17 March 2001
Wow, a week passes quickly.
We had a race in Central Park today, four miles. I'm pretty happy with how I did--I was hoping to run under 40 minutes, and actually ended up running it in 33:38. The best part was that I did the last mile in just over 7 minutes, which has to be the fastest I've run a mile since at least high school. Well, the real best part is that I'm in no significant pain (unlike the 5-miler), just a little sore.
I started my Thursday running class this last week, too, with my co-worker Robin. It was really nice to be able to run in Central Park at night--something you can only do in a large group. The weather was perfect, cool and clear, and as you run past lampposts that hang with a comforting white glow over the path, you can see the nightlights of the Manhattan skyline through the naked limbs of the trees; it's an almost mystical feeling, and running becomes less exercise and more a sublime experience.
We ran two intervals of a mile each at little over 8 minutes a mile, with a five minute or so rest between (I actually thought we were doing three, which I think I could have done, which felt good). The class is ten weeks, so nine more to go.
10 March 2001
So, the Robert Hanssen case. Hanssen, of course, is the high-level FBI agent who is alleged to have been spying for the past 16 years for the Soviets then the Russians. The evidence against himsounds very much like that arrayed against the Unabomber--this Hanssen guy had everything short of a KGB ID in his wallet. And from what we know it's very likely Hanssen could be the most damaging spy in the history of this country. It is a boondoggle, a disaster for the U.S. intelligence agency.
And yet I don't quite share the outrage that seems to have been stirred up by this. Or, more accurately, I feel certain obvious point have been glossed over or ignored. For instance, one of the first things Hanssen is said to have done (and one of the first things mentioned in news accounts) was turn over three Russian agents who were spying for the U.S., two of whom were executed (one news magazine described the method of these executions--a gunshot to the back of the end while being walked blinfolded down a corridor--with the apparent aim of demonstrating how barbaric the Soviet system was). It is unquestionably terrible that two men died. But further accounts strongly suggest that Hanssen was unmasked by our mole within Russia. In other words, someone who did exactly what Hanssen did 16 years ago. But no one regards this person (or persons) as the villainous rogue Hanssen is. And no one suggests the two Russians executed were wrong in the way Hanssen is for betraying their country.
The bottom-line is that jingoism is washing over into morality here. The simple truth is that the intelligence business is by its nature dishonest and shadowy. We recognize that what Hanssen is disastrous for us, but aren't we trying to do the exact same thing to the Russians? How we can claim any kind of moral high-ground in this case, when no moral high-ground exists?
Hanssen knew what he was getting into, and he will pay the price he knew would come if he was caught. Let's just not pretend he was doing anything we don't ask people just like him to do--only over there.
In Torsten news, went to a club last night with friends and had a bunch of weird fun. Getting late, so more tomorrow (hopefully).
7 March 2001
Well, that had to be the lamest "storm of the century" ever. Musta been about 4 or 5 inches of snow here in the city, and hardly any of it stuck. Can't really blame the forecasters, though. Predicting complex systems like weather is still impossible to do with absolute accuracy, since there's no way to account for every possible variable. And there was a storm, just not "the big one."
Yet another school shooting to send the public and media into a frenzy of emotional but ultimately unproductive breast-beating. What bothers me most is the endlessly irrational, and often irresponsible, things that people say in the wake of these horrible events. The worst one in this case (so far) seems to be the desire to blame the friends of this kid, because he had talked about shooting people at the school to them beforehand. In retrospect, of course one wishes they had said something to an adult. But we can't fall into the trap of asking chidren to police each other and holding them morally (much less legally) culpable if they say nothing. I believe them when they say they thought he was joking. While you hear repeated ad nauseum the fact that three-fourths of school shooters tell someone beforehand, what we don't know from that is how often kids threaten to do it and then don't follow through. Certainly if a child starts making such threats, unless it is clearly in a joking context, it's a sign of trouble. But other kids are hardly equipped to make fine-tuned judgments that, let's face it, most adults have a hard time making.
Now we have the superintendent of the school saying that the kid's friends "should not plan to attend" school in a manner that strongly suggests he wants to somehow hold them reponsible for what happened. It is a horrible and dangerous message. Unless you can demonstrate that his friends somehow aided in what he did or knew that he was going to carry it out (tricky at best), you treat them like every other student. It's unconscionable to do anything else.
I also get a little irritated (I'm not a very patient person, can you tell?) by the repetitive "Why?" that always follows these shootings. Well, we know why. For whatever reason, this kid lost the string on his balloon. Not very satisfactory? No, but that's all we get. It's not as though we can ask and he can give an answer and we'll all go "Oh, well, that makes sense." Some kids who have problems learn to deal with them or get help; some hurt themselves; some lead lives of social maladjustment; and some do what this one did. What's the differnce between them. I'm doubt we'll ever know for sure. The real problem is that to stop these people have to develop the ability to pay attention to others as much as themselves. And I'm cynical enough to believe that will never happen.
And if I hear video games blamed for this stuff one more time (60 Minutes is guilty this time around) I'll cry. It's a bunch of crap. For every one of these kids who shot up a school who played Doom (or something like it) I'll find you 10 (and probably many many more) doctors who did too. I have to doubt that playing Doom causes kids to become doctors. If a kid is playing Doom 7 or 8 hours a day they've got serious parental problems, which I feel confident is much more likely to be the root of the problem.
Tomorrow: Why I don't feel outrage over Robert Hanssen, the FBI spy.
5 March 2001
It is interesting to see that there really is such a thing as "the calm before the storm." I was walking around my neighborhood yesterday and there was a definite tenseness in the air. The streets were just a little quieter than normal.
Today the storm has begun, though not yet in earnest. I was a little surprised to show up at work this morning and find out the office had been closed for the day. So I hung around just long enough to play Halflife with some co-workers, then went to meet Liz for lunch before heading home for the day. Hoping the gym will be open. They are expecting it to get much worse tonight. We'll see. Sometimes these things get hyped up a lot and turn out to be nothing.
3 March 2001
Apparently there is a killer storm bearing down on New York City like a shotgunful of snow! Seriously, it's supposed to start snowing tomorrow night and go till Tuesday or so, looking at about 1 to 2 feet. I know this sort of thing is bad for a lot of people, but I can't help being excited about it. I think I'm entitled; growing up in Texas I never saw more than a couple of inches, and that was 3 or 4 times. So if no one minds I will regress to my 8-year-old self tomorrow night and go out to play.
Played some more spades with Chris tonight and I don't mind saying we kicked ass. Any challengers out there?
Two new movies of note (well, not new, but new to me). American Movie, which is either a sad but interesting documentary about an Ed Wood type trying so hard to make a movie but not really having the focus or the ability to pull it off, though he (sort of) manages it in the end, or a brilliant faux documentary that is an utterly convincing portrayal of the demise of dreams. Either way it's worth a look. Up the ladder a bit is Gandhi (as I say, new to me), which is most notable for Ben Kingsley remarkable performance. Having Cliff Claven in the film was a little distracting, though.
Listening to Radiohead and having a fine time.
1 March 2001
What a day. I told my pal Stevie I'd help her move out to New Jersey from Manhattan (I know it sounds odd--trust me when I say it makes sense), mainly 'cause I'm over 25 and drive a big ol' moving truck. Problem was, the big ol' truck was too big. It was supposed to be a 10 footer, but we ended up with the next biggest (15 feet?). Actually, this didn't dawn on me till much later, too late as it turned out.
Anyway, I'm trying to park this big gronky vehicle on tiny E. 99th St., not realizing that alternate side parking is in effect, and to make an aggravating story short, ended up accidentally scraping the front side of some poor guy's car, 15 minutes before he was going to move it. I felt awful about it, but on the bright side, 1) no one got hurt and 2) Stevie got insurance so the damage should be totally covered.
Of course, we had to sit around and wait while the cops (who were quite nice and helpful about it, I must say) filled out a report. On the bright side, when all was done we were able to park back on the other side and I was able to get a good spot in front of her building (needless to say, the behemoth suffered not a scratch). Moving was, as always, a hideous ordeal. Then we got lost trying to find Stevie's new place in Jersey, largely because the state seems to have some philosphical objection to street signs. So instead of getting back to NY by 4 , as we hoped, it was closer to 7. And poor Stevie had not slept the night before, so I told come and crash at my place in Queens. She is zonked out on my bed as I type this (while simultaneously trying to explain to my cats she is not a new toy for their amusement).
A long but successful day I think. Yeah, no doubt.
28 Feb. 2001
Some e-mail correspondence between me and my brother Kyle, who lives in San Diego. I sent him Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged for Christmas. The following exchange ensued …
Me: Let's see... you may have gotten around to reading Rand by now. I do have some definite thoughts on her but I don't want to influence your thinking (if that's possible). I'm curious to see what you think, though. In more general terms, I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "mountain of evidence" that rejects objective morality. I will agree that such a concept is essentially unknowable in human terms, but I don't quite consider that to mean that objective truths can't exist. Our inability to translate what would be, by definition, superhuman concepts speaks more to our limitations than their definitive unreality. Doesn't mean that there are objective truths (or objective morality, etc. etc.) of course; I just don't see proving it one way or the other.
I'm willing to be convinced, though, if you feel like trying.
Kyle: Well, while I accept that there may be something like objective facts, I think that morality is inherently a subjective phenomenon, which basically comes down to what given individuals prefer. And of course, everything there is (and this includes "objective" facts) is only knowable through a perceiver, a subject, so that, yes, in effect nothing that exists in the human mind is ever purely objective. Course, it may seem biased to emphasize the importance of the perceiver, but I don't think the objects will complain, and it's a bias which, I think, is understandable. And, secondly, we can see the futility then of ever trying to find an objective morality because we would all perceive it as individuals even if it did exist. Finally, the main reason I hate the concept of objective morality is because it is used by demagogues (the church, the state, etc.) to elevate what are, I think, merely subjective moralities to "objective", thereby giving them an excuse to kill, curse, etc., those who don't share them.
Me: Sure, I understand that. This is why I don't go to church anymore, and consider myself a "freelance" Christian, in a manner of speaking. Sorta Unitarianish, I guess. It's worth noting, though, that demagoguery is the inevitable result of putting people in charge of large-scale constructs of belief. I think we really find ourselves in a vicious circle here. Most people, I think, would agree that the essential concept of morality is, well, good (I know this is kinda self-justifying, but go with me on this). The heart of it seems to be, let's not hurt other people. Of course, the underlying motivation is pretty obvious self-interest: if we all agree not to hurt other people, no one will hurt me. To facilitate this, it's not unnatural for people to get together and say, hey, let's all do this, and no one will get hurt. Then when someone violates the code (boo), they are in some manner rejected by the group. But again, people are in charge of keeping this together (uh-oh). With all the inevitability of the Peter Principle, you start finding your Stalins, Bob Tiltons, etc. etc. floating to the top like a layer of pondscum (sorry about the half-assed metaphor). So "morality," once a sound and logical survival-oriented idea, becomes corrupted and in some cases worse than the void it filled. The key, of course, is self-awareness, understanding that as humans our ability to comprehend morality is limited and, as you say, necessarily subjective. Bottom line is if you subscribe to a moral point of view you'd better be able to defend it in practice and in logic. We have to retain the ability to say "This is wrong" to bigots (including so many "moral" people who can never rationalize their hate), slavers, murderers, rapists, and those bloody demagogues who flourish in rhetoric, not reason. We also have to be willing to recognize that so many things fall into the gray, and say, "I think this is wrong, but I will listen."
22 Feb. 2001
Workout day. I’ve actually been pretty good about making it to the gym regularly. It’s working, though—I feel in a lot better shape and I’ve had fewer problems with my knee running the treadmill. Good thing, since in four weeks I’m running a four-mile race.
So I’m playing spades on the web with my friend Chris and this woman from Houston and a guy from California, and normally when we play there’s very little chat. We just play and that’s it. This time, for whatever reason, we all got to chatting, and the conversation ranged from philosophers to books to cannibalism to autoerotic asphyxiation (don’t ask). But the moment of the evening was when the woman, txzippychick, mentioned she had a burger, then mentioned that her wife brought it from Subway. You could just feel three pockets of dead quiet across America. And after “she” wrote it, nothing was said for some time. Finally I pointed out she had been outed. The $64,000 question, of course, is was this a lesbian or a man posing as a woman (as is allegedly very common on the Net)? At first I thought it was the former, but now I’m pretty sure it’s the latter. First, because it’s quite unusual in my experience for lesbians to use the term “wife.” Not unheard of, but rare. Second, because of a cryptic comment made when she mentioned her age (which was 24), along the lines of “we have more in common than you think.” At first I thought it was a reference to the age differences, but now I suspect it was a subtle hint. Ah well, identity shaping is one of the fun bits of the Internet. I suspect if I run into him/her again I’ll just ask about it. Couldn’t hurt.
Worst part was we lost 2 games to 1.
Juwan Howard got traded to the Mavs. Helluva surprise. Can’t decide yet if it’s a good deal. If he plays as well as he’s able (and maybe he can if he’s not the focus of the team) it may be a great deal. If he doesn’t, he’ll suck the salary cap life out of the Mavs.
21 Feb. 2001
Listening to a mix music copied onto my computer—The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Radiohead, Sarah MacLachlan. Dale (he’s the middle brother for those keeping track) called earlier. He’s doing some job hunting, his degree’s in RTF so he’s looking for jobs at TV stations. I have a to admit it’s a lot nicer having brothers when you’re all older and not trying to pound each other into the ground in the back yard (not that we ever did that).
Just read Alan Moore and Kevin O’Neill’s The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Not a bad read, although sometimes I think it suffers a bit by trying to be too clever by half. Several legendary fictional characters, including Mina Harker, Henry Jekyll, Captain Nemo, Allan Quatermain and the Invisible Man are brought together by the underling of a mysterious figure known only as “M,” purportedly in the service of the British government. The basic plot is little more than an adventure story; nothing wrong with that, of course, but there’s so much sprinkling in of literary references and allusions that the story becomes almost entirely obscured. It is indeed clever, but the story itself doesn’t seem meritorious to be included in the cleverness—it’s merely a device that takes you to the next bit of literary dazzle. Still, the craft is admirable, the dialogue witty and the art is lush, and hell, it was a gift so I can’t complain. Anyway, this is only volume 1 so maybe there’s more to it than meets the eye.
Saw Eminem singing with (and hugging) Elton John on the Grammy’s tonight. Actually, it wasn’t half bad, though I did like the Elton parts better. I do sometimes wonder what the people who criticize Eminem make of Floyd’s The Wall (particularly “Waiting for the Worms”), or is the fiction so obvious there it can’t be taken straight? What little I’ve heard of Eminem songs makes me think I’d probably hate ’em, but as a sometime writer and artist myself, the only thing worse that I can think of than hearing people like that speak is the idea of them not being able to speak at all.
19 Feb. 2001
First in hopefully a consistent series—a collection of ideas, thoughts, observations, notes on interesting experiences, etc. I considered making this a true journal, but honestly there are just some things I’m not prepared to share with the world at large (and let’s face it, the world probably isn’t ready for me to share). I’m willing to share my philosophies but not myself, which is itself a philosophy so you see I’ve started already. As I become more adept with my snazzy new camera you’ll see photos here as well.
Presidents’ Day. A poll released today indicated that the president Americans regard as our greatest is Ronald Reagan. Hard to tell which is more flawed, the poll or the results. I always think of Kent Brockman saying, “Of course this is only a television poll and not legally binding … unless Propostion 104 passes, and we all pray it will.” So I tend to take polls with a grain of salt. But in the spirit of it, it’s a hard for me to imagine the long view of history regarding Reagan as much more than an average president. Certainly we “won” the Cold War under his watch (though the victory may be higher than we imagined), but a case could be made that many others (Gorbachev, the Pope, Lech Walesa) had more significant roles. The Iran-Contra business stank to high heaven. And one wonders about a mental state for much of his second term (I can’t help but think Nancy Reagan may have been our president-by-proxy). He didn’t end up blowing us all to hell, so that’s good, I guess. I believe Kennedy was next, riding, much like Reagan, the wave of his image. Realistically, though, JFK accomplished a great deal more in his martyrdom than he did in his presidency. All of his great promise (the Civil Rights Bill, the mission to the moon) was fulfilled after his death. Because of his death? Hard to say. One suspects he might agree that if so, it was a price worth paying, high though it was.
Lincoln was the only president who finished in the top five who I would have actually put there. Although his Constitution-trampling bothers me, it’s safe to say this country would not exist as it does were it not for him. There are some necessary evils.
Clinton came fourth. Sigh. Could have been great but wasn’t. Not totally his fault, as most great presidents are beheld in the context of great events. Still, he seems to me like a soldier in a foxhole throwing out bullets to his enemies. Are there certain people out to get him? Probably. But he makes it easy for them to justify it with amazingly thick-headed decisions. Only yesterday he published in The New York Times a justification of his pardons of Marc Rich and Pincus Green. He lamely recites the rationales provided by Rich’s attorneys, offers up no positive rationale for ignoring the arguments of the prosecutors in the case, or why it was necessary for Rich to become a fugitive rather than present the merits of his case in court like, well, like poor people have to do, and finally, “importantly,” as he says, notes that the Israeli government lobbied for the pardon due to Rich’s contributions to their intelligence and their finances. Why foreign policy should have any role in purely domestic decisions he does not say. This whole spectacle is typical of Clinton’s presidency; when his opponents spot a tiny fire he feels compelled to throw brush on it. Slightly better than Reagan, but could have done so much more.
All right, just for fun, my top five, in chronological order: Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, F. Roosevelt.
Hmm, an all-politics entry. Sorry, it won’t normally be like that, just worked out that way.