Thursday, January 31, 2008
Once You Go Swap, You Can't Stop
How come is it that once LINUX machines start swapping, they don't stop swapping even if they don't need the extra memory anymore?
I have a process that's been running almost 24 hours in real time simply because it slightly exceeded the RAM space available to it. It started swapping and ever since, even though it doesn't need much memory now at all, it's still having kswapd0/kswapd1 invoked and still only using < 10% of the CPU capacity because it's busy thrashing around.
Why does this happen and what can I do to stop the madness!?
*
Meanwhile some links:
A little about big pharma (and the costs of drug development): speaking of which, should I abandon my desire for an academic career, sell out and work for the man? About the subject of the link though -- one thing about drug development is the beginning steps are very much unsuited for a for-profit business as a lot of science is just 1000 monkeys typing at a thousand keyboards (I know I am one ;) ) until one stumbles upon the works of Shakespeare so to speak. Academia and government labs are made for this sort of thing ... industry, not so much.
Howard Dean Daniel Barenboim (don't they look alike?) goes too far here: I don't see where even a de facto one state solution (which is what dual citizenship would be) would guarantee any liberty for either Jews or Palestinians given the track records of the parties involved (especially on the Palestinian side), but he does make some good points and uses the term "leitmotif" ;) ... in general, I think a little bit more of a spirit of hesed would go a long way toward furthering the peace process. What I find odd is that so many so-called liberals refuse to show any hesed or rachmonos toward the Jewish side ... and they wonder why some Jews have grown sour on liberalism?
As my dad always says -- you attract more flies with honey than vinegar.
*
Update -- the process has been running for well over a day now, yet the total CPU time is under 3 hours. Talk about ridiculous!
Update #2 -- it's done! finally! now to see if the results are any good ...
I have a process that's been running almost 24 hours in real time simply because it slightly exceeded the RAM space available to it. It started swapping and ever since, even though it doesn't need much memory now at all, it's still having kswapd0/kswapd1 invoked and still only using < 10% of the CPU capacity because it's busy thrashing around.
Why does this happen and what can I do to stop the madness!?
*
Meanwhile some links:
A little about big pharma (and the costs of drug development): speaking of which, should I abandon my desire for an academic career, sell out and work for the man? About the subject of the link though -- one thing about drug development is the beginning steps are very much unsuited for a for-profit business as a lot of science is just 1000 monkeys typing at a thousand keyboards (I know I am one ;) ) until one stumbles upon the works of Shakespeare so to speak. Academia and government labs are made for this sort of thing ... industry, not so much.
As my dad always says -- you attract more flies with honey than vinegar.
*
Update -- the process has been running for well over a day now, yet the total CPU time is under 3 hours. Talk about ridiculous!
Update #2 -- it's done! finally! now to see if the results are any good ...
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Belated MLK Day Blogging (or Early Pinchas Blogging?)
I was kinda busy on MLK day ;) ... so I didn't get a chance to blog. Anyway, I'm sure I've made this point before ...
... but given the aretaic turn some on the right are yet again making, I feel that I need to make it again:
As a Jew, I have a problem with MLK's line about judging people "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character". Of course, we shouldn't judge people by the color of their skin, but should we really be judging people even by the content of their character? Even if it is not a stupid and evil prejudice like judging someone by the color of their skin, judging someone by the content of their character is still prejudice as you are judging someone prior to knowing how their actions turn out (c.f. anybody's standard comments on the beginning of Parshas Pinchas).
Of course, sometimes you have to judge a person by the content of their character. Sometimes, as in the case with Pinchas where his actions turn out to have been righteous, you have to trust that a person of good character is doing the right thing, even if it seems wrong or misguided. Character is important, but as my mother (and your mother too, I bet ... except I'm not willing to bet french fries with Dev anymore ;) ) always said ... "trust has to be earned". I do not discount the importance of virtue (and we shouldn't, e.g., go out of our way to elect an asshole who might treat the country just as he's treated his wives), but virtue and character are signs (which are important -- c.f. the Deuteronomaic justification of the Exodus) promising of ethical behavior -- pace much of Hellenistic thought, they are not the sum total of ethics and morality.
We cannot say "Ms. Soandso seems like good people, so we can trust her 'cause her character is good". That is as much prejudice -- perhaps even more insidious if less openly evil -- as judging Ms. Soandso based on her skin color. We should give Ms. Soandso a benefit of the doubt if she has shown herself to be a woman of virtue. But we also must remember that even good people sometimes have lapses, accidents and moral mistakes.
Do such lapses of morality make an otherwise virtuous person un-virtuous? Of course not. We shouldn't fall into the trap of making such a big deal of small moral lapses. Pace much of Christian thought, a just God would not consider a person who has displayed many virtues through his/her actions to be an irredeemable sinner ... and we should not consider such a person to be irredeemable either. Instead, we should remember that people sometimes do lapse and that, while a person should cultivate his or her virtues (in part because the moral discipline helps prevent those lapses), lapses happen so we should be careful not to assume that all the fruit of a good tree is good.
In fact, realizing even the best people sin and even the worst people do some good liberates (c.f. Nietzsche) us -- from the distress of having our heroes toppled by some revelation of a bad act (nu? so Mr. Hero sinned a bit, what's the big whoop?), from the fear of being imperfect, from the genetic fallacy (nu? maybe in fact not all fruit of bad trees is bad? Hitler being anti-smoking doesn't completely discredit concerns about tobacco), etc. Not judging people based on their character or minor deviations from it, but rather focusing on actions and the morality of the act rather than the person is what truly liberates us from prejudice -- not only do we not judge people based on whether they are Black, White, Yellow, Red, Polka Dot (my own race) or whatever, but we simply don't prejudge them, except when expediency says we must put our trust in a person of virtue (even if in general "not upon mortals do we rely nor upon angels do we depend, but upon the God of truth, whose Torah is truth and whose Prophets speak words of truth and whose deeds are deeds of justice and truth" -- Zohar).
Of course, perhaps I am not only making a mountain out of a molehill in an otherwise clever sounding turn of phrase, but I am judging MLK based on a Jewish sense of morality that is not his sense. As I have alluded to above, Christianity does present an interesting take on these issues as it starts out from a very Jewish point of view and then takes a strong aretaic turn.
We Jews tend to think of some of the teachings of Jesus as un-Jewishly soft in the head. But much of those teachings are actually from Jewish sources (e.g. "turn the other cheek" is from Jeremaiah's Lamentations) and not so soft as we might think (I'm sure I've blogged about this). In fact, as I've alluded to above, "judge not lest ye be judged" ain't too far off the mark in terms of the Jewish take on the deficiencies of virtue ethics. On the other hand, even the supposed teachings of Jesus, we see aretaic turns. Jesus gives the very Jewish advice of "you shall know them by their fruits" and then proceeds to say, c.f. above, bad trees always produce bad fruits and good trees always produce good fruits.
However, we people are more complicated than trees. Pace the very foundation of Christianity, one bad fruit does not indicate the whole tree is bad. On the other hand, since we only have a general idea of the quality of the fruit from the quality of the tree -- past performance doesn't guarantee future results as the commercials say -- we cannot judge a tree's fruit by the virtue of the tree.
I have a dream, too. That one day we will not have to judge any person based on even the content of their character. That we can judge fruits not trees as we don't have to depend on the tree that produces good fruit to always produce good fruit, but rather we can look at each fruit for its own sake, and be comfortable that there will always be a better fruit from even that same tree.
... but given the aretaic turn some on the right are yet again making, I feel that I need to make it again:
As a Jew, I have a problem with MLK's line about judging people "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character". Of course, we shouldn't judge people by the color of their skin, but should we really be judging people even by the content of their character? Even if it is not a stupid and evil prejudice like judging someone by the color of their skin, judging someone by the content of their character is still prejudice as you are judging someone prior to knowing how their actions turn out (c.f. anybody's standard comments on the beginning of Parshas Pinchas).
Of course, sometimes you have to judge a person by the content of their character. Sometimes, as in the case with Pinchas where his actions turn out to have been righteous, you have to trust that a person of good character is doing the right thing, even if it seems wrong or misguided. Character is important, but as my mother (and your mother too, I bet ... except I'm not willing to bet french fries with Dev anymore ;) ) always said ... "trust has to be earned". I do not discount the importance of virtue (and we shouldn't, e.g., go out of our way to elect an asshole who might treat the country just as he's treated his wives), but virtue and character are signs (which are important -- c.f. the Deuteronomaic justification of the Exodus) promising of ethical behavior -- pace much of Hellenistic thought, they are not the sum total of ethics and morality.
We cannot say "Ms. Soandso seems like good people, so we can trust her 'cause her character is good". That is as much prejudice -- perhaps even more insidious if less openly evil -- as judging Ms. Soandso based on her skin color. We should give Ms. Soandso a benefit of the doubt if she has shown herself to be a woman of virtue. But we also must remember that even good people sometimes have lapses, accidents and moral mistakes.
Do such lapses of morality make an otherwise virtuous person un-virtuous? Of course not. We shouldn't fall into the trap of making such a big deal of small moral lapses. Pace much of Christian thought, a just God would not consider a person who has displayed many virtues through his/her actions to be an irredeemable sinner ... and we should not consider such a person to be irredeemable either. Instead, we should remember that people sometimes do lapse and that, while a person should cultivate his or her virtues (in part because the moral discipline helps prevent those lapses), lapses happen so we should be careful not to assume that all the fruit of a good tree is good.
In fact, realizing even the best people sin and even the worst people do some good liberates (c.f. Nietzsche) us -- from the distress of having our heroes toppled by some revelation of a bad act (nu? so Mr. Hero sinned a bit, what's the big whoop?), from the fear of being imperfect, from the genetic fallacy (nu? maybe in fact not all fruit of bad trees is bad? Hitler being anti-smoking doesn't completely discredit concerns about tobacco), etc. Not judging people based on their character or minor deviations from it, but rather focusing on actions and the morality of the act rather than the person is what truly liberates us from prejudice -- not only do we not judge people based on whether they are Black, White, Yellow, Red, Polka Dot (my own race) or whatever, but we simply don't prejudge them, except when expediency says we must put our trust in a person of virtue (even if in general "not upon mortals do we rely nor upon angels do we depend, but upon the God of truth, whose Torah is truth and whose Prophets speak words of truth and whose deeds are deeds of justice and truth" -- Zohar).
Of course, perhaps I am not only making a mountain out of a molehill in an otherwise clever sounding turn of phrase, but I am judging MLK based on a Jewish sense of morality that is not his sense. As I have alluded to above, Christianity does present an interesting take on these issues as it starts out from a very Jewish point of view and then takes a strong aretaic turn.
We Jews tend to think of some of the teachings of Jesus as un-Jewishly soft in the head. But much of those teachings are actually from Jewish sources (e.g. "turn the other cheek" is from Jeremaiah's Lamentations) and not so soft as we might think (I'm sure I've blogged about this). In fact, as I've alluded to above, "judge not lest ye be judged" ain't too far off the mark in terms of the Jewish take on the deficiencies of virtue ethics. On the other hand, even the supposed teachings of Jesus, we see aretaic turns. Jesus gives the very Jewish advice of "you shall know them by their fruits" and then proceeds to say, c.f. above, bad trees always produce bad fruits and good trees always produce good fruits.
However, we people are more complicated than trees. Pace the very foundation of Christianity, one bad fruit does not indicate the whole tree is bad. On the other hand, since we only have a general idea of the quality of the fruit from the quality of the tree -- past performance doesn't guarantee future results as the commercials say -- we cannot judge a tree's fruit by the virtue of the tree.
I have a dream, too. That one day we will not have to judge any person based on even the content of their character. That we can judge fruits not trees as we don't have to depend on the tree that produces good fruit to always produce good fruit, but rather we can look at each fruit for its own sake, and be comfortable that there will always be a better fruit from even that same tree.
FL Votes Today
And we Dems. don't have a voice, really -- count on the media to make a big stink of this to make the Dems. look bad.
Meanwhile, I have a modest proposal.
So how bad was Bush's STFU, er, SOTU address last night?
Meanwhile, I have a modest proposal.
So how bad was Bush's STFU, er, SOTU address last night?
Monday, January 28, 2008
Sorry to go all Tom Friedman on Y'all ...
... but CNN's reporting that since Gaza's borders have opened, rocket attacks on Israel have decreased. Hmmm ... maybe isolating Gaza and giving no hope to the people there -- letting the terrorist narrative about how Israelis are teh evil win out -- and responding to rocket attacks with the blunt instraments of "targetted strikes" in which you create yet more innocent victims who then get mad at Israel, all the while not showing any strength because you are hiding behind superior technology (and I don't blame Israelis -- I'd hide too!) is not the way to go? Maybe if Palestinians weren't so hopeless, etc., they'd "move on" from having lost Palestine ... like Sudetens, Karelians, European Jews, etc. have all moved on from our losses?
What was it that Micah said about might and power and spirit?
Of course, so many in Israel are just so hell bent on looking strong, they end up looking like asses -- which love to look strong, don't they?
What was it that Micah said about might and power and spirit?
Of course, so many in Israel are just so hell bent on looking strong, they end up looking like asses -- which love to look strong, don't they?
More McCain Cheering
Who says the news you get reading blogs is any fresher than any other sort of news? E.g., on this blog, you can read about how MS Word is teh suck or about how the media is biased toward McCain. I guess, given the nature of this blog, I'll put a religious spin on it and say "nothing is new under the sun".
Anyhoo ...
In honor of our impending primary here in FL, our local NPR affiliate had someone give a report on what (if anything) the Senate records of HRC, BHO and JE say about what they might be like as Pres. I missed most of that, but what I heard was Orrin Hatch performing a, um, hatchet job on Edwards. I wonder if they had balanced that with any positive coverage of any of the Dem. candidates.
They did balance that with a report on the main GOP candidates. For each candidate they made sure to have a positive statement and a negative statement (with the negative statement about Romney being given by Barney Frank and introduced by the newscaster saying how Romney's record with the truth "contrasts" with that of McCain). But what kind of negative statement could they give about McCain? That he's "prickly" -- and they even spun that as positive -- "you get frustrated when you tell the truth" or something like that.
Wow! The media still lurves them some McCain, don't they (even though the "GOP establishment hates McCain" or so said -- approximately -- Rep. Ross-L. in rather glowing terms about the man ... I guess McCain is a maverick(TM) -- which identification must have ol' Maurey rolling in his grave)? They don't love St. Rudy anymore, though ... the only good thing our local NPR affiliate could say about him was that he became friends with Peter Vallone.
I wonder if anyone will call this station on their biases?
Anyhoo ...
In honor of our impending primary here in FL, our local NPR affiliate had someone give a report on what (if anything) the Senate records of HRC, BHO and JE say about what they might be like as Pres. I missed most of that, but what I heard was Orrin Hatch performing a, um, hatchet job on Edwards. I wonder if they had balanced that with any positive coverage of any of the Dem. candidates.
They did balance that with a report on the main GOP candidates. For each candidate they made sure to have a positive statement and a negative statement (with the negative statement about Romney being given by Barney Frank and introduced by the newscaster saying how Romney's record with the truth "contrasts" with that of McCain). But what kind of negative statement could they give about McCain? That he's "prickly" -- and they even spun that as positive -- "you get frustrated when you tell the truth" or something like that.
Wow! The media still lurves them some McCain, don't they (even though the "GOP establishment hates McCain" or so said -- approximately -- Rep. Ross-L. in rather glowing terms about the man ... I guess McCain is a maverick(TM) -- which identification must have ol' Maurey rolling in his grave)? They don't love St. Rudy anymore, though ... the only good thing our local NPR affiliate could say about him was that he became friends with Peter Vallone.
I wonder if anyone will call this station on their biases?
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Yitro Blogging
What does it mean that we Jews were all at Sinai? What does "this day" mean -- i.e. what does it mean that we are to consider the revelation at Sinai to have not occurred sometime in the past but on this very day, today?
Does it mean that we are to consider that the Law revealed to Moses at Sinai is per se contemporary and we should not even consider changing it? Or does it mean that when considering the Torah we should remember the context of its revelation -- i.e. at Sinai, right after the Exodus from Egypt -- and not only remember the context but to, when studying Torah and trying to figure out what it means, place ourselves at Sinai and consider our present to be that of the long ago past of Sinai so that we can fully understand what the Torah meant to someone physically, rather than spiritually at Sinai? And once we have that understanding, only then can we think of how to apply the Teachings of Torah to the modern day?
And what was revealed at Sinai anyway? Was all Torah revealed at Sinai as Rabbinic Judaism claims in its "vital lie" or was it something mystical? Interestingly, while we tend to think of mystics as neo-Platonist and the Tannaim as practically pragmatists, the idea that the Rabbis merely discover, in their casuistry, that which is objectively "out there" is rather Platonic, isn't it? And the mystical idea of the revelation of nothingness and silence actually is pragmatic as it allows revelation to be that which we experience?
And can both views be true? After all, we are taught "shamor v'zochor v'dibur echad", eh?
*
Meanwhile, go to Nate's blog ... he has video up from my wedding. ;)
Does it mean that we are to consider that the Law revealed to Moses at Sinai is per se contemporary and we should not even consider changing it? Or does it mean that when considering the Torah we should remember the context of its revelation -- i.e. at Sinai, right after the Exodus from Egypt -- and not only remember the context but to, when studying Torah and trying to figure out what it means, place ourselves at Sinai and consider our present to be that of the long ago past of Sinai so that we can fully understand what the Torah meant to someone physically, rather than spiritually at Sinai? And once we have that understanding, only then can we think of how to apply the Teachings of Torah to the modern day?
And what was revealed at Sinai anyway? Was all Torah revealed at Sinai as Rabbinic Judaism claims in its "vital lie" or was it something mystical? Interestingly, while we tend to think of mystics as neo-Platonist and the Tannaim as practically pragmatists, the idea that the Rabbis merely discover, in their casuistry, that which is objectively "out there" is rather Platonic, isn't it? And the mystical idea of the revelation of nothingness and silence actually is pragmatic as it allows revelation to be that which we experience?
And can both views be true? After all, we are taught "shamor v'zochor v'dibur echad", eh?
*
Meanwhile, go to Nate's blog ... he has video up from my wedding. ;)
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Stuck in the Airport Blogging
When I have enough time and mental energy, I think I'll blog about some of my and my family's airport travails in traveling to/from my wedding. Perhaps something along the lines of the passengers' bill of rights they have in NYC is in order nationally? Anybody with ideas -- please contact your Senators and Congresscritters! I know I'll be contacting mine ...
Anyway, the Hazan at my wife's (wow ... that's gonna be a change ... to refer to her as "my wife" rather than "my fiancee" ... and to get used to wearing a ring!) shul was widely complimented by all my friends. Appropriately for his Yekke ancestry, the service was compared to Wagnerian music drama.
Could I be on to something? Richard "Some of my best friends are Jewish" Wagner, that rather anti-Semite of a composer who didn't like the aesthetics of the Jewish religious service, was perhaps also one of the most Jewish composer and the composer whose works best captured the sacred music of Judaism?
*
Update: in answer to a question I raised in the comments, I see from the link to my site from Nate's site that the Giants won, if I remember what the link text said correctly ... anyway, if you need the answer, see Nate's site!
Anyway, the Hazan at my wife's (wow ... that's gonna be a change ... to refer to her as "my wife" rather than "my fiancee" ... and to get used to wearing a ring!) shul was widely complimented by all my friends. Appropriately for his Yekke ancestry, the service was compared to Wagnerian music drama.
Could I be on to something? Richard "Some of my best friends are Jewish" Wagner, that rather anti-Semite of a composer who didn't like the aesthetics of the Jewish religious service, was perhaps also one of the most Jewish composer and the composer whose works best captured the sacred music of Judaism?
*
Update: in answer to a question I raised in the comments, I see from the link to my site from Nate's site that the Giants won, if I remember what the link text said correctly ... anyway, if you need the answer, see Nate's site!
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Follow Up Parsha Blogging
Prof. Eric A. was on the case last week and someone responded.
Meanwhile, this morning on my drive in, NPR was discussing the primary race in FL, so I was trying to imagine alter-kockers discussing the primaries ...
Meanwhile, this morning on my drive in, NPR was discussing the primary race in FL, so I was trying to imagine alter-kockers discussing the primaries ...
Monday, January 14, 2008
I Can Haz Make Kewl Pictures in MATLAB
Someone needs to write LOLCat translations for scientific papers. They might make a lot more sense that way ... jus' sayin' ...
Sunday, January 13, 2008
So Many Things to Say ...
... So little brainpower to figure out how to say them.
As I go nuts trying to figure out how my fiancee and I are going to survive our wedding, I'll probably not have much mental energy to blog. And I keep thinking of things about which to blog, which then immediately slipped my mind due to that aforementioned lack of mental energy ...
One thing that does stick is the under-reported story about the challenge to Indiana's voter ID requirements. Interestingly, NPR actually has been reporting on the SCOTUS arguments, and I've only heard bits and pieces. What I've heard is the Democrats' doing a good job of pursuing their case on its merits.
But am I missing something? Is the coverage missing something? Why are the Dems. assuming the case has merits to begin with? Perhaps I didn't hear this or they aren't covering this, but shouldn't the Dem. lawyers, after giving their excellent arguments on the case's merits have followed up with "enough mit'n der Papa Loshen: now let's speak die Mama Loshen" and pointed out what the real issue is. Would actually saying
(and then continuing with a history of voter intimidation, etc.) be too ad hominem and thus not good legal form? Or is this another case of Dems. acting as if the other side acts in good faith even when it's painfully obvious that they don't? Or have the Dems. argued this and NPR, being "high minded" has chosen not to emphasize this in its coverage so that casual listeners might miss it?
As I go nuts trying to figure out how my fiancee and I are going to survive our wedding, I'll probably not have much mental energy to blog. And I keep thinking of things about which to blog, which then immediately slipped my mind due to that aforementioned lack of mental energy ...
One thing that does stick is the under-reported story about the challenge to Indiana's voter ID requirements. Interestingly, NPR actually has been reporting on the SCOTUS arguments, and I've only heard bits and pieces. What I've heard is the Democrats' doing a good job of pursuing their case on its merits.
But am I missing something? Is the coverage missing something? Why are the Dems. assuming the case has merits to begin with? Perhaps I didn't hear this or they aren't covering this, but shouldn't the Dem. lawyers, after giving their excellent arguments on the case's merits have followed up with "enough mit'n der Papa Loshen: now let's speak die Mama Loshen" and pointed out what the real issue is. Would actually saying
Look, the other side argues that the number of people who can't get IDs is de minimus. While I'd like to think that we Democrats stand up for everyone, especially the little guy, and want everyone to have the right to vote, without undue interference, we Democrats do have, as we must, priorities. Do you think we'd make a federal case out of this (so to speak) if it were just about the few voters who can't get IDs?
I'm sorry to say, that we Dems don't have the resources to do that. The larger issue is why are a bunch of so-called conservatives, who by definition of the word "conservative" are the last people who should want government action to fix a problem that ain't broke, have pushed through legislation to prevent voter fraud, which is just as de minimus as the issue of voters not being able to get IDs, if not more so?
We've just argued as to why the laws are unconsitutional, assuming these laws were conceived of, written in and will be enforced in good faith. But we can't make that assumption. It's probably not good of me to be making this point here, given how this body voted in Bush v. Gore, but ample evidence now exists, for example, that FL's laws preventing felons from voting were used to intimidate non-felons from voting as well.
How do we know that Indiana's law will not be "enforced" by denying even voters with proper ID the right to vote because some poll workers happen to decide the ID is "not good enough" and tell the voters that if they vote without good enough ID, they will be prosecuted for voter fraud? By the time the issue is uncovered, by the logic of Bush v. Gore, it will be too late to correct the results of the election, even if the election likely went the way it did because voters were threatened at the polls.
(and then continuing with a history of voter intimidation, etc.) be too ad hominem and thus not good legal form? Or is this another case of Dems. acting as if the other side acts in good faith even when it's painfully obvious that they don't? Or have the Dems. argued this and NPR, being "high minded" has chosen not to emphasize this in its coverage so that casual listeners might miss it?
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Weekly Parsha Blogging: (all but the last few of the) 10 Plagues Edition
The standard question for this past (and part of this coming) week's parsha is "what kind of God would harden Pharoah's heart, just to be able to make a bigger show of things?". In answer to that question, let's remember the advice of R. Ishmael who would point out the Torah is written in human language. If, after Pharoah hardened his own heart 5 times, the Torah attributes the hardening of his heart to, as it were, "an act of God", what would we mere humans mean by such a phrase?
Pharoah's hardening his heart should not challenge us to ask "why should God be so unjust". When we humans refer to an act of God, we are not challenging divine justice but simply attributing to God that which we cannot understand precisely because it doesn't seem just, either to our understanding of justice or even to our understanding of what Divine justice would seem to be. Just like a horrendous natural disaster, Pharoah's heart-hardening, after so many entreaties and when it would just have been so much easier for him to let the Israelites go, is incomprehensible. So the Torah, as we ourselves would, labels it an "act of God".
OTOH, "acts of God" are natural occurances. And, Pharoah's behavior, alas, is all too natural of a response. When we harden our hearts and when challenges befall us, our natural response is to let our hearts grow even harder (c.f. the Israel/Palestine conflict). So, in all senses, perhaps we should read not that God hardened Pharoah's heart but that the hardening of Pharoah's heart was an 'act of God.' Nu? Doesn't that make sense now? Isn't it no longer troubling?
Actually, what is troubling is the somewhat passive-agressive and potentially deceitful way in which Moses asks for liberty on behalf of his fellow Hebrews. Contra the old spiritual, Moses doesn't ask Pharoah to "let my people go". He asks Pharoah to "let my people go make a sacrifice, which would be unseemly in your culture". What are we to make of this strategy? What are we to learn from it as an example, either good or bad?
Pharoah's hardening his heart should not challenge us to ask "why should God be so unjust". When we humans refer to an act of God, we are not challenging divine justice but simply attributing to God that which we cannot understand precisely because it doesn't seem just, either to our understanding of justice or even to our understanding of what Divine justice would seem to be. Just like a horrendous natural disaster, Pharoah's heart-hardening, after so many entreaties and when it would just have been so much easier for him to let the Israelites go, is incomprehensible. So the Torah, as we ourselves would, labels it an "act of God".
OTOH, "acts of God" are natural occurances. And, Pharoah's behavior, alas, is all too natural of a response. When we harden our hearts and when challenges befall us, our natural response is to let our hearts grow even harder (c.f. the Israel/Palestine conflict). So, in all senses, perhaps we should read not that God hardened Pharoah's heart but that the hardening of Pharoah's heart was an 'act of God.' Nu? Doesn't that make sense now? Isn't it no longer troubling?
Actually, what is troubling is the somewhat passive-agressive and potentially deceitful way in which Moses asks for liberty on behalf of his fellow Hebrews. Contra the old spiritual, Moses doesn't ask Pharoah to "let my people go". He asks Pharoah to "let my people go make a sacrifice, which would be unseemly in your culture". What are we to make of this strategy? What are we to learn from it as an example, either good or bad?
When the Rebetzen Compliments You ...
... on your marinated, sliced onions, maybe the recipe is good enough to share?
Anyway, it was Shabbos, so I wasn't writing anything down (so there are no measurements or anything), but here's a little savory to have with Shalos Shiddus:
Onions, sliced thin
Celery sticks
Balsamic vinegar
Rice wine vinegar (un-seaoned)
Olive oil
Cinnamon (ground)
Nutmeg (ground)
Coriander seed (ground)
Paprika
Salt
Place the onions in a cute, little serving bowl. Top with vinegars, oil and salt. Toss a bit. Add cinnamon, nutmeg, coriander seed and paprika (I think that's all the spices I used). Toss again. Line celery sticks all along edge of bowl. Cover with plastic wrap and let sit through Mincha davening ... when everyone's ready to eat, the mixture will have marinated.
Anyway, it was Shabbos, so I wasn't writing anything down (so there are no measurements or anything), but here's a little savory to have with Shalos Shiddus:
Onions, sliced thin
Celery sticks
Balsamic vinegar
Rice wine vinegar (un-seaoned)
Olive oil
Cinnamon (ground)
Nutmeg (ground)
Coriander seed (ground)
Paprika
Salt
Place the onions in a cute, little serving bowl. Top with vinegars, oil and salt. Toss a bit. Add cinnamon, nutmeg, coriander seed and paprika (I think that's all the spices I used). Toss again. Line celery sticks all along edge of bowl. Cover with plastic wrap and let sit through Mincha davening ... when everyone's ready to eat, the mixture will have marinated.
Friday, January 04, 2008
In Which DAS Degenerates into Commentary on the Horserace
It's like a train-wreck: you know you should actually call the authorities and either do something or get out of the way, but you cannot help but join in the Villagers just staring and watching and saying stooopid things. So, even though I hate everything this sort of focus on the horserace mentality stands for and produces (especially a focus on early states that means that by the time Cali votes, nobody has a real choice), I'll join in with my $0.02 (actually $0.04: inflation?) on the IA caucus:
$0.01: The media seems to have a crush on Obama. They treat him like the McCain of the Dems: because he really knows how to play to the media. Unfortunately, to many people he comes off as smug and/or vacuous. Friends of mine are predicting Edwards will win the Dem. nomination. I think Obama. He can win the Presidency so long as (1) the media doesn't turn on him and (2) he does something about people's perception of him as smug and/or vacuous (although I think that, even though the people who think this way would sincerely deny it, there is some subconscious racism in how Obama is perceived as "smooth")
$0.02: Democrats should be comforted by the victory of Huckabee rather than fear the strength of the religious right. Why? Because the support by evangelicals for him proves their bona fides. As the media are spinning it, the GOP caucuses (caucci?) were reduced to the GOP base. Now, the GOP base has at least five components: each of whom has a candidate: the "libertarian" wing (Paul), the richer wing (Romney), the "keep us safe" wing (Giuliani), the "we need a fearless leader" wing (Thompson) and the fundie wing (Huckabee). It was a fear of many Dems., including myself, that the average fundie's religion was really more about mean-spiritedness than actual religiosity, but Huckabee's win proves that fundies at least can be swayed by a populist, if not progressive message -- that the fundies are bona fide religious. Of course, it could just be that even amongst feller basers, the fundies don't want to admit their mean-spiritedness (IA is a caucus where people have to take public stands after all, and if Giuliani were to win in SC primary, that would be a bad sign, IMHO) ... but still, I can't help but be glad that the GOP base prefers friendly Huckabee to the rest of them ... I know -- GW Bush was just a friendly Southron Gov. who ran for Pres. But who, except in the media, actually fell for that schtick and thought that GW Bush was friendly and "aw-shucks-esque"?
$0.03: if the richer part of the base doesn't manage to paper over their differences with the Huckster (which they may very well do), this means the GOP base is fractured. Nu? The Dems. can pick off pieces of it -- not by changing our platform one bit (which changes would rightly be seen as pandering and rejected), but by proper emphases. Even if Paul is a thouroughgoing wingnut -- people aren't supporting him 'cause he's pro-life. If we turn up the liberty-aspects (e.g. anti-torture) aspects of our rhetoric, we'll get some Paul supporters (as well as general "we don't trust gummint" types even among the fundies, if the Dems. simply do things like promise to deal with "airport security theatre"). If we turn up the populist-aspects of our rhetoric (but in a less simple-minded way than Edwards has been doing lately ... you'd think such a successful litagator would be better at convincing people of things ... but Edwards convinced nobody that he's anything beyond a snake oil salesman or the sort of 19th century populist liberals to which Viereck compared Tailgunner Joe), we might get the Huckabee voters, etc. Simply put, the Dems. have an opportunity to pick off parts of the GOP base (like the GOP picked off part of our base in the 1960s-1980s, so it's payback time!) -- but, contra the instincts of the 1D seeing consultant class who says we should along the 1D political spectrum toward the right to meet GOoPers half-way, the way you get people to vote for you is you give them a reason to vote for you ... which can't be done by being mealy-mouthed. Now, not all moderates are mealy-mouthed (Bill Clinton wasn't) ... but it's easy to fall into that trap when you're a triangulatin'!
$0.04: I bet the Villagers would hate Huckabee (and they've shown some signs of doing so -- including minimizing his victory by saying the GOP turnout was low rather than relatively high for the IA caucuses ... enough that the Huckster could gain some support based on "those evil liberals in the media hate him", but not so much, at least at this point, that the media will inject enough anti-Huckster talking points into the air to kill him) as the neo-aristocracy (given that Huckabee won IA, has the neo-aristocracy tried to make an accomadation with him and like him along the lines that we've always been at war with Oceania?) but for the fact that he's really clever, a la John McCain, at letting them in on his "secrets" and plays both the political game and meta-political game so well. Obama really does the same thing. In fact, Obama and Huckabee both are, rhetorically and meta-politically, both using the same media-friendly, independent-friendly strategy that McCain used in 2000. And I suspect the whispering campaigns that killed McCain's candidacy, cannot be applied to a true-blue fundie like McCain, nor would they apply to Obama. So, pace my friends, I'm almost wondering if it'll be a Huckabee vs. Obama race in 2008. That'd be interesting, since both are, in their own way, running as the heir to AK Gov. Clinton ("new and improved and without the, um, appetites" say the newly nicotine free Obama and the newly thin Huckabee) and McCain in 2000.
I actually had a 5'th cent, but I guess I lost it in the market or something.
Update: I remembered my $0.05: there is a reason why HRC is viewed as "strident", etc., even though she's so centrist, etc. It isn't just a vast right wing conspiracy to keep the scalawags down and drive out the carpetbaggers and redeem the South (although that aspect of Clinton hatred needs to be better explored -- the Clinton impeachment was part of the Southern response to Reconstruction ... I better watch it before I go off into a "why were people still fighting Union liberators in Reconstruction so blind-sided by Iraq's occupation by 'liberators'?"), HRC always seems to "sound" strident.
And, as I've pointed out before, she's not the only one. Many Democrats (and I hate to be sexist, but it's mainly women) really need to learn how to speak in a pleasant and well-modulated manner. AFAIK, the only person famous for speaking, who spoke like HRC, Pelosi, etc., was Aimee Semple McPherson who made up for her strident, grinding twang with thearticality and even a bit of variety in tonal modulation. So when will Democrats stop complain about (admittedly real) double standards and actually do something to at least try to sound less strident? It'd really go a long way (and this is why I say there is a double standard with Obama, who generally has actually benefitted from his race as it makes him stand out: Obama is the anti-HRC in his voice modulation, etc., so people say "I don't trust him, 'cause he's so smooth" ... but if he wasn't so smooth, they'd be treating him like he's the second coming of Eldridge Cleaver) to changing perceptions not only of HRC, Pelosi, et al, but also, considering their central position in how people imagine us Democrats, the party as a whole.
If I wasn't so broke trying to pay for a wedding, I'd chip into some speech lessons for our Dems who need them.
Update #2 (up to $0.06 now ... I shouldn't be spending so much when I'm so broke!): another good thing about the Huckabee win is that it will help decrease the influence of money on politics. The reason why money has a corrosive influence on politics is because politicians need (or feel they need) a lot of money to get elected. I reckon most politicians don't actually like begging for money and would assume not do it if they didn't (feel they) have to do so. The reason why money can have such a corrupting influence is that politicians feel they have to get it, even if it corrupts them.
Of course, the way you change something (evolutionarily -- I know Huckabee doesn't believe in it, but it does work) is to reward desired behavior and dock bad behavior (which is why our punditocracy is broken ... pundits, et al., are not rewarded for being right ... if there's no incentive to be right, why would people be right? ironically, the same people benefiting from and even behind the dismantling of such a meritocracy are those who are pushing testing, etc., on schools, c.f. Michael Moore in Stupid White Men). The IA caucus has rewarded the desired behavior (and docked the bad behavior) of spending a lot of money on an election. If more elections go like this, politicians will say "look, why should I break my back raising money, when that's not the way to win?", and if there is less of a demand for campaign contributions, contributers and their special interests with deep pockets will have less of a corrosive influence on our system.
You can't just legislate things like this away -- aside from the free speech issue, campaign financing is like drugs: no matter what you do to curtail their usage, if people demand them, there will be a supply to meet that demand. But if elections no longer become spending contests, the demand for money to fund campaigns will vastly decrease, which'll benefit our democratic system immensely.
$0.01: The media seems to have a crush on Obama. They treat him like the McCain of the Dems: because he really knows how to play to the media. Unfortunately, to many people he comes off as smug and/or vacuous. Friends of mine are predicting Edwards will win the Dem. nomination. I think Obama. He can win the Presidency so long as (1) the media doesn't turn on him and (2) he does something about people's perception of him as smug and/or vacuous (although I think that, even though the people who think this way would sincerely deny it, there is some subconscious racism in how Obama is perceived as "smooth")
$0.02: Democrats should be comforted by the victory of Huckabee rather than fear the strength of the religious right. Why? Because the support by evangelicals for him proves their bona fides. As the media are spinning it, the GOP caucuses (caucci?) were reduced to the GOP base. Now, the GOP base has at least five components: each of whom has a candidate: the "libertarian" wing (Paul), the richer wing (Romney), the "keep us safe" wing (Giuliani), the "we need a fearless leader" wing (Thompson) and the fundie wing (Huckabee). It was a fear of many Dems., including myself, that the average fundie's religion was really more about mean-spiritedness than actual religiosity, but Huckabee's win proves that fundies at least can be swayed by a populist, if not progressive message -- that the fundies are bona fide religious. Of course, it could just be that even amongst feller basers, the fundies don't want to admit their mean-spiritedness (IA is a caucus where people have to take public stands after all, and if Giuliani were to win in SC primary, that would be a bad sign, IMHO) ... but still, I can't help but be glad that the GOP base prefers friendly Huckabee to the rest of them ... I know -- GW Bush was just a friendly Southron Gov. who ran for Pres. But who, except in the media, actually fell for that schtick and thought that GW Bush was friendly and "aw-shucks-esque"?
$0.03: if the richer part of the base doesn't manage to paper over their differences with the Huckster (which they may very well do), this means the GOP base is fractured. Nu? The Dems. can pick off pieces of it -- not by changing our platform one bit (which changes would rightly be seen as pandering and rejected), but by proper emphases. Even if Paul is a thouroughgoing wingnut -- people aren't supporting him 'cause he's pro-life. If we turn up the liberty-aspects (e.g. anti-torture) aspects of our rhetoric, we'll get some Paul supporters (as well as general "we don't trust gummint" types even among the fundies, if the Dems. simply do things like promise to deal with "airport security theatre"). If we turn up the populist-aspects of our rhetoric (but in a less simple-minded way than Edwards has been doing lately ... you'd think such a successful litagator would be better at convincing people of things ... but Edwards convinced nobody that he's anything beyond a snake oil salesman or the sort of 19th century populist liberals to which Viereck compared Tailgunner Joe), we might get the Huckabee voters, etc. Simply put, the Dems. have an opportunity to pick off parts of the GOP base (like the GOP picked off part of our base in the 1960s-1980s, so it's payback time!) -- but, contra the instincts of the 1D seeing consultant class who says we should along the 1D political spectrum toward the right to meet GOoPers half-way, the way you get people to vote for you is you give them a reason to vote for you ... which can't be done by being mealy-mouthed. Now, not all moderates are mealy-mouthed (Bill Clinton wasn't) ... but it's easy to fall into that trap when you're a triangulatin'!
$0.04: I bet the Villagers would hate Huckabee (and they've shown some signs of doing so -- including minimizing his victory by saying the GOP turnout was low rather than relatively high for the IA caucuses ... enough that the Huckster could gain some support based on "those evil liberals in the media hate him", but not so much, at least at this point, that the media will inject enough anti-Huckster talking points into the air to kill him) as the neo-aristocracy (given that Huckabee won IA, has the neo-aristocracy tried to make an accomadation with him and like him along the lines that we've always been at war with Oceania?) but for the fact that he's really clever, a la John McCain, at letting them in on his "secrets" and plays both the political game and meta-political game so well. Obama really does the same thing. In fact, Obama and Huckabee both are, rhetorically and meta-politically, both using the same media-friendly, independent-friendly strategy that McCain used in 2000. And I suspect the whispering campaigns that killed McCain's candidacy, cannot be applied to a true-blue fundie like McCain, nor would they apply to Obama. So, pace my friends, I'm almost wondering if it'll be a Huckabee vs. Obama race in 2008. That'd be interesting, since both are, in their own way, running as the heir to AK Gov. Clinton ("new and improved and without the, um, appetites" say the newly nicotine free Obama and the newly thin Huckabee) and McCain in 2000.
I actually had a 5'th cent, but I guess I lost it in the market or something.
Update: I remembered my $0.05: there is a reason why HRC is viewed as "strident", etc., even though she's so centrist, etc. It isn't just a vast right wing conspiracy to keep the scalawags down and drive out the carpetbaggers and redeem the South (although that aspect of Clinton hatred needs to be better explored -- the Clinton impeachment was part of the Southern response to Reconstruction ... I better watch it before I go off into a "why were people still fighting Union liberators in Reconstruction so blind-sided by Iraq's occupation by 'liberators'?"), HRC always seems to "sound" strident.
And, as I've pointed out before, she's not the only one. Many Democrats (and I hate to be sexist, but it's mainly women) really need to learn how to speak in a pleasant and well-modulated manner. AFAIK, the only person famous for speaking, who spoke like HRC, Pelosi, etc., was Aimee Semple McPherson who made up for her strident, grinding twang with thearticality and even a bit of variety in tonal modulation. So when will Democrats stop complain about (admittedly real) double standards and actually do something to at least try to sound less strident? It'd really go a long way (and this is why I say there is a double standard with Obama, who generally has actually benefitted from his race as it makes him stand out: Obama is the anti-HRC in his voice modulation, etc., so people say "I don't trust him, 'cause he's so smooth" ... but if he wasn't so smooth, they'd be treating him like he's the second coming of Eldridge Cleaver) to changing perceptions not only of HRC, Pelosi, et al, but also, considering their central position in how people imagine us Democrats, the party as a whole.
If I wasn't so broke trying to pay for a wedding, I'd chip into some speech lessons for our Dems who need them.
Update #2 (up to $0.06 now ... I shouldn't be spending so much when I'm so broke!): another good thing about the Huckabee win is that it will help decrease the influence of money on politics. The reason why money has a corrosive influence on politics is because politicians need (or feel they need) a lot of money to get elected. I reckon most politicians don't actually like begging for money and would assume not do it if they didn't (feel they) have to do so. The reason why money can have such a corrupting influence is that politicians feel they have to get it, even if it corrupts them.
Of course, the way you change something (evolutionarily -- I know Huckabee doesn't believe in it, but it does work) is to reward desired behavior and dock bad behavior (which is why our punditocracy is broken ... pundits, et al., are not rewarded for being right ... if there's no incentive to be right, why would people be right? ironically, the same people benefiting from and even behind the dismantling of such a meritocracy are those who are pushing testing, etc., on schools, c.f. Michael Moore in Stupid White Men). The IA caucus has rewarded the desired behavior (and docked the bad behavior) of spending a lot of money on an election. If more elections go like this, politicians will say "look, why should I break my back raising money, when that's not the way to win?", and if there is less of a demand for campaign contributions, contributers and their special interests with deep pockets will have less of a corrosive influence on our system.
You can't just legislate things like this away -- aside from the free speech issue, campaign financing is like drugs: no matter what you do to curtail their usage, if people demand them, there will be a supply to meet that demand. But if elections no longer become spending contests, the demand for money to fund campaigns will vastly decrease, which'll benefit our democratic system immensely.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Mind the Gap
The last time we had this much of a gap between the leaders of our Kehillos and Jewishdom at large, the response of Jewishdom was Hassidism. I wonder what will come of today's disconnect between a leadership largely enthrall of a political agenda that thinks it's so clever to use fundies as tools to gain "support" for Israel when in reality it is this leadership that has become tools (of the fundies) instead of serving the Kehillos that they claim and are supposed to serve?
P.S. -- I didn't know Prof. A-man was Reform. I thought he was a fellow Conservative Jew. Nu? He seems to follow the latest events in our movement better than his own ...
P.S. -- I didn't know Prof. A-man was Reform. I thought he was a fellow Conservative Jew. Nu? He seems to follow the latest events in our movement better than his own ...
