Sunday, July 17, 2005

elegant nonsense

Elegant nonsense
By Victor Davis Hanson
July 16, 2005


Nearly 24 centuries ago, Plato warned not to confuse innate artistic skill with either education or intelligence. The philosopher worried the emotional bond we can forge with good actors might also allow these manipulative mimics too much influence in matters on which they are often ignorant.
So he would cringe that the high-school graduate Sean Penn is now capitalizing on his worldly fame from "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" to pose as an informed commentator on the Iranian elections.
Then there's Robert Redford, who once played Bob Woodward in "All the President's Men" and apparently still believes that role made him an experienced muckraker a la The Washington Post in the Watergate era. Now Mr. Redford lectures reporters to go after George W. Bush, undeterred that the real journalist Dan Rather ended his career by such an obsessed effort.
Mr. Redford and Mr. Penn, of course, aren't the only entertainers as would-be wise men and moralists who lecture us on the evils of the Bush administration.
The United States took out the Taliban in seven weeks, Saddam in three. Despite a difficult insurrection, there is a democratic government in Iraq. Yet action-hero George Clooney pontificated, "We can't beat anyone anymore."
Osama bin Laden declared open season on Americans during Bill Clinton's administration, well before the September 11, 2001, attacks, Afghanistan and Iraq. But Sheryl Crow announced, "The best way to solve problems is to not have enemies," as if her musical genius translates into expertise on radical Islam.
Richard Gere of "The Jackal" fame elaborated: "If you can see [the terrorists] as a relative who's dangerously sick and we have to give them medicine, and the medicine is love and compassion. There's nothing better."
Cher often sings of losers and so drew on her artistic insight to share a complex portrait of the president: "I don't like Bush. I don't trust him. I don't like his record. He's stupid. He's lazy."
What's so disturbing about our leftist celebrities lecturing us on what has gone wrong after September 11? Nothing, as long as we realize why they do it.
Entertainers wrongly assume their fame, money and influence arise from broad knowledge rather than natural talent, looks or mastery of a narrow skill.
In fact, what do a talented Richard Gere, Robert Redford and Madonna all have in common besides loudly blasting the current administration? They either dropped out of, or never started, college. Cher may think George Bush is "stupid," but she -- not he -- didn't finish high school.
If these apparent autodidacts are without degrees, aren't they at least well informed? Not always. Right before the Iraqi war, Barbra Streisand issued an angry statement assuring us Saddam Hussein was the dictator of Iran.
Second, liberal guilt over their royal status explains why leftist entertainers drown out the handful of conservative celebrities. Sanctimonious public lectures provide a cheap way of reconciling rare privilege with professed egalitarianism.
British rockers draft legions of lawyers to evade taxes, yet they parade around at hyped concerts to shame governments into sending billions of taxpayers' money "to end poverty" in Africa.
Such public expressions of caring provide some cover for being long-haired capitalists -- or, in the case of an impoverished Africa, not worrying how in the messy world one really deals with Zimbabwe's kleptocrat Robert Mugabe, who just bulldozed the homes of 1.5 million of his own people.
Third, celebrities have lost touch with the tragic world outside Malibu and Beverly Hills that cannot so easily be manipulated to follow a script or have a happy ending. Thus an exasperated Danny Glover, Martin Sheen and others recently ran an ad in the trade magazine Variety lamenting that Hollywood's illegal alien nannies couldn't obtain driver's licenses to drive to their estates. How dare the voters of California not grant licenses to those who broke the law to nobly serve the exalted?
Fourth, Hollywood's megaphones don't have a very good track record of political persuasion. While Josef Stalin and later Mao Tse-tung slaughtered millions, many actors still preached that communism offered a socialist utopia. Jane Fonda went to enemy Hanoi to offer marquee appeal to the communist Vietnamese but was ignorant of their documented record of murder and autocracy.
If retired actors and entertainers wish to become politicians -- an old tradition, from the Empress Theodora to Ronald Reagan, Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger -- let them run for office and endure a campaign and sustained cross-examination from voters. Otherwise their celebrity is used only as a gimmick to give credence to silly rants that if voiced by anyone else would never reach the light of day.
In this regard, we could learn again from the Greeks. They thought the playwrights Sophocles and Euripides were brilliant but not the mere mimics who performed their plays.

Elegant nonsense
By Victor Davis Hanson
July 16, 2005


Nearly 24 centuries ago, Plato warned not to confuse innate artistic skill with either education or intelligence. The philosopher worried the emotional bond we can forge with good actors might also allow these manipulative mimics too much influence in matters on which they are often ignorant.
So he would cringe that the high-school graduate Sean Penn is now capitalizing on his worldly fame from "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" to pose as an informed commentator on the Iranian elections.
Then there's Robert Redford, who once played Bob Woodward in "All the President's Men" and apparently still believes that role made him an experienced muckraker a la The Washington Post in the Watergate era. Now Mr. Redford lectures reporters to go after George W. Bush, undeterred that the real journalist Dan Rather ended his career by such an obsessed effort.
Mr. Redford and Mr. Penn, of course, aren't the only entertainers as would-be wise men and moralists who lecture us on the evils of the Bush administration.
The United States took out the Taliban in seven weeks, Saddam in three. Despite a difficult insurrection, there is a democratic government in Iraq. Yet action-hero George Clooney pontificated, "We can't beat anyone anymore."
Osama bin Laden declared open season on Americans during Bill Clinton's administration, well before the September 11, 2001, attacks, Afghanistan and Iraq. But Sheryl Crow announced, "The best way to solve problems is to not have enemies," as if her musical genius translates into expertise on radical Islam.
Richard Gere of "The Jackal" fame elaborated: "If you can see [the terrorists] as a relative who's dangerously sick and we have to give them medicine, and the medicine is love and compassion. There's nothing better."
Cher often sings of losers and so drew on her artistic insight to share a complex portrait of the president: "I don't like Bush. I don't trust him. I don't like his record. He's stupid. He's lazy."
What's so disturbing about our leftist celebrities lecturing us on what has gone wrong after September 11? Nothing, as long as we realize why they do it.
Entertainers wrongly assume their fame, money and influence arise from broad knowledge rather than natural talent, looks or mastery of a narrow skill.
In fact, what do a talented Richard Gere, Robert Redford and Madonna all have in common besides loudly blasting the current administration? They either dropped out of, or never started, college. Cher may think George Bush is "stupid," but she -- not he -- didn't finish high school.
If these apparent autodidacts are without degrees, aren't they at least well informed? Not always. Right before the Iraqi war, Barbra Streisand issued an angry statement assuring us Saddam Hussein was the dictator of Iran.
Second, liberal guilt over their royal status explains why leftist entertainers drown out the handful of conservative celebrities. Sanctimonious public lectures provide a cheap way of reconciling rare privilege with professed egalitarianism.
British rockers draft legions of lawyers to evade taxes, yet they parade around at hyped concerts to shame governments into sending billions of taxpayers' money "to end poverty" in Africa.
Such public expressions of caring provide some cover for being long-haired capitalists -- or, in the case of an impoverished Africa, not worrying how in the messy world one really deals with Zimbabwe's kleptocrat Robert Mugabe, who just bulldozed the homes of 1.5 million of his own people.
Third, celebrities have lost touch with the tragic world outside Malibu and Beverly Hills that cannot so easily be manipulated to follow a script or have a happy ending. Thus an exasperated Danny Glover, Martin Sheen and others recently ran an ad in the trade magazine Variety lamenting that Hollywood's illegal alien nannies couldn't obtain driver's licenses to drive to their estates. How dare the voters of California not grant licenses to those who broke the law to nobly serve the exalted?
Fourth, Hollywood's megaphones don't have a very good track record of political persuasion. While Josef Stalin and later Mao Tse-tung slaughtered millions, many actors still preached that communism offered a socialist utopia. Jane Fonda went to enemy Hanoi to offer marquee appeal to the communist Vietnamese but was ignorant of their documented record of murder and autocracy.
If retired actors and entertainers wish to become politicians -- an old tradition, from the Empress Theodora to Ronald Reagan, Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger -- let them run for office and endure a campaign and sustained cross-examination from voters. Otherwise their celebrity is used only as a gimmick to give credence to silly rants that if voiced by anyone else would never reach the light of day.
In this regard, we could learn again from the Greeks. They thought the playwrights Sophocles and Euripides were brilliant but not the mere mimics who performed their plays.

Friday, July 15, 2005

who knows?

Mr. Sai lost his horse and when his neighbours commiserate with him he says "maybe bad maybe good, who knows?"

Then the horse comes back, leading another wild horse. His neighbours rejoice for him saying how lucky he now has two horses. He replies again "maybe good maybe bad, who knows?"

His son breaks his leg, and again the same gets played out, "maybe bad maybe good, who knows?" Then the army comes to town, but the son cannot be pressed into service because of his leg.

Maybe bad, maybe good. Who knows?

a plan for the middle east you don't hear everyday

fred smith wrote:
I want to kill all of the fanatic Islamist fascists because there can be no co-existence between us. If you believe in tolerance, freedom, democracy and justice, you cannot compromise with these people any more than we could with Hitler, Stalin or Mao. We can contain or try to limit their influence or take them out entirely when we have the opportunity but does anyone here want to stand up for them and their kind of society? for Hitler? Stalin? Mao? as just another kind of system? civilization?

yi'shou wrote - Here's the crux of it: "there can be no co-existence between us." At that point all that's left is consensus by genocide. Kill everybody who disagrees, before they can kill you first.

If you believe in tolerance, freedom, democracy and justice, then you can't base a system on killing people who won't go along with you. Even the ones who are opposed to tolerance, freedom, democracy and justice. Those are the people you've got to either convince or isolate. Make them the crazy voice in the wilderness, the ones whose houses you don't let your children play near, the ones you hurry past without making eye contact when you see them in the street. If you can't convince or isolate them, then your tolerance, freedom, democracy and justice aren't going to last very long.

And what's to stop us from applying that doctrine to, say, atheists? Liberals? Homosexuals? Evangelical Christians? Then we are Hitler, Stalin, Mao; the only distinction is that we're holding up what we consider to be the right way of life, the right values. Someone will jump in and call this moral relativism, and maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but most of all it's pragmatism. There is no "my belief and no other" system that can exist without devolving into genocide, so the only viable option is the enforce some form of "live and let live," and if your belief system cannot tolerate the existence of other belief systems, that sucks for you but don't expect the rest of us to care. (This is not a slippery slope argument: I'm not saying it'll be Muslim fanatics one day and left-handed people the next. I'm saying that if we go for the easy solution, 'everything's great if the right people are dead', we'll already have become morally despicable ourselves. Of course, we'll probably kick up enough resentment along the way to sustain the conflict indefinitely, but that's just a practical issue.)

"Kill all the bad people" doesn't work as a solution. There's too many of them, they're too hard to spot, and once we're done more will just show up to replace them. And even if we did manage to succeed, it'd be at a terrible cost. The solution has to be "make it so the bad people can't convince anyone." A terrorist without a supportive community doesn't get very far.

So our job is to get rid of that supportive community. Whether we think we've done something wrong or not, we have to look at our actions and their actual results. Not say "oh, these people have no justifiable grievance," not tell ourselves that we aren't at fault (because it doesn't matter if we are or not), but say "what can we do to get rid of these people's greivance?" Maybe it's a perception problem, maybe it's a problem of what we actually do (or fail to do), but being calmly assured of our own innocence doesn't solve the conflict. And it certainly doesn't chip away at ObL's support. This will no doubt require changes in our behavior...

Friday, July 01, 2005

not about cana duh deh eh

bob - Internet communities are pretty new to me so I am sometimes a bit confused about what all this written corespondence with strangers means exactly, but I think I had something of an epiphany last night. I was explaining to my wife that I had recieved some nice comments from people at forumosa (yours sandman was particularly heart warming to me for some reason) saying that they had enjoyed a couple of my posts, and that on a whim I had taken time out of my oh so busy schedule to forward those posts to every e-mail contact I had in Canada. I recieved not a peep in reply. Nothing. More blather about how the mortage was just about paid off, or how billy bob's new braces were bothering him, but about my writing not a goddam thing. At that point I realized that anyone who has read the majority of my posts during my brief time here so far probably undertsands what makes me tick about as well as anyone I have ever known in person. In fact I would go on to say that anyone who reads my posts regularly is probably more like the kind of person I could make friends with anyway.

OK that is about as mushy as I get. You can expect more of the usual nonsense from here on in....

qualifications

"daryl" wrote - Now I know some people will think that by writing this thread I am trying to bag all of those people who don't have any sort of teaching qualification. I am certainly not, I did it for 5 years with only my BSc...

I'd also like to steer clear of the argument as to whether or not CELTA/TESOL are really worthwhile in terms of making a better teacher.

The question is this...

Why has the Taiwan government not instituted a policy of requiring all English language teachers to have some form of English language teaching certification? In addition, I heard of a few news reports (scare mongering) that they were moving towards this. What are the chances of the Taiwanese government doing an about face on this any time soon???

I've always thought, personally that teachers should have some form of teaching qual, and am planning on getting one myself. I also think that the Taiwan government could in turn offer accredited TESOL training to existing teachers who would like to stay long-term and turn a tidy profit for themselves... However, I also believe that the governemnt should do a better job at regulating the education industry and it has never looked like that will happen..

Got any comments?

Cheers!

Daryl

xp+10K - I voted 'yes'. I don't have any kind of certification, so if it were required, I would be forced to go back to my home country and make some kind of half-way diligent effort to find some kind of half-way sensible job there.

Kind of a "Stop me before I teach at a buxiban again!" sorta thing.

ImaniOU - It would not only help improve the quality of teachers coming here, but it would improve the quality of learning the students received if their teachers had received teacher training (real training, not a "feel-good workshop during orientation" kind of training) before they even stepped into a classroom. Fuuny, they don't let you run a forklift without knowing the basics, but they let anyone off the street come in and teach English cold turkey.

daryl_ks wrote: Got any comments?


bob - Writing makes you smarter. Especially if you decide what you want to say before you start writing, or if you find out what you want to say as you are writing, and then try to say just that. Try to be clear. The next step is to go back and read what you wrote and find the contradictions, inconsistencies and just plain puzzling bits. Eliminate them. If you don't do these things your writing will be as muddled as your half baked opinions.

This is true in English at least....
_________________
Helped are those who create anything at all, for they relive the thrill of their own conception, and realize a partnership in the creation of the universe that keeps them responsible

johnny revolta

bob - Hollywood producers get funding for a film on the condition that there are certain number of fights, a certain number of flatulance jokes and/or on the condition that John Travolta or Brad Pit gets a certain amount of screen time. They don't care if the thing makes sense or deals with an aspect of real human experience because they know that if the sound bite is "cool" and they have a big name star people will pay to see it. Hollywood films are as bad as they are because they're produced by business people and not by artists, and because there literally hundreds of millions of people in the world who "just want to be entertained" and bring almost no intelligent critical judgement to their movie viewing choices. As long as we keep paying to see stupid movies they will keep making them. It's show business. Show "business." With no "business" there's no "show." That would perhaps be preferable.
_________________

siesta time

Somebody wrote - A beautiful fishing boat was docked in a tiny coastal village south of the border. An American tourist complimented the local fisherman on the quality of his fish and the beauty of his boat and asked how long it took him to catch them.

"Not very long," answered the fisherman.

"But then, why didn't you stay out longer and catch more?" asked the American.

The man explained that his small catch was sufficient to meet his needs and those of his family. The American asked, "But what do you do with the rest of your time?"

"I sleep late, play with my children, catch a few fish, and take a siesta with my wife. In the evenings I go into the village to see my friends, have a few drinks, play the guitar and sing a few songs. I have a full life..."

photoThe American interrupted, "Hey, I have a MBA and I can help you. You should start by fishing longer every day. You can then sell the extra fish you catch. With the extra revenue, you can buy a bigger boat. With the extra money the larger boat will bring, you can buy a second one and a third one and so on until you have an entire fleet of trawlers. Instead of selling your fish to a middleman, you can negotiate directly with the processing plants and maybe even open your own plant. You can then leave this little village and move to Mexico City, Los Angeles or even New York City! From there you can direct your huge enterprise."

"How long would that take?" asked the fisherman. "Twenty, perhaps twenty-five years," replied the American.

"And after that?" asked the fisherman.

"Afterwards? That's when it gets really interesting," answered the American, laughing. "When your business gets really big, you can start selling stocks and make millions!"

"Millions? Really? And after that?" asked the fisherman.

"After that you'll be able to retire, live in a tiny coastal village, sleep late, play with your grandchildren, catch a few fish, take a siesta with your wife and spend your evenings drinking and playing the guitar with your friends!"