Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Online Movie Recommendation 20
This is video of an amazing piece of furniture by the design firm DB Fletcher. My congratulations to the designer(s).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKEOYfYQO08
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKEOYfYQO08
Monday, September 24, 2007
If Moms Ruled the World There Would be No Rules in War
At the Emmy Awards earlier this month Sally Field made the claim that if mothers ruled the world there would be no war. (hattip: Michelle Malkin)
This outrageous claim by an actress at an awards show has generated a surprising (at least to me) amount of commentary in the non-moonbat blogosphere. Dr. Helen ends her column on the topic with the question:
"What do you think, would the world really be better off if moms ran it?"
If the world was run by democracies of mothers, then it would be different in a way that the majority of mothers would describe as "more protective" and "more stable" and "fairer" and "better regulated", but which others (especially young men) would describe "suffocating" and "stifling" and "stagnant" and especially "oppressive." I would be in the camp that called it "oppressive."
I think that wars in particular would be much worse and much bloodier if moms ran the world. To support this assertion I offer this quote from C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity in which he defends the Christian doctrine of husbands being the head of the family:
"The relations of the family to the outer world -what might be called its foreign policy- must depend, in the last resort, upon the man, because he always ought to be, and usually is, much more just to the outsiders. A woman is primarily fighting for her own children and husband against the rest of the world. Naturally, almost, in a sense, rightly, their claims override, for her, all other claims. She is the special trustee of their interests. The function of the husband is to see that this natural preference of hers is not given its head. He has the last word in order to protect other people from the intense family patriotism of the wife. If anyone doubts this, let me ask a simple question. If your dog has bitten the child next door, or if your child has hurt the dog next door, which would you sooner have to deal with, the master of the house or the mistress? Or, if you are a married woman, let me ask you this question. Much as you admire your husband, would you not say that his chief failing is his tendency not to stick up for his rights and yours against the neighbours as vigorously as you would like? A bit of an Appeaser?
If mothers ran the nations of the world then I believe wars would be waged without quarter or mercy, as the mothers would be fighting for the survival and prosperity of their children... to hell with the children of the enemy. Please do not take this to be an insult against mothers or motherhood. Thank God for mothers. I only mean that a world with too much feminine influence is as much a dystopia as one with too little. Anything, in too high a dose, can become a poison. Even a mother's love. If you doubt this, then ask yourself C.S. Lewis's question. If your dog has bitten the child next door, or if your child has hurt the dog next door, which would you sooner have to deal with, the master of the house or the mistress?
CS+Lewis Sally+Field mothers motherhood war
This outrageous claim by an actress at an awards show has generated a surprising (at least to me) amount of commentary in the non-moonbat blogosphere. Dr. Helen ends her column on the topic with the question:
"What do you think, would the world really be better off if moms ran it?"
If the world was run by democracies of mothers, then it would be different in a way that the majority of mothers would describe as "more protective" and "more stable" and "fairer" and "better regulated", but which others (especially young men) would describe "suffocating" and "stifling" and "stagnant" and especially "oppressive." I would be in the camp that called it "oppressive."
I think that wars in particular would be much worse and much bloodier if moms ran the world. To support this assertion I offer this quote from C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity in which he defends the Christian doctrine of husbands being the head of the family:
"The relations of the family to the outer world -what might be called its foreign policy- must depend, in the last resort, upon the man, because he always ought to be, and usually is, much more just to the outsiders. A woman is primarily fighting for her own children and husband against the rest of the world. Naturally, almost, in a sense, rightly, their claims override, for her, all other claims. She is the special trustee of their interests. The function of the husband is to see that this natural preference of hers is not given its head. He has the last word in order to protect other people from the intense family patriotism of the wife. If anyone doubts this, let me ask a simple question. If your dog has bitten the child next door, or if your child has hurt the dog next door, which would you sooner have to deal with, the master of the house or the mistress? Or, if you are a married woman, let me ask you this question. Much as you admire your husband, would you not say that his chief failing is his tendency not to stick up for his rights and yours against the neighbours as vigorously as you would like? A bit of an Appeaser?
If mothers ran the nations of the world then I believe wars would be waged without quarter or mercy, as the mothers would be fighting for the survival and prosperity of their children... to hell with the children of the enemy. Please do not take this to be an insult against mothers or motherhood. Thank God for mothers. I only mean that a world with too much feminine influence is as much a dystopia as one with too little. Anything, in too high a dose, can become a poison. Even a mother's love. If you doubt this, then ask yourself C.S. Lewis's question. If your dog has bitten the child next door, or if your child has hurt the dog next door, which would you sooner have to deal with, the master of the house or the mistress?
CS+Lewis Sally+Field mothers motherhood war
Monday, September 17, 2007
Conservatives Failing to Follow Fashion
There has been a new psychology study (hattip: Slate) that demonstrates Liberals are able to change their behavior more quickly than Conservatives when they are instructed to. Liberal news media are claiming that this study demonstrates Liberals are better judges of facts than Conservatives are because they change their habits more easily.
When, after decades of being a workers paradise, Communism suddenly became a miserable and murderous (and unfashionable!) failure Liberals were very quick to abandon it in favor of the newer and more hip philosophy of Environmentalism and the science of Gaia Worship. Those slow-moving Conservatives haven't even gotten around to embracing Communism yet. Even after Liberals have abandon Environmentalism for the next ideological sure thing, those stogy Conservatives will, no doubt, still be clinging to 18th Century ideas of Liberty and Property Rights and Constitutional Republics.
It's like they just don't learn at all. Though, who 'they' is in the previous sentence might be up for debate.
When, after decades of being a workers paradise, Communism suddenly became a miserable and murderous (and unfashionable!) failure Liberals were very quick to abandon it in favor of the newer and more hip philosophy of Environmentalism and the science of Gaia Worship. Those slow-moving Conservatives haven't even gotten around to embracing Communism yet. Even after Liberals have abandon Environmentalism for the next ideological sure thing, those stogy Conservatives will, no doubt, still be clinging to 18th Century ideas of Liberty and Property Rights and Constitutional Republics.
It's like they just don't learn at all. Though, who 'they' is in the previous sentence might be up for debate.
A New Oxymoron
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Online Movie Recommendation 19
This week's* online movie recommendation is from the collection of interesting videos at TED. It is a talk by engineer Amy Smith about her work to invent technologies that will improve the lives of impoverished foreigners:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/2
I have long thought that the $100 laptop idea was foolish. Not because it wouldn't be nice to give poor kids a free laptop, but rather because applying that same amount of money and brainpower to "lower hanging fruit" could do so much more to improve the lives of the world's poor than can be done by handing them a laptop. I understand how the researchers working on the $100 laptop can get caught up in the romance of their idea, but they seem to have forgotten the basic definition of engineering: An engineer is someone who can do with one dollar what any bungler could do with two dollars. Mr. Negroponte's $100 laptop will do a lot of good for the children of the world. I think Ms. Smith is doing for $10 a lot more to help poor children than Mr. Negroponte will do with his $100 laptop. I also expect that alot of the poor children given a free laptop will sell them on the black market for much less than they are worth in order to buy things that their family needs even more, and that no amount of making it look distinctive will stop that. Ms. Smith's project, on the other hand, seems well targeted to do lots of good for the amount of money spent. Imagine what good Ms. Smith could do if she had Mr. Negroponte's budget... but philanthropists want to look cool too, and charcoal presses are not nearly as hip as computers.
*I know I've been lax on online movie recommedations for a couple of years, but I am going to reinstate it as a weekly/roundtuit feature.
$100+laptop , TED
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/2
I have long thought that the $100 laptop idea was foolish. Not because it wouldn't be nice to give poor kids a free laptop, but rather because applying that same amount of money and brainpower to "lower hanging fruit" could do so much more to improve the lives of the world's poor than can be done by handing them a laptop. I understand how the researchers working on the $100 laptop can get caught up in the romance of their idea, but they seem to have forgotten the basic definition of engineering: An engineer is someone who can do with one dollar what any bungler could do with two dollars. Mr. Negroponte's $100 laptop will do a lot of good for the children of the world. I think Ms. Smith is doing for $10 a lot more to help poor children than Mr. Negroponte will do with his $100 laptop. I also expect that alot of the poor children given a free laptop will sell them on the black market for much less than they are worth in order to buy things that their family needs even more, and that no amount of making it look distinctive will stop that. Ms. Smith's project, on the other hand, seems well targeted to do lots of good for the amount of money spent. Imagine what good Ms. Smith could do if she had Mr. Negroponte's budget... but philanthropists want to look cool too, and charcoal presses are not nearly as hip as computers.
*I know I've been lax on online movie recommedations for a couple of years, but I am going to reinstate it as a weekly/roundtuit feature.
$100+laptop , TED
