Back in the New Year

I’m taking a couple of weeks off from blogging.  I’ll be back after the first.

This recipe is quite easy to throw together.

You’re hardly doing more than just opening up

cans of things and dumping them into a pot.

It contains a couple weirdo ingredients

I myself would never have entertained using:

“Taco Seasoning” & powdered Ranch dressing.

(Who the hell buys crap like that?)

But it turns out with a really distinctive flavor:

Bold and a bit “tangy.”

The beer is a nice flourish but not strictly necessary.

Several chile peppers, chopped

Several stalks \ celery, chopped

1 lb. \ hamburger

1 packet \ Taco Seasoning

1 packet \ powdered Ranch salad dressing

1 large (26-oz.) can \ condensed Tomato Soup

1 14.5-oz. can \ diced tomatoes

2 cups \ chicken broth

1 can \ whole-kernel corn

2 cans of beans

(black, Great Northern, kidney, pinto, red, etc.)

1 12-oz. can \ beer

Briefly sautee chile peppers & celery.

Add hamburger and brown.

During browning process, add contents of 2 packets.

Add all the various cans of things.

Bring to boil.  Let simmer briefly.

Mr O and the facts

Nation magazine columnist Gary Younge supports Barack Obama; his latest column ends with the line “Obama needs to get out there and fight.”  Fight for what?  For a connection with reality.  As Younge says:

The sad truth is that even when presented with concrete and irrefutable evidence, some people still prefer the reality they want over the one they actually live in. Herein lies one of the central problems of engaging with those on the American right. Cocooned in their own mediated ecosystem, many of them are almost unreachable through debate; the air is so fetid, reasonable discussion cannot breathe. You can’t win an argument without facts, and we live in a moment when whether you’re talking about climate change or WMD, facts seem to matter less and less.

So far, so good.  But I simply do not see the evidence that Mr O is inclined to fight the Right.  On most issues, the president stands well to the right of public opinion, and benefits from the fact that the only effective opposition he faces comes from a party that is even further to the right than he is.

“How and What to Tell a Communist”



I hope the Communist is the guy pointing and talking.  He looks pretty obnoxious, and it would be reassuring to know “that his scheme for world domination is doomed to failure.”   

Holiday season joke threads

Recently, two of my favorite blogs have featured comment threads that turned into lists of silly jokes.  On her blog, Alison Bechdel promoted some prints by Diane diMassa; as one of the prints shows a person holding up a sign with the word “fuck” written on it, many commenters shared jokes involving that word.  I posted a comment which I immediately regretted, realizing that it was terribly depressing; to my great relief, subsequent commenters not only refused to let me spoil the fun, but even turned it into an opportunity for more merriment.

At Language Log, a post looks at a comic strip in which a character can’t understand why the Fire Department won’t give her fire.  She’s also disappointed when the home and garden store will sell her neither a home nor a garden.  The comment thread starts with jokes of the same type (why do we park in the driveway, but drive on a parkway?” etc,) then moves on to other topics.  Here’s an observation about life in the USA that’s worthy of any standup comic you can name.    Fortunately, I avoided playing the role of Captain Bringdown there, although I did offer a non-funny remark about a sad book.

Quantitative vs. Qualitative

My wife is a sociologist whose main interests are in qualitative research.  Unlike quantitative researchers, who collect a limited number of facts about each of a large number of people and use statistical methods to look for patterns in those collections, qualitative researchers collect a large amount of information about each of a relatively small number of people in order to discern just how those people go about making their decisions.  Qualitative and quantitative research are not schools of thought which compete with each other, but methods which depend on each other to be made useful.  While it is not possible for qualitative researchers to formulate general laws of behavior without transforming their conclusions into hypotheses to be tested by quantitative methods, neither is it possible for quantitative researchers to apply general laws of behavior to any case in the real world without conducting qualitative studies in which they ask people what’s on their minds.

I bring this up because of an item in the 13 December issue of The Nation.  In a review of some books about the history of New York city politics, Samuel Zipp writes of the administration of Mayor John Vliet Lindsay (1966-1973):

Lindsay was what [author Joe] Flood calls a “moralistic crusader.”  He hoped to unseat the old Tammany political machine, which had kept Democrats in power with a finely calibrated exchange of favors and services for votes greased by pervasive graft, and which rewarded loyal white ethnics with patronage while paying lip service to the concerns of the low-income migrants arriving in ever greater numbers from the black American South and Puerto Rico.  At the same time, Lindsay promised to master the chaos of the city by applying the technological marvels of computerization to city service delivery.  Systems analysis, game theory, computer modeling: these RAND innovations in information management promised to give Lindsay’s administration a way to turn the constant stream of information coursing through city agencies into “easily defined variables.”  Perhaps most important, though, was Lindsay’s sense that RAND would give him an advantage over the Tammany machine.  Flood ingeniously describes Tammany as an “information-gathering apparatus.”  As much pragmatic “intelligence network” as craven patronage machine, the system ran on stories collected on the street and sent up the ladder from the ward boss to the Democratic Party clubhouse to City Hall.  Reformers had often struggled to deliver on their promises if good government because they lacked the machine’s intelligence network.  Lindsay counted on RAND to supply an equivalent information system that would shift the power base “from using narrative to using numbers.”  With total information awareness, the city could be turned “into an assemblage of numbers,” a series of inputs and outputs that would easily surpass Tammany in the efficiency department.

As a liberal Republican reformer, Lindsay lacked the connections and manpower to govern the city “using narrative.”  What he found in his two terms in Gracie Mansion, however, was that he did not command even the political resources necessary to collect useful numbers.  Affluent New Yorkers blocked any study that might suggest that their neighborhoods could do with fewer city services, while longtime municipal employees refused to perform the analyses Lindsay wanted.  For example, when the fire department received stopwatches and supervisors were told to use them to produce reports on their reaction times, what fire battalion chiefs in fact reported was an epidemic level of stopwatches crushed as firetrucks accidentally drove over them.

I wonder if New York mightn’t have done better had reformers taken a different approach.  For over a hundred years, from the days when municipal reformer Theodore Roosevelt Senior left the Democratic Party in the 1850s until the fiscal crisis that overwhelmed the city when John Lindsay’s successor Abraham Beame was mayor in 1975, New Yorkers campaigned for good government by campaigning against Tammany Hall.  The goal of all these reformers seems to have been a rational, transparent government.  Perhaps the better way to create this rationality would have been for an enlightened set of leaders to rise to power within Tammany Hall.  One might imagine them formalizing the intelligence network using the tested methods of quantitative research.  Once that was done, we could imagine the machine itself becoming rational and transparent.  Perhaps a new system would have emerged in which Tammany’s long-established dominance in municipal policy and staffing would have been officially acknowledged, and the formal distinction between the machine and the city government would have been erased.

Sex, perhaps; sexiness, no

This picture shows a nude woman making an obscene gesture.  So, it would not be safe for work, unless you work in the sex industry.  Yet strikes me as eerily wholesome.  I might almost call it the opposite of pornography.

This article is titled “How great sex made me a good mom.”  The sex doesn’t sound at all great to me, rather dreary in fact; but I suppose that just means it’s a good thing there are more than two people in the world.  The title has a sort of intuitive appeal; if it’s sex that makes you a parent, shouldn’t good sex make you a good parent?  I don’t know if you really can push the analogy that far, but it seems to come naturally to humans to assume that effects should resemble causes.  And the author presents a detailed case supporting her claim that her exhaustingly experimental sex life has enabled her to succeed with an experimental approach to child-rearing.  Also, the author is married to a woman to whom she refers as “studwife,” which I first read as “stuntwife.”  I spent about half a second wondering whether this meant she was a wife who took risks others couldn’t afford to take, or whether her growth had been stunted in some way.