What to do with bullies

A chuckling acquaintance recently talked up a television show called "Bully Beatup. The idea of the show is that victims of bullies report the bullies to the producers of "Bully Beatdown." The show's host, Jason "Mayhem" Miller, offers the over-confident bully $10,000 to get into a cage with a highly-skilled mixed martial artist. In sum, then, the idea is to see a highly-skilled fighter beat the shit out of a neighborhood bully. There are some rules:

Each fight features two three-minute rounds: the first consists of grappling (no striking allowed), and the second round involves kickboxing. The bullies begin each round with $5,000 in potential earnings; each time the bully taps out in the first round, $1,000 of his potential earnings go to the victim, and if the fight is stopped in the second round by KO, TKO, or referee, the bully loses the entire sum. In the unlikely scenario that the bully can KO the MMA fighter, he wins money in addition to his first round earnings and the $5,000 from the second round.
If you're in a mood for schadenfreude check it out. This episode lays out the method of the payback, and presents the case of "Vince" the nightmare roommate. A highly confident 6 foot 7 Vince ends of facing an imposing fighter named Michael Westbrook, formerly an NFL wide receiver with tae kwon do and other martial arts training. I suppose that we need shows like this to serve as a counter-weight to less visceral approaches to conflict, such as love thy neighbor. This show is painful to watch, even when the bully gets what he has coming, but immensely memorable.

Continue ReadingWhat to do with bullies

Worms, Roxanne! Worms!

New Oxford American Dictionary blog editor Lauren Appelwick is reporting “refudiate” as the 2010 Word of the Year, joining past recipients “unfriend”, “truthiness” and so many other wonders of the internet age. Lexicographer Susie Dent makes her subjective choice each year (many collected here). As she is employed by the Oxford University Press, additional credibility is lent to her selections I can only assume by virtue of “Oxford” and “University” being used in the same sentence. Thus, an internet search for “word of the year” often tags the “Oxford” or “Oxford Dictionary” or some similar modifier to the “WOTY”. I have fun fracturing the mother tongue all the time. But I don’t expect any of my misconstruations to make their way into the lexicon of American English. Particulalry when they are disavowed as mistypes then claimed intentional. I don’t know about you, but for me, “Oxford” unfairly or not conjures up images of staid and primped stuffed shirts. Make no mistake. They never got over our insurrection and are mocking us again. And that is ginormously discombobulating.

Continue ReadingWorms, Roxanne! Worms!

Craftsmanship in the Modern World

I recently read (yet another) column in the journal Communications of the Association of Computing Machinery about deficiencies in programmer education, that reminded me of a recent paint job for which I'd recently paid "professionals". The connecting point is a certain lack of meticulousness, precision, and professionalism that we now seem to accept in most professions. This lack goes back to how crafts people are trained. In software, as in many crafts on which our daily lives now depend, the problem is that beginners are quickly taught the rudimentary skills, and then exhorted to creatively solve problems as presented. If a program appears to give the correct result for expected input, then it gets an "A" grade. Similarly, if a paint job looks to be the right color at completion, then it also is judged superlative. However, what if the input is different than expected? What will the paint look like after a few seasons? What will happen when someone tries to add on to the current code/coat? That is where the basic training process fails. Code written to accept "2 + 2" and return "4" might take "7 + 3" and possibly return "10" or "4" or "21" (fellow geeks will see how). What happens when (not if) the input is "G + #"? Likewise, a perfect paint job over a dirty surface won't last a season. If it does last that long, then it may peel when the next coat of paint over it dries. What is missing is a basic principle of craftsmanship: Depth of knowledge. The best painter on my recent job had decades of experience. But all he really knew was how to lay color on a clean surface, and basic prep work. He didn't understand enough about architecture to know what did or did not require caulk (he sealed sashes to frames, and left gaps between frames and siding). He didn't know that many surfaces should not have been painted with latex, like hinges and sash runners. He didn't know the implications to longevity of using a brush versus a roller. I would have thought that he might have learned these things in his first couple of jobs, or years, or decades of practice. But one aspect is overlooked in training these crafts-folk: Temperament. Certain people have the curiosity and meticulous dedication to understand every aspect of a task, while others (the majority) just do as they are told, at best. But in America, everyone is created equal. One cannot discriminate. Back in the bad old days of exclusionary guilds, only those who showed the necessary aptitude were accepted to apprentice. Only those who proved themselves adept moved on to journeymen, and eventually mastery. One therefore knew that any carpenter could make solid chairs, and a random tinker could permanently fix a leak. Now, anyone who can pony up the price of the tools, the schools, or union dues can call himself a programmer or a painter or what have you, and hang out a shingle. I freely admit that I am a self-taught programmer, and painter, and carpenter, and plumber, and electrician, and so on. But I've got the borderline OCD tendencies to read the full manuals (Kernighan & Ritchie, NEC, whatever) and I like to play with things to find out their limits. Part of my self-education is also to find and work with or study from someone who got good results, to see how it is done. The point is, a true craftsman has the temperament to know what he is doing, plus several levels of abstraction on either side. A painter should know what pigments actually are, beyond the color they produce. That way he can choose paint either that is safer around kids, or better at preserving wood (generally complementary characteristics). A painter should know how different binders work, to choose a paint that is better for metal, or vinyl, or wood. But to my chagrin, given the universe of things that I think every painter should know, few that I've hired even knew the questions for, or even that there was an issue to wonder about (2nd or 3rd orders of ignorance). And this is part of why our civilization is coming apart. Note: Earlier posts here on similar themes: Incompetence as the Basis of Civilization and Incompetent people don’t realize that they are incompetent.

Continue ReadingCraftsmanship in the Modern World

It’s not true there is “nothing new” in the Wikileaks Afghanistan records

Writing at The Nation, Jonathan Schell tells us that it is not true that there is "nothing new" in the Wikileaks Afghanistan releases. In fact, we know that it's not true by the behaviour of the U.S. Army; it considers Julian Assange to be a " "threat to the U.S. Army." If the release of information is a big yawn, how can Assange be a "threat"? I agree with Schell that Americans should be applauding Assange for giving us some truth about the big dirty lies we've been hearing from the U.S. government when it comes to our adventures in Afghanistan:

Among the flood of Afghan war documents there happens to be a report on one more instance of a man who, finding himself threatened with participation in the evil-doing of a malignant system, opted to withdraw. In Balkh province, a little more than a year ago, the report disclosed, Afghan police officers were beating and otherwise abusing civilians for their lack of cooperation. The police commander then sexually assaulted a 16-year-old girl. When a civilian protested, the report stated, "The district commander ordered his bodyguard to open fire on the AC [Afghan civilian]. The bodyguard refused, at which time the district commander shot [the bodyguard] in front of the AC." At the time these documents came out, the official reaction to them, echoed widely in the media, was that they disclosed "nothing new." But let us pause to absorb this story. A police officer, unwilling, at the risk of his own life, to be a murderer, is himself murdered by his superior. He gives his life to spare the other person, possibly a stranger. It is the highest sacrifice that can be made. The man's identity is unrecorded. His story is met with a yawn. But perhaps one day, when there is peace in Afghanistan, a monument will be erected in his honor there and schoolchildren will be taught his name. Perhaps here in the United States, when the country has found its moral bearings again, there will be recognition of the integrity and bravery of Bradley Manning and Julian Assange. For now, the war- and torture-system rolls on, and it's all found to be "nothing new."

Continue ReadingIt’s not true there is “nothing new” in the Wikileaks Afghanistan records

Getting Science Under Control

After the election of 2008, we fans of the rational and provable had high hopes that government may give as much credence to the scientific process and conclusions as to the disproved aspects of philosophies promulgated by churches and industry shills. We watched with waning hope as a series of attempts to honor that ideal got watered down. But at least it was an improvement. But the 2010 election quickly reveals a backlash. Those whose cherished misunderstandings had been disrespected for the last couple of years now will have their day. As Phil Plait says, Energy and science in America are in big, big trouble. He begins,

"With the elections last week, the Republicans took over the House once again. The list of things this means is long and troubling, but the most troubling to me come in the forms of two Texas far-right Republicans: Congressmen Ralph Hall and Joe Barton."

He goes on to explain why. It comes down to them being proven representatives for Young Earth and fossil fuel interests, doing whatever they can to scuttle actual science by any means necessary. Especially where the science contradicts their pet ideas. Barton has published articles supporting climate change denialism. His main contributors are the extraction industries. Hall has used parliamentary tricks to attempt to scuttle funding for basic research. The Democrats offered to compromised by cutting funding, and he refused in hopes that the whole bill would fail. It passed. Then Hall publicly called Democrats on the carpet for using tricks to fatten the bill by the amount that they offered to cut. The Proxmire spirit lives on.

Continue ReadingGetting Science Under Control