakah money belongs not to the earner but to the recipient: creating an obligation not only to give, but to give it to appropriate causes that can best use it. Although many Jews in the United States don't give to primarily to Jewish causes, the 1998 Israel 50th Anniversary Tribute Award given to Schultz by Aish HaTorah does suggest that he personally prioritises conservative Jewish causes.
(From a Christian perspective, Aish HaTorah might best be considered an organisation which evangelises Judaism and Torah principles to the Jewish people. As with almost every conservative religious structure, no matter what the religion, it can be considered right-wing. In the case of conservative Jewish values, it is difficult not to have links with Zionism. Some aspects of Zionism such as settlement, in turn, have proven a constant sticking point in any Middle East peace agreement: which indirectly requires a continued high percentage of GDP to support a defensive military. Since Aish HaTorah has also helped establish the media monitoring organisation HonestReporting.com, I must admit that I am curious whether this blog too will soon be dubbed as having an anti-Israel bias, if it has not been already.)
Thus the wording of the Starbucks statement deliberately obscures the intent of the question. Every Starbucks employee is labelled a Starbucks "partner", from lowest barista right up to the CEO: but most Starbucks employees don't have a voice in Starbucks operations and policy. Nor is any Starbucks employee in a position to donate as much to their chosen causes as Schultz, simply because no Starbucks employee earns so much. Practically, this means that a significant percentage of Starbucks gross profit does go, indirectly, to the personal causes espoused by Schultz.
Under the letter of the law, Schultz is separate from the company he has built, and his charitable choices are his own. After all, it is his money, to do with as he wishes. Were the corporate veil not in place, the principal shareholder and the company would be one and the same -- but the corporate veil does exist, the corporation is considered an independent entity: and thereby hangs a technicality.
July 14, 2009
Isolated into our individual corners of the world, buried under daily concerns: how often can we take the time to look around at the world outside and see what is happening? We catch the headlines of the local newsfeed but rarely even our own weather. I laugh whenever someone in my presence yearns for hot weather, beach weather: "You work in an office, don't you?" Air-conditioned house to air-conditioned car to air-conditioned indoor garage and air-conditioned office: who sets foot outside to feel what our new urban environment is really like?
In the heartland of the United States as far west as California, it is typical July warm bordering on hot and dry and stormy, with near-perfect soybean and corn growing conditions (in contrast to last year's Iowa floods) and an unusual clustering of west Pacific hurricanes. Water and power concerns are no less than they were last year, and next year will be more challenging still. The northern New England states remain cold and rainy and more spring-like than summer, but for the most part the freakish weather does not penetrate down to the more populated cities.
In much of south continental Europe, summer began much earlier than usual, with persistent daytime temperatures over 30°C and frequent, unusually severe hailstorms. In northern Europe and nearly all of Canada except the Yukon and the high arctic, summer weather has not yet started: and parts of Newfoundland have experienced frost -- in July. In Peru's southern Andes, it is a bitterly cold winter which comes in with the new El Niño: nearly twelve weeks earlier than usual, in April!
In the east Atlantic, an increased frequency of Saharan dust storms has blanketed the ocean with the Saharan Air Layer (SAL). Until this superheated dry atmospheric inversion disperses, there can be no tropical wave hurricanes: but when it finally does, it is likely they will be all the stronger for the warmer waters. In the meantime, the Sahara desert continues its slow creep south and east, with no signs of stopping.
(The Sahara itself may be the strongest visible evidence that human beings can influence the weather on a global basis for thousands of years, extending thousands of square kilometres beyond the borders of what technically qualifies as 'desert'.)
The Northwest Passage is open for shipping -- geographically, politically remains a matter of dispute. This began in September 14, 2007, for a few short days at the end of that year: but the period of ice-free water has been longer every year. Unlike the regions just south of them, the transpolar arctic regions are experiencing some of their warmest weather ever. Even the North Pole is occasionally ice-free now. For now, Canada is in a solo uphill battle with trying to preserve complete sovereignty over what it calls "Canadian Internal Waters", the waters between what are undisputably only Canadian islands: but northern waters between Danish and Russian islands are opening up too. Let's hope it does not take another Exxon Valdez, this time in fragile arctic waters, to resolve this political dispute.
Thus far, Australia has been spared: in part because it is the winter season and the summer brush fire season has not yet started. But much of the land is already tinder-dry, and the timing of the El Niño droughts will probably strike Australia perfectly in time to disrupt next year's harvests.
In the heartland of the United States as far west as California, it is typical July warm bordering on hot and dry and stormy, with near-perfect soybean and corn growing conditions (in contrast to last year's Iowa floods) and an unusual clustering of west Pacific hurricanes. Water and power concerns are no less than they were last year, and next year will be more challenging still. The northern New England states remain cold and rainy and more spring-like than summer, but for the most part the freakish weather does not penetrate down to the more populated cities.
In much of south continental Europe, summer began much earlier than usual, with persistent daytime temperatures over 30°C and frequent, unusually severe hailstorms. In northern Europe and nearly all of Canada except the Yukon and the high arctic, summer weather has not yet started: and parts of Newfoundland have experienced frost -- in July. In Peru's southern Andes, it is a bitterly cold winter which comes in with the new El Niño: nearly twelve weeks earlier than usual, in April!
In the east Atlantic, an increased frequency of Saharan dust storms has blanketed the ocean with the Saharan Air Layer (SAL). Until this superheated dry atmospheric inversion disperses, there can be no tropical wave hurricanes: but when it finally does, it is likely they will be all the stronger for the warmer waters. In the meantime, the Sahara desert continues its slow creep south and east, with no signs of stopping.
(The Sahara itself may be the strongest visible evidence that human beings can influence the weather on a global basis for thousands of years, extending thousands of square kilometres beyond the borders of what technically qualifies as 'desert'.)
The Northwest Passage is open for shipping -- geographically, politically remains a matter of dispute. This began in September 14, 2007, for a few short days at the end of that year: but the period of ice-free water has been longer every year. Unlike the regions just south of them, the transpolar arctic regions are experiencing some of their warmest weather ever. Even the North Pole is occasionally ice-free now. For now, Canada is in a solo uphill battle with trying to preserve complete sovereignty over what it calls "Canadian Internal Waters", the waters between what are undisputably only Canadian islands: but northern waters between Danish and Russian islands are opening up too. Let's hope it does not take another Exxon Valdez, this time in fragile arctic waters, to resolve this political dispute.
Thus far, Australia has been spared: in part because it is the winter season and the summer brush fire season has not yet started. But much of the land is already tinder-dry, and the timing of the El Niño droughts will probably strike Australia perfectly in time to disrupt next year's harvests.
July 12, 2009
Few sources are better than the popular media to express the current acceptabilities of the viewing public. In a bottom-line superficial world, nothing can survive on the airwaves unless it reflects either actuality or hidden desire.
Many years ago, I drew from such an illustrative example while I was discussing the topic of modern marriage with a former professor of mine. I did not then understand his reaction: more a matter of body language and shortened conversation than of anything actually said. It took me years to understand that he had assumed I was pulling from television as a role modelling structure -- which would have come as a sharp surprise to him -- and equally that I watched television the same way as most people, either as passive entertainment or as "educational".
(This last btw is absolutely impossible for me. There is nothing from which we cannot learn. Non-fiction weaves factoids into an information framework of the director's choosing, fiction creates a living context to give them meaning. Neither gives anything near a complete picture. To rely entirely upon one or the other is to cultivate a very distorted view of the world. Not only is a sharp division between passive entertainment and "educational" television alien to me, but to watch/read/listen to something -- anything -- and simply absorb, never once asking questions about what I had just seen, never once thinking about why this was said and not that, never once wondering what lies outside the presented picture ... it is something that would come very close to hell for me.)
Is it from isolated incidents such as these, combined with the firm scientific belief in causality, that the psychology field has come to see television's influence solely as formative? and thus to ask only those questions that can arise from this assumption?
Many years ago, I drew from such an illustrative example while I was discussing the topic of modern marriage with a former professor of mine. I did not then understand his reaction: more a matter of body language and shortened conversation than of anything actually said. It took me years to understand that he had assumed I was pulling from television as a role modelling structure -- which would have come as a sharp surprise to him -- and equally that I watched television the same way as most people, either as passive entertainment or as "educational".
(This last btw is absolutely impossible for me. There is nothing from which we cannot learn. Non-fiction weaves factoids into an information framework of the director's choosing, fiction creates a living context to give them meaning. Neither gives anything near a complete picture. To rely entirely upon one or the other is to cultivate a very distorted view of the world. Not only is a sharp division between passive entertainment and "educational" television alien to me, but to watch/read/listen to something -- anything -- and simply absorb, never once asking questions about what I had just seen, never once thinking about why this was said and not that, never once wondering what lies outside the presented picture ... it is something that would come very close to hell for me.)
Is it from isolated incidents such as these, combined with the firm scientific belief in causality, that the psychology field has come to see television's influence solely as formative? and thus to ask only those questions that can arise from this assumption?
July 09, 2009
Judging from the enormous number of airline complaints, customer service has not been the top priority for most airlines of late. Indeed, the same could be said for most companies. Whenever the bottom line is being reviewed, customer service is always one of the easiest sectors to cut back. After all, the sale has already been made. As to the classic question of customers going elsewhere: of course they will ... but is "elsewhere" really any different? In the absence of brand loyalty, service industries increasingly rely on a fixed level of need, pinballing among a limited set of options more alike than different.
(I speak not of what could be or should be, but of what is.)
Customer service is the polar opposite to advertising, which is in a constant escalating arms race. The only way the marketing department ever gets chopped is as a result of a particularly disastrous campaign (New Coke!): and even then this actually means that the advertising budget must increase to compensate.
From the corporate pov, the job of the customer service department is not to provide customer service, but to stall the customer into submission without once admitting fault. It sounds like an oxymoron. However, when dealing with customers as a pool rather than as individuals, the customer flow-through pool is best optimised by depersonalising the customer and never once accepting responsibility. For exactly this reason, customer service employees are usually stripped of all real power.
Every so often, someone who has a voice and knows how to use the media strikes back.
The Sons of Maxwell were on a tour of the United States when band member Dave Carroll's beloved Taylor guitar was seriously damaged by United Airlines baggage handlers. For nine months he tried to get compensation, but instead got shuffled from one department to another. Although no one denied the experience occurred, not one person to whom he spoke would admit fault.
He gave up on talking. Instead, he made a video. It went viral -- and suddenly United Airlines was talking, was accepting responsibility, was even apologising:
I can't speak for the recent state of airlines myself: but then again I have generally managed to avoid customer service desks entirely. For one thing, I don't buy much. For another, I deal primarily with individuals, rather than with businesses per se. I try for a measure of personal contact with the front line people with whom I deal, be it even so little as eye contact and a genuine "thank you". For a third, if I have to point out mistakes, such as those at the cash register, I find a neutral reason for those mistakes, such as a misprogramming in the scanner (which is usually actually the case!). And finally, if I am at fault or asking a great deal, I say so at once. In these cases, my request is a request with understanding for what I am asking, never a demand.
For some reason, I always seem to end up with the people who go beyond their strict job descriptions to help me.
... but none of this would have saved Carroll's guitar.
Edit: the uniteditstimetofly comment came between 9,700 and 9,900, if anyone wants to track it down exactly. I could not figure out how to link it directly then, and I am having a heck of a time trying to do so now. If you do succeed, a direct link would be appreciated. -T
(I speak not of what could be or should be, but of what is.)
Customer service is the polar opposite to advertising, which is in a constant escalating arms race. The only way the marketing department ever gets chopped is as a result of a particularly disastrous campaign (New Coke!): and even then this actually means that the advertising budget must increase to compensate.
From the corporate pov, the job of the customer service department is not to provide customer service, but to stall the customer into submission without once admitting fault. It sounds like an oxymoron. However, when dealing with customers as a pool rather than as individuals, the customer flow-through pool is best optimised by depersonalising the customer and never once accepting responsibility. For exactly this reason, customer service employees are usually stripped of all real power.
Every so often, someone who has a voice and knows how to use the media strikes back.
The Sons of Maxwell were on a tour of the United States when band member Dave Carroll's beloved Taylor guitar was seriously damaged by United Airlines baggage handlers. For nine months he tried to get compensation, but instead got shuffled from one department to another. Although no one denied the experience occurred, not one person to whom he spoke would admit fault.
He gave up on talking. Instead, he made a video. It went viral -- and suddenly United Airlines was talking, was accepting responsibility, was even apologising:
This has struck a chord w/ us. We have spoken w/ one another to make what happened right. We agree, this should have been fixed much sooner & Dave's excellent video provides us w/ a unique learning opp. that we wud like to use 4 training.Ten thousand comments later of the kind of publicity no company ever wants to see gathered in one place, United Airlines was apologising; and Dave accepted. Was it a win, or simply the least costly out? Will anything of significance change for other people in future?
Dave can sing a happy tune. As asked, we made a donation to a charity. In his name, United will donate $3K to the Thelonius Monk Institute of Jazz, for music ed. for kids. Cant wait 2 make music w/ Dave 2 improve service 4 all. Most important, very sorry.
- uniteditstimetofly
I can't speak for the recent state of airlines myself: but then again I have generally managed to avoid customer service desks entirely. For one thing, I don't buy much. For another, I deal primarily with individuals, rather than with businesses per se. I try for a measure of personal contact with the front line people with whom I deal, be it even so little as eye contact and a genuine "thank you". For a third, if I have to point out mistakes, such as those at the cash register, I find a neutral reason for those mistakes, such as a misprogramming in the scanner (which is usually actually the case!). And finally, if I am at fault or asking a great deal, I say so at once. In these cases, my request is a request with understanding for what I am asking, never a demand.
For some reason, I always seem to end up with the people who go beyond their strict job descriptions to help me.
... but none of this would have saved Carroll's guitar.
Edit: the uniteditstimetofly comment came between 9,700 and 9,900, if anyone wants to track it down exactly. I could not figure out how to link it directly then, and I am having a heck of a time trying to do so now. If you do succeed, a direct link would be appreciated. -T
July 06, 2009
There is no need to drive with any level of any intoxicating or impairing substance, from alcohol to medications to cellphones. Nothing is that urgent. Our ability to control our vehicles is far from perfect to begin with, but for now that is a risk society as a whole seems willing to accept: so long as the risk is not unnecessarily magnified.
Impaired driving is preventable. You were capable of judgement when you chose to become impaired. When you began drinking or picked up a cellphone, you knew the risks. You may choose to justify them to yourself -- not that drunk, good enough driver to get away with it -- but your self-justification does not make it so. If your judgement does not see why others should not be subjected to increased risk because of your choices, then the law must needs enforce it upon you.
That being said, it ought to make no difference to the law just who was the driver and who was the victim.
What purpose do victim statements really serve? We already know that a death or serious injury leaves a hole that cannot be filled. Are we to think that some lives, some losses, are less important than others? Are we to think that the wishes of a family ought to supercede a neutral law? Should families which practice punitive revenge gain "more" justice than those which practice rehabilitative forgiveness? What becomes then of justice being blind?
What of the hapless person whose drinking and driving happens to kill four elderly ladies who are pillars of their local church? This happened recently in Chatham, Canada, where the driver drank at least one beer and possibly as many as eight beers prior to driving off. Shortly thereafter, his van collided with another car, killing all four people in the other car. Subsequent blood alcohol tests showed a blood alcohol level of three times the legal limit.
What the media immediately seized upon were the identities of those who had been killed.
From that moment forward, it was impossible to pick up a newspaper from the entire region without reading about the four elderly "pie ladies" who always baked pies for their church's functions. They were even headed home from a church supper at the time of the collision. No matter what the story about this collision, it always, invariably, mentioned the "pie ladies".
Will justice be the same for these victims as it would have been had the victims been four unemployed, single men?
Impaired driving is preventable. You were capable of judgement when you chose to become impaired. When you began drinking or picked up a cellphone, you knew the risks. You may choose to justify them to yourself -- not that drunk, good enough driver to get away with it -- but your self-justification does not make it so. If your judgement does not see why others should not be subjected to increased risk because of your choices, then the law must needs enforce it upon you.
That being said, it ought to make no difference to the law just who was the driver and who was the victim.
What purpose do victim statements really serve? We already know that a death or serious injury leaves a hole that cannot be filled. Are we to think that some lives, some losses, are less important than others? Are we to think that the wishes of a family ought to supercede a neutral law? Should families which practice punitive revenge gain "more" justice than those which practice rehabilitative forgiveness? What becomes then of justice being blind?
What of the hapless person whose drinking and driving happens to kill four elderly ladies who are pillars of their local church? This happened recently in Chatham, Canada, where the driver drank at least one beer and possibly as many as eight beers prior to driving off. Shortly thereafter, his van collided with another car, killing all four people in the other car. Subsequent blood alcohol tests showed a blood alcohol level of three times the legal limit.
What the media immediately seized upon were the identities of those who had been killed.
From that moment forward, it was impossible to pick up a newspaper from the entire region without reading about the four elderly "pie ladies" who always baked pies for their church's functions. They were even headed home from a church supper at the time of the collision. No matter what the story about this collision, it always, invariably, mentioned the "pie ladies".
Will justice be the same for these victims as it would have been had the victims been four unemployed, single men?
July 03, 2009
Practical jokes usually demonstrate little more than the greater knowledge of one person over another, and a more or less vicious willingness to exploit the other person's ignorance for laughter at their expense. Simple scatalogical jokes are by far the most common, although sometimes there may be a glint of subtlety. Occasionally, however, the joke exposes a deeper truth. All the following jokes were set up and carried out by a professional company.
Joke #1
The first prankster, who has arrived in a van with a 'botanical gardens' logo, points out an unexpected find: a flower marked in her book as extinct is in full bloom on the park lawn. She asks her targets to keep an eye on it until she can get it safely transplanted into the botanical gardens, and goes to her van to get the materials. Almost at once, an uncaring park worker comes through on his heavy duty riding lawnmower, paying more attention to his earphones than his job, and heedlessly mows down the flower. He is, of course, the second prankster.
Some people stand by in clear shock. Some call out to him. Some run up to him and pluck his sleeve, trying to catch his attention: they are the ones who come closest to risking personal injury to save a species. No one automatically dismisses it as a joke. Not one person is indifferent.
Joke #2
A person eating solo is seated in a small, cozy restaurant, the kind that has tablecloths and leather menus but is not pretentious or particularly expensive. The waiter, who is one of the pranksters, hands the customer a menu and indicates the blackboard, where the chicken special of the day is written in chalk. The prank continues where the customer chooses the special. In this case, the waiter leaves for the kitchen, where a tape recording of a panicked chicken is started. Less than a minute later, a live chicken is released to run into the restaurant, chased by a cook wielding a cleaver. He is, of course, the second prankster.
Some look appalled. Some just can't seem to believe it. A few start grinning, often with their hands over their mouths: they look as though they suspect that this can't be real – even though in most parts of the world this is exactly what would happen. As was the reaction in Italy, upon finding out that the terrible derailment in Viareggio was caused by simple neglect: this kind of thing happens elsewhere, not here.
Joke #3
On the grassy banks of a river park, a man, who is the primary prankster, approaches a couple with a box in his hands. Lifting the lid to reveal a cute kitten inside, he asks if they are able to adopt it. They always say no, more or less apologetically. He leaves. A quick, unseen box switch takes place, replacing the kitten with a tape recording. Then, within sight of the original couple, he shrugs and tosses the box into the river.
Every person approached has always been shocked by that twist. One dove into the river to rescue the box.
Joke #4
The prankster is dressed as a homeless man, sleeping on a bench. A $20 bill is stuck to his shoe. Passersby can clearly see it, but he seems utterly unaware of it.
Here, about a third of those spotting the money tried to retrieve it for themselves without waking the man. Nearly all of the others let it be. Curiously, the better dressed the passerby, the more likely they were to try to get the money for themselves. The correlation was not 100%, but it came very close. The great exception was an expensively dressed businessman with a briefcase. He walked up, took the money off the man's shoe, folded it, put it in the man's breast pocket, and left.
Sacha Baron Cohen's style of humour also falls into this category. He chooses an out-of-the-ordinary persona, complete with belief structure and assumptions about life, and in that he stays fixed. Reactions by those who encounter him to his appearance and attitudes lie totally within them. But the film-viewing audience, they have the luxury of sidestepping that initial reaction and only reacting to those who had been put on the spot, usually with laughter.
Unlike the vast majority of simple practical jokes, each of these scenarios has a truth to it. In many cases, they bring into unwanted visibility something that had been occurring all along, with our tacit agreement – so long as we are not faced with it. The joke on us gives us the chance to look just a little more deeply and learn something about ourselves. Do we act according to our self-image? If we don't like what we see, whose fault is that?
Joke #1
The first prankster, who has arrived in a van with a 'botanical gardens' logo, points out an unexpected find: a flower marked in her book as extinct is in full bloom on the park lawn. She asks her targets to keep an eye on it until she can get it safely transplanted into the botanical gardens, and goes to her van to get the materials. Almost at once, an uncaring park worker comes through on his heavy duty riding lawnmower, paying more attention to his earphones than his job, and heedlessly mows down the flower. He is, of course, the second prankster.
Some people stand by in clear shock. Some call out to him. Some run up to him and pluck his sleeve, trying to catch his attention: they are the ones who come closest to risking personal injury to save a species. No one automatically dismisses it as a joke. Not one person is indifferent.
Joke #2
A person eating solo is seated in a small, cozy restaurant, the kind that has tablecloths and leather menus but is not pretentious or particularly expensive. The waiter, who is one of the pranksters, hands the customer a menu and indicates the blackboard, where the chicken special of the day is written in chalk. The prank continues where the customer chooses the special. In this case, the waiter leaves for the kitchen, where a tape recording of a panicked chicken is started. Less than a minute later, a live chicken is released to run into the restaurant, chased by a cook wielding a cleaver. He is, of course, the second prankster.
Some look appalled. Some just can't seem to believe it. A few start grinning, often with their hands over their mouths: they look as though they suspect that this can't be real – even though in most parts of the world this is exactly what would happen. As was the reaction in Italy, upon finding out that the terrible derailment in Viareggio was caused by simple neglect: this kind of thing happens elsewhere, not here.
Joke #3
On the grassy banks of a river park, a man, who is the primary prankster, approaches a couple with a box in his hands. Lifting the lid to reveal a cute kitten inside, he asks if they are able to adopt it. They always say no, more or less apologetically. He leaves. A quick, unseen box switch takes place, replacing the kitten with a tape recording. Then, within sight of the original couple, he shrugs and tosses the box into the river.
Every person approached has always been shocked by that twist. One dove into the river to rescue the box.
Joke #4
The prankster is dressed as a homeless man, sleeping on a bench. A $20 bill is stuck to his shoe. Passersby can clearly see it, but he seems utterly unaware of it.
Here, about a third of those spotting the money tried to retrieve it for themselves without waking the man. Nearly all of the others let it be. Curiously, the better dressed the passerby, the more likely they were to try to get the money for themselves. The correlation was not 100%, but it came very close. The great exception was an expensively dressed businessman with a briefcase. He walked up, took the money off the man's shoe, folded it, put it in the man's breast pocket, and left.
Sacha Baron Cohen's style of humour also falls into this category. He chooses an out-of-the-ordinary persona, complete with belief structure and assumptions about life, and in that he stays fixed. Reactions by those who encounter him to his appearance and attitudes lie totally within them. But the film-viewing audience, they have the luxury of sidestepping that initial reaction and only reacting to those who had been put on the spot, usually with laughter.
Unlike the vast majority of simple practical jokes, each of these scenarios has a truth to it. In many cases, they bring into unwanted visibility something that had been occurring all along, with our tacit agreement – so long as we are not faced with it. The joke on us gives us the chance to look just a little more deeply and learn something about ourselves. Do we act according to our self-image? If we don't like what we see, whose fault is that?
July 01, 2009
For the first time in my life, I am grateful that I have purchased a book on publisher's clearance. I would not have regretted the money paid for the book. I just don't think this author merits a single penny of royalty money for this book.
I picked up Think! by Michael LeGault because, on the surface of it, it would seem to be one of the few books arguing for genuine independence of thought and an increase in willingness to engage that thought critically. It is hard to disagree with assessments such as:
Set aside, for the moment, that LeGault's idea of critical thinking completely negates the value of intuition and emotion except insofar as it is grounded in critical thinking. I personally might have suggested that intuition provides a signpost and a direction, critical thinking some of the tools to get there, and emotion a part of the wisdom which determines in human terms whether this is a path appropriate to take: but independence of thought also allows differences of thought.
But then LeGault offers this interesting example of what is, and is not, critical thinking:
The only purpose of critical thinking here is to accept the author's premises and agree with his conclusions.
I wish I could say this was an isolated case born of a single a priori assumption (in which case I could have said fair enough, it ranks among the most difficult things to see one's own country objectively and opinions of precisely the same course of action may well differ), but the truth is that this book abounds in precisely the types of logic holes it rails against -- and each and every time, he holds his own reasoning up as an example of rational thinking. On one page, LeGault writes how it is important in rational thinking to take account of all the evidence: while on another he dismisses a study which contradicts his construct, using an argument which not only does not address either the methodology or the finding of that study but also demonstrates that he also does not understand the human biology grounding the study.
It should come as no surprise that LeGault has no use for emotional intelligence of any kind, since he perceives such things as empathy for others as interfering with clear thinking. (It does interfere, if the purpose of such thinking is not to take account of other human beings in the slightest, excepting only their value as resources.) He cites Leman and Kragh-Muller's (2005) finding that children of permissive parents tended to judge that adults would legitimise judgements, concluding from this that "permissive parenting does not promote moral development." He states this as if it were a paraphrase from this study, which it is not. More interestingly, LeGault defines the three primary types of parenting as follows:
From several case studies of children reared in the wild, however, we know that there are critical ages beyond which, without the exposure to language, the capacity for language is forever crippled. These children themselves never notice that they are crippled compared to their human potential.
This is not an isolated example. LeGault's book is littered with similar sloppy research and thinking, and it is not limited to railing against the concept of emotional intelligence.
(The assumption that five-year-olds are incapable of empathy arises from Piaget's theory of cognitive development, where children up to age 12 are thought to operate within the limits of the concrete operational stage. According to this theory, children under the age of seven are believed incapable of taking the perspective of another. It is only between ages 7-12 that children gradually learn to eliminate egocentrism and see things from the perspective of others, but only if they are given concrete situations to which they can apply simple logic. Thus, according to Piaget's theory, children up to age twelve are believed only to be capable of being taught concrete rules. Lawrence Kohlberg builds on this foundation in his stages of moral development: once again grounded in the assumption that a child's cognitive development is based upon the growth of a cause-effect logic structure. Yet even Piaget himself recognised that his theory could not account for all his own observations. It was simply the best approximation he could make at the time.)
Given LeGault's attitude toward empathy in general, perhaps the reader can think of a different reason for the events in the following anecdote, given that it occurred at someone else's wedding reception:
This is the reason I have written about it at all. I have never before written such a negative review -- or indeed a negative review at all. I sincerely hope that I shall never have to do so again.
I picked up Think! by Michael LeGault because, on the surface of it, it would seem to be one of the few books arguing for genuine independence of thought and an increase in willingness to engage that thought critically. It is hard to disagree with assessments such as:
More troubling in the long term, perhaps, is the effect that a decline in critical thinking is apparently having on public debate, discourse, and democracy in this country. The net result is an increasingly radical political partisanship that seems to preclude meaningful discussion and debate from public and private life.He speaks of his own nation, the United States, but this has been a much broader trend through the past three decades and perhaps longer.
Set aside, for the moment, that LeGault's idea of critical thinking completely negates the value of intuition and emotion except insofar as it is grounded in critical thinking. I personally might have suggested that intuition provides a signpost and a direction, critical thinking some of the tools to get there, and emotion a part of the wisdom which determines in human terms whether this is a path appropriate to take: but independence of thought also allows differences of thought.
But then LeGault offers this interesting example of what is, and is not, critical thinking:
Even in Canada, a country dependent on trade with the United States for 50 percent of its gross domestic product, over two-thirds of the people say the United States is a negative influence in the world. Two-thirds! This is the same nation that has a love affair with Cuba, a country that has not held a democratic election in fifty years. The opinion of Canadians is not based on critical thinking or research, but on myth and balderdash dished out by the country's legions of left-leaning scholars and pundits, as well as, ironically, by Hollywood and the U.S. media.Note that the internal logic of this passage demands that critical thinking skills cannot have been engaged unless the conclusion reached is the same as the author's. Any other conclusion is clearly the result of a flawed ability to think. By definition, any criticism whatsoever must also be the result of flawed thinking.
The only purpose of critical thinking here is to accept the author's premises and agree with his conclusions.
I wish I could say this was an isolated case born of a single a priori assumption (in which case I could have said fair enough, it ranks among the most difficult things to see one's own country objectively and opinions of precisely the same course of action may well differ), but the truth is that this book abounds in precisely the types of logic holes it rails against -- and each and every time, he holds his own reasoning up as an example of rational thinking. On one page, LeGault writes how it is important in rational thinking to take account of all the evidence: while on another he dismisses a study which contradicts his construct, using an argument which not only does not address either the methodology or the finding of that study but also demonstrates that he also does not understand the human biology grounding the study.
It should come as no surprise that LeGault has no use for emotional intelligence of any kind, since he perceives such things as empathy for others as interfering with clear thinking. (It does interfere, if the purpose of such thinking is not to take account of other human beings in the slightest, excepting only their value as resources.) He cites Leman and Kragh-Muller's (2005) finding that children of permissive parents tended to judge that adults would legitimise judgements, concluding from this that "permissive parenting does not promote moral development." He states this as if it were a paraphrase from this study, which it is not. More interestingly, LeGault defines the three primary types of parenting as follows:
When asked by a child for the reason he or she is being told "no," an authoritarian parent will respond, "Because I said so." An authoritative parent, on the other hand, will emphasize the equality of the moral universe: "You wouldn't like it if I did it to you." A permissive parent will focus on the consequences for others: "It will hurt her."This is flawed at the core. Nowhere in the literature does it state that the difference between authoritative and permissive parenting is either a concern for consequences for others or an encouragement of empathy for the other person. Rather, permissive parenting holds few behavioural expectations at all for the child, as is illustrated perfectly by Ned Flanders' beatnik parents' ideas on raising a child and teaching him social limits:
He's a real flat tire. I mean a cube, man. He's putting us on the train to Squaresville, baby. We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!Having stated his false premises as if they were those of the researchers, LeGault goes on to demolish his artificial construct:
The reasoning of the permissive parent involves taking the perspective of someone else, a feat usually lost on a five-year-old.neatly overlooking that the mean age of children in his cited study was 11 years, 5 months. Even assuming that the children in question were five years old, numerous studies have shown that the capacity for empathy and even for taking the perspective of others (not the same thing) begins as early as two years of age (perhaps even earlier), as soon as the child is able to distinguish between self and other: and that the potential for empathy is as hard-wired in the brain as language.
From several case studies of children reared in the wild, however, we know that there are critical ages beyond which, without the exposure to language, the capacity for language is forever crippled. These children themselves never notice that they are crippled compared to their human potential.
This is not an isolated example. LeGault's book is littered with similar sloppy research and thinking, and it is not limited to railing against the concept of emotional intelligence.
(The assumption that five-year-olds are incapable of empathy arises from Piaget's theory of cognitive development, where children up to age 12 are thought to operate within the limits of the concrete operational stage. According to this theory, children under the age of seven are believed incapable of taking the perspective of another. It is only between ages 7-12 that children gradually learn to eliminate egocentrism and see things from the perspective of others, but only if they are given concrete situations to which they can apply simple logic. Thus, according to Piaget's theory, children up to age twelve are believed only to be capable of being taught concrete rules. Lawrence Kohlberg builds on this foundation in his stages of moral development: once again grounded in the assumption that a child's cognitive development is based upon the growth of a cause-effect logic structure. Yet even Piaget himself recognised that his theory could not account for all his own observations. It was simply the best approximation he could make at the time.)
Given LeGault's attitude toward empathy in general, perhaps the reader can think of a different reason for the events in the following anecdote, given that it occurred at someone else's wedding reception:
Increasingly it seems we are sitting in an echo chamber listening to ourselves. Republican? That side. Democrat? Over there. Discussion not allowed. Too "risky." I inadvertently tested the thesis once while sitting with a group of people, none of whom I knew, at a wedding reception. Introductions were made and conversation languished politely on the weather, the state of this year's tomato crop, and dogs. After a while, someone, noting I was an editor for a business magazine, asked me if the economy would hold up. [book copyright 2006 - T] I'm sure I rambled but I certainly meant no ill will in drawing my analysis to a close by noting the obvious, namely, that globalism and the spread of free-market capitalism has been one of the greatest single factors in improving living standards around the world in history. Someone cleared his throat. For a moment I thought the lady beside me, a retired schoolteacher, I believe, might plummet out of her chair onto the hall's linoleum floor. She picked up her napkin and tried to use it like a fan. Others at the table gazed mildly off into space.An entire chapter on risk and reward is fascinating to me because of its complete failure to understand fear as a survival mechanism, the role of cognitive biases, and the relevance of degree of personal control to managing personal risk. LeGault also displays no understanding of the distinction between probability and randomness, and perceives mathematics as an absolute science. Consequently he is able, within the space of less than a single page, to come up with the following two statements:
The evidence that we find with our senses is indisputable. ...Nothing written is devoid entirely of merit, and Think! is no exception. There are a few interesting observations in it ... four, I think, besides the awe-inspiring chasm of rational thinking that is the book as a whole. For example, the observation about larger houses offering more places for parents to not be disturbed by their children bears further consideration, and you will see it later in this blog. Similarly, an earlier observation wrt the true role of Ritalin in classrooms reminded me of a pattern I had intended to examine in more depth. Were there only those four observations, I would think the author's royalty well earned, even though I speak daily with people who give me this and more for free. As it stands, however, I feel the book's good is more than balanced out by its potential damage: not least because it sets itself up as example.
If there is no consensus, it only proves the limits of human perception.
This is the reason I have written about it at all. I have never before written such a negative review -- or indeed a negative review at all. I sincerely hope that I shall never have to do so again.
